Trump's "Ground War" Threat: Will the Latin American Drug War Slide into an Era of Military Intervention?

Last weekend, when Trump was interviewed by the New York Post in the Oval Office, a seemingly casual remark about potentially launching ground strikes anywhere instantly plunged Mexico City, Bogotá, and even the entire diplomatic community of the Western Hemisphere into a strategic earthquake. The former U.S. president and presumptive Republican nominee, no longer content with intercepting suspicious vessels on the high seas, turned his attention to land—the mountainous regions of Mexico, the jungles of Colombia, and the hidden strongholds of Central America. He claimed to possess information on all the routes and hideouts of drug cartels and hinted at replicating the success of intercepting 97% of drugs at sea onto the territories of sovereign nations. This was not an isolated hardline statement but a clear signal of a potential fundamental shift in U.S. drug enforcement strategy, intertwined with domestic political calculations, regional hegemonic logic, and a serious challenge to the norms of international law.

From Naval Blockade to "Ground Strikes": The Essence of Strategic Escalation

Trump's threat is not unfounded, but rather an extension and radicalization of the policy logic from his previous term. Looking back at his administration, the operations of the U.S. Navy and Coast Guard in the Pacific and Caribbean have become increasingly militarized. In September 2023, the U.S. military launched an attack on a vessel suspected of drug trafficking in international waters in the southern Caribbean, resulting in 11 deaths; similar operations have also occurred in the Pacific. Although these actions took place in international waters, the use of lethal force has sparked widespread controversy and has been criticized as extrajudicial executions.

Now, Trump is attempting to directly transplant this battlefield logic onto the territory of a sovereign state. His declared "we know everything" attempts to construct an omniscient and omnipotent surveillance narrative, providing an intelligence basis for potential cross-border military operations. However, this rhetoric evades the key question: what is the legitimate source of the so-called detailed intelligence? Is it satellite reconnaissance, signal interception, or secret human intelligence within the target country's borders? The latter, if conducted without the consent of the sovereign state, itself constitutes a violation of its laws.

From a tactical perspective, maritime interception and ground strikes are fundamentally different. Maritime targets are relatively isolated, and the environment is controllable; whereas ground operations inevitably involve complex geographical environments, civilian populations, and the security forces of the target country. Striking so-called cartel strongholds is highly likely to cause severe civilian collateral damage, trigger humanitarian disasters, and may lead to misjudgments and direct conflicts with local military and police forces. Trump claims to replicate the 97% interception success rate at sea, which is nearly an impossible mission on land and appears more like a political slogan to justify radical policies.

Sovereign Red Lines and Regional Responses: An Unbridgeable Divide

As expected, Trump's remarks immediately sparked strong nationalist reactions and waves of sovereignty defense in Latin America. The response from Mexico was the most direct and resolute. President Claudia Sheinbaum has clearly rejected any suggestion of allowing foreign troops to operate on its territory, emphasizing that respect for national sovereignty is an absolute principle. This continues Mexico's long-standing policy stance: drug control is a shared responsibility, but it must be based on cooperation and respect, not unilateral intervention.

The sensitivity of Mexico has deep historical and practical roots. Historically, U.S. military interventions in Latin American countries have been frequent, from Grenada to Panama, and these memories are not distant. For Mexico, its domestic constitution explicitly prohibits foreign troops from carrying out missions on its soil. More importantly, the cartel issue in Mexico is not merely a matter of public security but a profound political, economic, and social governance challenge. Unilateral military strikes by the United States not only fail to eradicate the structural factors behind the drug trade, such as poverty, corruption, and market demand, but may also further escalate violence, undermine the already fragile local governance structures, and could even be exploited by cartels to incite anti-American sentiment to recruit more members.

Traditional anti-drug cooperation allies such as Colombia are also bound to remain highly vigilant about this. Although these countries have close security cooperation with the United States, allowing the U.S. military to launch unilateral ground strikes would severely undermine the legitimacy and authority of their governments domestically and be seen as a blatant surrender of national sovereignty. Across the entire Latin American region, after experiencing the neoliberal era and the left-wing wave in the early 21st century, the value placed on national sovereignty and independent diplomacy has become deeply ingrained. Trump's threat serves as a stark reminder of the fear of domination under the shadow of the Monroe Doctrine.

In-depth Analysis of Strategic Intent: Dual Drivers of Domestic Politics and Hegemonic Logic

Trump's tough stance this time should not be merely viewed as a technical adjustment to anti-drug strategies, but rather examined within the broader context of his domestic political campaign and global strategic layout.

