'Wage war': Trump order Pentagon to draft military response to Latin America drug cartels; Mexico President insists on 'no invasion'
US President Donald Trump secretly signed an executive order, directing the Pentagon to prepare for possible military action against Latin American drug cartels, following Washington's earlier move to classify several narcotics trafficking groups as "terrorist" organizations earlier this year.
The New York Times, citing state media, reported that Trump directed the Pentagon to begin using military force against the designated cartels, while the Wall Street Journal said the Defense Department was told to prepare options for such action.
Possible measures under discussion include deploying special forces and providing intelligence support, with coordination from foreign partners.
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum on Friday responded to the reports by insisting there would be 'no invasion of Mexico.'
"We were informed that this executive order was coming and that it had nothing to do with the participation of any military personnel or any institution in our territory," Sheinbaum told her regular morning conference, as quoted by AFP.
In March, Trump vowed to 'wage war' on Mexico's drug cartels, accusing them of rape, murder, and 'posing a grave threat' to national security. The previous month, the US had designated Venezuela's Tren de Aragua, Mexico's Sinaloa Cartel, and six other Latin American drug trafficking groups as 'global terrorist' organizations.
by Taboola
by Taboola
Sponsored Links
Sponsored Links
Promoted Links
Promoted Links
You May Like
Become Fluent in Any Language
Talkpal AI
Undo
The Trump administration has since added Venezuela's Cartel of the Suns, which has been accused of shipping hundreds of tons of narcotics into the United States over two decades.
On January 20, his first day back in the White House, Trump signed an executive order creating a process for such designations, saying the cartels 'constitute a national-security threat beyond that posed by traditional organised crime."
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Hindustan Times
23 minutes ago
- Hindustan Times
Jennifer Welch has had it with Trump supporters who eat at Indian restaurants: ‘Take your a** to Cracker Barrel'
Jennifer Welch has slammed Trump supporters who continue to frequent businesses owned by those targeted by his anti-immigration and anti-diversity policies. In the latest episode of her I've Had It podcast, Welch ranted against Donald Trump voters who eat at Mexican, Chinese or Indian restaurants while simultaneously advocating for the deportation of immigrants. Podcast host Jennifer Welch takes aim at Trump supporters in foul-mouthed rant. She addressed supporters of the US president who embrace his anti-immigration, anti-diversity and anti-LGBTQ+ stances while, accusing them of being hypocritical when they patronise businesses run by the very communities his policies target. 'I've had it with White people' 'I've had it with White people that triple Trumped, that have the nerve and the audacity to walk into a Mexican restaurant, a Chinese restaurant, an Indian restaurant, go to a gay hairdresser,' said Welch. 'I don't think you should be able to enjoy anything but Cracker Barrel. 'If you want to triple Trump. If you want to brow beat DEI, if you want to brow beat gay people, you want to brow beat Black people as you have been doing for hundreds of years… White people that triple Trumped should be banned from enjoying the best thing that America has to offer, which is multiculturalism,' Welch said in her vehement and expletive-laden rant on the podcast. 'Get your fat a*ses out of the Mexican restaurant. Get your fat a*ses over at a Cracker Barrel,' she said. You can watch the segment here. (Disclaimer: Video contains language that may not be suitable for children. Viewer discretion advised). The podcast has proved deeply divisive on social media, where Welch faced hate from MAGA supporters but found common ground with Trump detractors.
