In a covert move raising alarm across diplomatic and political lines, the Trump administration has directed U.S. military forces to draw up concrete plans for potential airstrikes and special operations targeting drug cartels within Mexican territory.
According to Daily Mail, the development has ignited fears of escalating tensions with Mexico, prompted legal questions, and sparked pushback from lawmakers over what could become an unprecedented U.S. military action within a neighboring sovereign state.
Over the late spring, President Donald Trump’s White House issued guidance to U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM) to begin designing potential lethal strike scenarios aimed at disrupting major Mexican drug cartels responsible for trafficking narcotics into the United States. This planning directive was communicated quietly to military leaders and has since evolved quickly behind closed doors.
According to reporting by investigative journalist Ken Klippenstein, three military sources revealed that NORTHCOM was formally assigned responsibility for developing the plans, which are expected to be finalized by mid-September.
In response to the directive, Acting Assistant Secretary of Defense for Special Operations and Low Intensity Conflict Colby Jenkins held a strategic meeting in July with military planners. Following this, General Gregory Guillot, the commander of NORTHCOM, traveled to Mexico to meet with senior Mexican defense officials, including Secretary of the Navy Admiral Raymundo Pedro Morales Ángeles and Secretary of National Defense General Ricardo Trevilla Trejo.
Despite high-level meetings between American and Mexican military leaders, intelligence assessments suggest the United States may proceed with military operations without direct approval or coordination from the Mexican government. This marks a potential shift in bilateral security cooperation into unilateral action. Mexican authorities have issued strong pushback against such a notion.
President Claudia Sheinbaum addressed the topic during a recent press conference, firmly denying any agreement had been made to authorize U.S. troops inside Mexico. “The United States is not sending its military to Mexico,” she said, clarifying that while Mexico supports cooperation, it will not tolerate what she described as an "invasion."
The Pentagon, when pressed for clarification, refused to confirm or deny the existence of any operational plans. A Defense Department spokesperson cited concerns over operational security as the reason for their silence, while Chief Pentagon Spokesman Sean Parnell noted that the Department of Defense remains committed to eliminating serious threats posed by drug cartels to U.S. citizens.
Among the primary targets of these plans are the Sinaloa Cartel and the Jalisco New Generation Cartel, two of the most powerful and violent transnational criminal organizations in Mexico. In response to Trump's directive, NORTHCOM reportedly instructed its special operations units to begin identifying potential “target packages.” These include individuals, facilities, or networks considered viable options for strikes or raids conducted via airpower, drones, or elite military teams.
This phase of planning, known in military terms as “operational preparation of the battlespace,” typically involves intelligence collection, mission rehearsals, and target preselection. One intelligence source speaking to Klippenstein said the Trump administration sees the cartels as companies of terror akin to extremist groups like ISIS, making them valid targets for direct U.S. military engagement regardless of geographic boundaries.
Earlier this year, in January, suspected cartel gunmen exchanged fire with U.S. Border Patrol agents near the Rio Grande. Surveillance footage captured armed actors carrying automatic rifles and engaging with U.S.-controlled drones, fueling calls from Trump and his allies for more direct military involvement.
During Trump’s term, the CIA increased its surveillance footprint over Mexican territory, deploying drones to monitor cartel activities and develop actionable intelligence. General Guillot, testifying before the Senate Armed Services Committee, acknowledged rising levels of U.S. military monitoring in Mexico, although he said it operates in a gray area without Mexico’s explicit authorization. However, he emphasized that intelligence-sharing mechanisms remain active.
General Guillot added, “We do have intelligence sharing with Mexico to show them what we see,” pointing to an ongoing, if ambiguous, security relationship. He also noted that more troops have been deployed to assist in efforts to counter cartel-related violence, though the transparency and scope of these efforts remain uncertain.
Amid intensifying diplomatic tensions, Mexican authorities have sought to demonstrate cooperation by extraditing 26 fugitives to the United States. These moves appear to reflect Mexico’s dual strategy—resisting a U.S. military footprint while still maintaining ties that allow for law enforcement collaboration.
Senator Tim Kaine (D-Va.) harshly criticized the Trump directive, warning that executing cross-border strikes without the consent of Congress or Mexico would unravel vital global alliances. He described the plan as “shortsighted and lawless,” expressing concern that it endangers both U.S. troops and America’s standing on the world stage.
“Signing a secret directive to potentially send U.S. servicemembers into harm’s way — without consulting Congress, notifying the American people, or any legal authority to launch strikes within the sovereign territory of our neighbors — will destroy the critical relationships we need to effectively address this challenge,” Kaine wrote.
Officials within the Trump administration, however, maintain that a more aggressive posture toward cartel groups is necessary, citing the catastrophic impact of fentanyl, cocaine, and methamphetamine distribution across the United States. Pentagon spokesman Sean Parnell stated that addressing cartel violence is not only a priority but an urgent matter of national security.
With the plans reportedly nearing completion by mid-September, questions linger over whether these proposed actions will move from planning to execution, and under what legal grounds. Analysts note that Trump previously designated transnational criminal organizations as terrorist threats, setting the stage for military action under existing executive powers.
A family who had previously fled cartel violence in Uruapan in Michoacan state sought safety in Arizona but returned to Mexico by late July. Their story has become emblematic of the recurring danger posed by cartel groups and the increasingly difficult decisions faced by civilians and policymakers alike.
The Trump administration’s orientation toward cartel violence signals not just a continuation, but an escalation of the militarized counter-narcotics strategy. Yet the secrecy surrounding these developments leaves both the American public and key government officials uncertain about what the final strategy might entail and how it will impact U.S.-Mexico relations in the months ahead.