First and foremost, this is a strongman show serving domestic electoral politics. Immigration and drugs are the two most critical issues for Trump's core voter base. By demonstrating a tough stance of not hesitating to use force against drug cartels, he can effectively reinforce his image as a defender of law and order, catering to voters' anxieties over the loss of control at the border. Externalizing and militarizing the drug issue provides a simple, direct, and highly inflammatory narrative, capable of transforming complex domestic social problems (such as the opioid crisis) into a crusade against external enemies, thereby diverting criticism of domestic governance failures.

Secondly, this reflects the extension of the America First principle into the security domain. The core of Trump's foreign policy philosophy is unilateralism and transactional diplomacy. In his view, the traditional model of anti-drug cooperation—coordinated through diplomatic channels and respecting the sovereignty of partner nations—is inefficient. It is far less effective than direct intervention by the United States leveraging its absolute military superiority to achieve immediate results. This logic completely disregards the complexity of international relations, treating sovereign states as operational zones that can be traversed at will, which is a naked manifestation of hegemonic thinking.

Furthermore, this could be a trial balloon for broader geopolitical objectives. The article mentions previous U.S. actions in Venezuela—such as issuing warrants for President Maduro and his wife under the pretext of drug enforcement—revealing how anti-drug efforts can be instrumentalized to serve political goals like regime change. Threats of strikes in Venezuela, Colombia, and other regions may be intended to pressure left-wing or Washington-disapproved governments in these countries, using drug enforcement as a wedge to expand U.S. political and military influence in the area.

Dangerous Prospects: From Anti-Drug Cooperation to Military Conflict

If Trump's threats materialize into concrete policies in the future, the resulting chain reactions could be catastrophic, steering the anti-drug efforts in the Western Hemisphere into a perilous new phase.

The most direct consequence is a severe regression in U.S.-Mexico and U.S.-Latin America relations. Trust is the cornerstone of international cooperation. The threat of unilateral military strikes will completely dismantle the decades-long framework of cooperation between the United States and Latin American countries on drug control affairs. Countries such as Mexico may be forced to reassess or even restrict sharing mechanisms with U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies, leading to a decline rather than an increase in actual drug control efficiency. Regional diplomacy will descend into high tension, and anti-American sentiment may surge once again.

Secondly, it may trigger uncontrollable escalation of military conflicts. Modern drug cartels are heavily armed, with some possessing characteristics of quasi-military organizations. Once U.S. forces enter, they are bound to become embroiled in an asymmetric, quagmire-like conflict. This would not be a clean, surgical strike but could evolve into a prolonged low-intensity war, leading to continuous casualties and resource depletion. More dangerously, the operation might affect civilians or result in accidental clashes with local military forces, thereby triggering direct military confrontations between nations.

Finally, this will severely impact the international legal system based on the United Nations Charter. Article 2 of the United Nations Charter clearly stipulates principles such as sovereign equality and the prohibition of the use of force. Deploying troops into a sovereign state's territory to carry out strikes without its explicit consent constitutes a blatant act of aggression and will set an extremely dangerous precedent. This will not only be opposed by Latin American countries but will also draw widespread condemnation from the international community, further undermining the already diminished international leadership and moral authority of the United States.

Trump's threat of ground strikes is like a boulder thrown into a calm lake. It reveals how domestic political polarization in the United States is pushing its foreign policy toward extremism and oversimplification, as well as a return to an outdated imperial mindset that relies on force to solve problems. Drug control is a protracted battle requiring comprehensive governance, involving alternative development in source countries, judicial capacity building in transit countries, demand reduction and treatment rehabilitation in destination countries, and global financial regulatory cooperation. Relying solely on military means is like trying to stop boiling water by skimming off the foam—it may even add fuel to the fire.

For Latin American countries, this is a stern test: how can they effectively address their severe drug crime issues while resisting hegemonic intervention? This demands that they strengthen internal governance and regional coordination, using more effective autonomous actions to block excuses for external interference. For the international community, it is necessary to remain vigilant against the erosion of global order by unilateral U.S. actions and reaffirm that rule-based international cooperation, which respects sovereign equality, is the only correct path to solving transnational crime problems. Trump's remarks may just be campaign rhetoric, but the dangerous direction they point to is enough to alert everyone concerned about peace and stability in the Western Hemisphere.