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
23 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Russia, Ukraine firm on demands ahead of planned Putin-Trump summit
The threats, pressure and ultimatums have come and gone, but Russian President Vladimir Putin has maintained Moscow's uncompromising demands in the war in Ukraine, raising fears he could use a planned summit with US President Donald Trump in Alaska to coerce Kyiv into accepting an unfavourable deal. The maximalist demands reflect Putin's determination to reach the goals he set when he launched the full-scale invasion of Ukraine on February 24, 2022. Putin sees a possible meeting with Trump as a chance to negotiate a broad deal that would not only cement Russia's territorial gains but also keep Ukraine from joining Nato and hosting any Western troops, allowing Moscow to gradually pull the country back into its orbit. The Kremlin leader believes time is on his side as the exhausted and outgunned Ukrainian forces are struggling to stem Russian advances in many sectors of the over 1,000-kilometre front line while swarms of Russian missiles and drones batter Ukrainian cities. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy also has stood firm in his positions, agreeing to a ceasefire proposed by Trump while reaffirming the country's refusal to abandon seeking Nato membership and rejecting acknowledgment of Russia's annexation of any of its regions. A look at Russian and Ukrainian visions of a peace deal and how a Putin-Trump summit could evolve: Russia's position In a memorandum presented at talks in Istanbul in June, Russia offered Ukraine two options for establishing a 30-day ceasefire. One demanded Ukraine withdraw its forces from Donetsk, Luhansk, Zaporizhzhia and Kherson the four regions Moscow illegally annexed in September 2022 but never fully captured. As an alternate condition for a ceasefire, Russia made a package proposal for Ukraine to halt mobilization efforts, freeze Western arms deliveries and ban any third-country forces on its soil. Moscow also suggested Ukraine end martial law and hold elections, after which the countries could sign a comprehensive peace treaty. Once there's a truce, Moscow wants a deal to include the international legal recognition of its annexations of Ukraine's Crimean Peninsula in 2014 and the four regions in 2022. Russia says a peace treaty should have Ukraine declare its neutral status between Russia and the West, abandon its bid to join Nato, limit the size of its armed forces and recognise Russian as an official language on par with Ukrainian - conditions reflecting Putin's earliest goals. It also demands Ukraine ban the glorification and propaganda of Nazism and neo-Nazism and dissolve nationalist groups. Since the war began, Putin has falsely alleged that neo-Nazi groups were shaping Ukrainian politics under Zelenskyy, who is Jewish. They were fiercely dismissed by Kyiv and its Western allies. In Russia's view, a comprehensive peace treaty should see both countries lift all sanctions and restrictions, abandon any claims to compensation for wartime damage, resume trade and communications, and reestablish diplomatic ties. Asked Thursday whether Moscow has signalled any willingness to compromise to make a meeting with Trump possible, Putin's foreign affairs adviser Yuri Ushakov responded that there haven't been any shifts in the Russian position. Ukraine's position The memorandum that Ukraine presented to Moscow in Istanbul emphasised the need for a full and unconditional 30-day ceasefire to set stage for peace negotiations. It reaffirmed Ukraine's consistent rejection of Russian demands for neutral status as an attack on its sovereignty, declaring it is free to choose its alliances and adding that its Nato membership will depend on consensus with the alliance. It emphasised Kyiv's rejection of any restrictions on the size and other parameters of its armed forces, as well as curbs on the presence of foreign troops on its soil. Ukraine's memorandum also opposed recognising any Russian territorial gains, while describing the current line of contact as a starting point in negotiations. The document noted the need for international security guarantees to ensure the implementation of peace agreements and prevent further aggression. Kyiv's peace proposal also demanded the return of all deported and illegally displaced children and a total prisoner exchange. It held the door open to gradual lifting of some of the sanctions against Russia if it abides by the agreement. Trump's positions Trump has often spoken admiringly of Putin and even echoed his talking points on the war. He had a harsh confrontation with Zelenskyy in the Oval Office on February 28, but later warmed his tone. As Putin resisted a ceasefire and continued his aerial bombardments, Trump showed exasperation with the Kremlin leader, threatening Moscow with new sanctions. Although Trump expressed disappointment with Putin, his agreement to meet him without Zelenskyy at the table raised worries in Ukraine and its European allies, who fear it could allow the Russian to get Trump on his side and strong-arm Ukraine into concessions. Trump said without giving details that there'll be some swapping of territories, to the betterment of both Russia and Ukraine as part of any peace deal that he will discuss with Putin when they meet Friday. Putin repeatedly warned Ukraine will face tougher conditions for peace if it doesn't accept Moscow's demands as Russian troops forge into other regions to build what he described as a buffer zone. Some observers suggested Russia could trade those recent gains for the territories of the four annexed by Moscow still under Ukrainian control. That is potentially a situation that gives Putin a tremendous amount of leeway as long as he can use that leverage to force the Ukrainians into a deal that they may not like and to sideline the Europeans effectively, Sam Greene of King's College London said. The question is, will Trump sign up to that and will he actually have the leverage to force the Ukrainians and the Europeans to accept it? Putin could accept a temporary truce to win Trump's sympathy as he seeks to achieve broader goals, Greene said. He could accept a ceasefire so long as it's one that leaves him in control, in which there's no real deterrence against renewed aggression somewhere down the line, he said. He understands that his only route to getting there runs via Trump." In a possible indication he thinks a ceasefire or peace deal could be close, Putin called the leaders of China, India, South Africa and several ex-Soviet nations in an apparent effort to inform these allies about prospective agreements. (Only the headline and picture of this report may have been reworked by the Business Standard staff; the rest of the content is auto-generated from a syndicated feed.)
