Donald Trump’s resurgence onto the political stage has brought with it a familiar rhetoric, this time directed southward. Echoing historical patterns of US intervention in Latin America, the former (and potentially future) president is now threatening a “soft invasion” of Mexico to combat drug cartels. This aggressive stance raises serious questions about sovereignty, international law, and the future of US-Mexico relations.
In a move reminiscent of historical US expansionism, Trump has openly discussed deploying US special operations units against Mexican drug cartels, even considering missile strikes during his first term. As revealed in former Secretary of Defense Mark Esper’s memoir, Trump reportedly mused that such actions could be undertaken covertly, with “no one would know it was us.” This reveals a disturbing disregard for Mexican sovereignty and international norms, a pattern that seems set to continue should he regain power.
Reports from Rolling Stone in late 2024 and early 2025 detail the alarming scope of the proposed “soft invasion.” The discussions within Trump’s inner circle reportedly revolve not around whether to intervene militarily, but how extensively. Potential actions range from targeted assassinations of cartel leaders and airstrikes on drug labs to deploying US special forces for raids within Mexico. Disturbingly, these plans are being considered with or without the consent of the Mexican government, highlighting a brazenly unilateral approach.
This aggressive posture has drawn immediate comparisons to the US invasion of Iraq, raising fears of a similar quagmire and destabilization. More fundamentally, it evokes a long history of Yankee imperialism in Mexico. The memory of la intervención estadounidense en México, the Mexican-American War of 1846-1848, remains vivid in the Mexican consciousness. This conflict resulted in Mexico ceding nearly half its territory to the United States, land that now constitutes a significant portion of the American West and Southwest. The annexation of Texas in 1845, and subsequent US military interventions during the Mexican Revolution in Veracruz (1914) and the Punitive Expedition against Pancho Villa (1916-1917), further underscore a historical pattern of US encroachment.
Drawing by Nathaniel St. Clair
Beyond Mexico, Trump’s imperial vision seems to encompass other regions. His renewed interest in purchasing Greenland from Denmark, ostensibly to secure access to Arctic resources amidst growing US-Russia tensions, demonstrates a continued expansionist mindset. Similarly, his public pronouncements about “retaking” the Panama Canal and his facetious (or not so facetious) remarks about Canada becoming the “51st state” reveal a worldview where US dominance is paramount and neighboring nations are viewed with possessiveness. While Trump may not explicitly invoke “Manifest Destiny,” his actions and rhetoric strongly suggest a similar underlying ideology of American exceptionalism and entitlement.
Trump’s justifications for potential military action against Mexico hinge on the assertion that the influx of drugs, particularly fentanyl, and undocumented migrants constitutes an “invasion” of the United States. This inflammatory language, echoed by other Republican figures, serves to legitimize aggressive measures. Trump has vowed to impose a 25% tariff on all Mexican and Canadian goods until these perceived “invasions” cease, framing trade and security as inextricably linked and using economic leverage to pressure Mexico into compliance with US demands.
Further escalating tensions, Trump has pledged to designate Mexican cartels as foreign terrorist organizations upon taking office. This designation, while potentially providing a legal pretext for military action under US law, would be a clear violation of international law if carried out without Mexico’s consent. Such a move would likely be met with strong condemnation internationally and further strain already complex US-Mexico relations.
Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo, inaugurated in October 2024, has already had to navigate these aggressive US overtures. Despite a seemingly positive initial phone call with Trump, Sheinbaum has firmly pushed back against his threats. She warned of retaliatory tariffs should the US impose new levies and publicly refuted Trump’s false claims that she had agreed to close Mexico’s southern border. Sheinbaum has also dismissed the notion of a “soft invasion,” emphasizing Mexico’s commitment to defending its sovereignty.
Whether Trump’s bellicose rhetoric translates into actual military intervention remains to be seen. His past pronouncements and actions, however, suggest a willingness to disregard international norms and pursue unilateral action in the name of American interests as he defines them. His boast of being “the most militaristic person there is” should be taken seriously, signaling a potential shift away from any perceived isolationist tendencies and towards a more assertive, interventionist foreign policy, particularly in the Americas. The implications for US-Mexico relations, and regional stability, are deeply concerning and warrant close scrutiny as Trump’s political ambitions unfold.