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
23 minutes ago
- First Post
IMF reveals strength of India's economy amid Trump's tariffs
Is India's relative economic vulnerability the reason why Trump is targeting India and not China? Trump may be making a serious mistake read more At a recent press conference in the White House, US President Donald Trump was asked why he was singling out India by imposing a 25 per cent 'punishment tariff' when China buys more Russian oil than India. Cornered, Trump mumbled incoherently before moving quickly to the next question. Is India's relative economic vulnerability the reason why Trump is targeting India and not China? Trump may be making a serious mistake. According to the International Monetary Fund (IMF), India is the world's fifth largest economy and will soon be the fourth largest with a GDP of $4.19 trillion. But that's only part of the story. By purchasing power parity (PPP), IMF data places India as the world's third largest economy with a GDP of $14.59 trillion. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD How can these two sets of figures be reconciled? PPP is increasingly being regarded as a more accurate measure of both GDP and per capita income. The Economist's 'Big Mac index' regularly adjusts per capita income of different countries to take into account living costs. The same theory guides purchasing power parity-based computations. The IMF explained the logic behind PPP in ranking countries across geographies: 'How fast is the global economy growing? Is China contributing more to global growth than the United States? To answer the questions, one must compare the value of the output from different countries. But each country reports its data in its own currency. 'One of the two main methods of conversion uses market exchange rates—the rate prevailing in the foreign exchange market (using either the rate at the end of the period or an average over the period). The other approach uses the purchasing power parity (PPP) exchange rate—the rate at which the currency of one country would have to be converted into that of another country to buy the same amount of goods and services in each country.' Which method is better? Market rates or PPP? According to the IMF, 'International organisations use different approaches. The World Bank uses market-based rates to determine the weights in its regional and global aggregations of real GDP, whereas the IMF and the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development (OECD) use weights based on PPP rates. Each methodology has its advantages and disadvantages. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD 'PPP exchange rates are relatively stable over time. By contrast, market rates are more volatile, and using them could produce quite large swings in aggregate measures of growth even when growth rates in individual countries are stable. Another drawback of market-based rates is that they are relevant only for internationally traded goods. Nontraded goods and services tend to be cheaper in low-income than in high-income countries. A haircut in New York is more expensive than in Lima; the price of a taxi ride of the same distance is higher in Paris than in Tunis; and a ticket to a cricket game costs more in London than in Lahore. 'Indeed, because wages tend to be lower in poorer countries, and services are often relatively labour intensive, the price of a haircut in Lima is likely to be cheaper than in New York even when the cost of making tradable goods, such as machinery, is the same in both countries. Any analysis that fails to take into account these differences in the prices of nontraded goods across countries will underestimate the purchasing power of consumers in emerging market and developing countries and, consequently, their overall welfare. For this reason, PPP is generally regarded as a better measure of overall well-being.' STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD India's GDP (PPP) was $14.59 trillion in 2024-25 as per IMF. China leads the table with a GDP (PPP) of $35.29 trillion, followed in second place by the United States with a GDP (PPP) of $28.78 trillion. Japan ($6.72 trillion) and Germany ($5.69 trillion) make up the world's five largest economies by purchasing power parity. The GDP gap between the US and India at market rates is 7:1 ($29 trillion vs $4.19 trillion). But by PPP, the GDP gap falls to 2:1 ($28.78 trillion vs $14.59 trillion) At the relative growth rates of the two countries' economies, how soon will the GDP (PPP) gap between the US and India close? India's average annual economic growth is projected at between 6 and 8 per cent. A reasonable annual average growth rate over the next 15 years is 7 per cent. The annual average growth rate of the US economy is meanwhile projected at 2 per cent in line with its average growth rate over the past 15 years. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD Thus, India's GDP (PPP), growing at 7 per cent per year, would double every 10 years and quadruple in 20 years. Using the current IMF GDP base of $14.59 trillion, India's GDP (PPP) would be around $58 trillion in 2045. How about the US economy? Again, using the current IMF GDP base of $28.78 trillion, US GDP (PPP), growing at an average of 2 per cent per year, would be around $42 trillion in 2045 against India's $56 trillion in the same year. Clearly the point where Indian GDP (PPP) overtakes US GDP (PPP) will lie at some point between 2035 and 2045, possibly around 2040. Fifteen years from now is a blink in the eye in historical terms. What about per capita income? According to the IMF's World Economic Outlook published in October 2024, India's per capita income (PPP) is $11,940. This compares to India's per capita income at market rates of around $3,000. The per capita income of the US (PPP), again according to the IMF, is $89,105. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD At current growth rates and with the population of both India and the US projected to rise by around 8-10 per cent over the next 20 years, Indian per capita income (PPP) of $11,940, growing at 7 per cent a year, could quadruple to $48,000 in 2045. US per capita income (PPP) would over the same 20 years, growing at 2 per cent a year, rise to $1,30,000 in 2045. Thus, the US in 20 years will still be thrice as wealthy as India in 2045 (compared to eight times as wealthy by PPP in 2025) but India's economy (PPP) will be larger than America's. As India negotiates tariffs with the US, both President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Narendra Modi will be aware that the decisive shift in global economic power these numbers demonstrate is well under way. The writer is an editor, author and publisher. Views expressed in the above piece are personal and solely those of the author. They do not necessarily reflect Firstpost's views. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD
