What a week it has been. I have to admit that I continue to be perplexed by the “anti-Sheinbaum and anti-Morena” protests this past weekend in Mexico City. Despite the name, it hardly felt like a bunch of Gen Z’ers (keep in mind Gen Z members are officially 13-28 years old). A close review of videos of the protestors showed many that seemed to be far out of that age range, and it struck me as odd that things got so violent so quickly. I am NOT one to believe conspiracy theories, but something felt really weird about this protest. Violence is a very serious issue in Mexico, full stop. But recent data of Sheinbaum’s first year in office show the most significant reduction in violent crimes in the country in a generation. The reduction comes in only her first year in office against criminal organizations that have become entrenched over decades. So why now?
Then, almost on cue, many news outlets of the U.S. political right and even President Trump himself began to talk about President Sheinbaum supposedly beginning to lose control of Mexico. Trump even referenced the Mexico City protests in his comments earlier this week. Keep in mind that President Sheinbaum currently has one of the highest approval ratings of any political leader in the world and has actually increased her approval rating in Mexico since elected. It’s increasingly clear that there are groups in both Mexico and the United States that are pushing a narrative that violence is spiraling out of control in Mexico, as well as the idea that Sheinbaum’s administration is powerless and/or unwilling to do anything about it.
Trump reacts to Mexico City protest, says military strikes to stop drugs are ‘OK with me’
I have heard from countless Americans that the U.S. should just “get the job done” with the cartels in Mexico. But what does that exactly mean? And why would we think it would be so simple? If it were that easy, why wouldn’t Americans “get the job done” on the U.S. side of the border?
Data shows that the vast majority of drugs enter via the land border and as a result must pass through U.S. border control. Further data shows that the vast majority of those that transit drugs into the United States are in fact U.S. citizens. Once across the border, the drugs travel for thousands of miles to nearly every community of the country. Earlier this week, Trump said that regarding Mexican cartels, “We know the addresses of every drug lord … We know their front door, we know everything about every one of them.” If that in fact were the case, one would think the U.S. would also know a lot about the criminal organizations on the U.S. side of the border and, as a result, do more to stop them. That domestic network — stretching from ports of entry to suburban mailboxes — is the quiet part too rarely talked about.
We all want solutions to the scourge of drugs in communities on both sides of the border, but if there were in fact easy answers, one would think we would already be implementing them. Many people say the root cause of the problem is the demand, and that the U.S. has to focus on that. A valid point. But there is also a very significant supply chain throughout the U.S. that authorities there have been unable to stop. Here is the uncomfortable truth: There is no serious national plan in the U.S. to reduce demand at scale or to disrupt the domestic distribution web that delivers fentanyl, meth and cocaine to neighborhoods from Portland to Pittsburgh — and that vacuum invites more theater than strategy.
If we don’t treat addiction, rebuild community institutions and address the cultural hollowing-out that drives self-medication — family disconnection, loneliness, purposelessness — then “supply-side only” fixes will fail again, just as they have for 50 years. So let’s ground the debate in two realities that can coexist. First, President Sheinbaum has been in office for only one year and is confronting a problem that long predates her administration. Second, early statistics from her first year indicate a meaningful reduction in violent crime and an increase in cartel arrests.
So what should the U.S. do? Blowing up speed boats loaded with cocaine in the Pacific Ocean and Caribbean makes for good videos (and Department of War bravado), but will likely do very little to solve the fentanyl problem, and could even increase cocaine trafficking via land routes. So what are some of the potential options with respect to Mexico? Here are a few possibilities:
- Share U.S. intelligence with Mexico (without public knowledge) and trust Mexico to successfully act on it. The obvious concern here is that Mexico in the past has often either leaked the information to the cartels or been unsuccessful in acting on it.
- Share U.S. intelligence with Mexico (with public knowledge) to increase pressure on Mexico to act on it.
- Share U.S. intelligence and weapons with Mexico (without public knowledge) and trust Mexico to act on it.
- Share US intelligence and weapons with Mexico (with public knowledge) to increase pressure on Mexico for results.
- Direct strikes by the U.S. in Mexico. This would require clear legal authority, Mexican government consent, and a definition of victory beyond “hit them hard” — none of which exist today.
Many people I know on both sides of the border would advocate for option No. 5 as the obvious, no brainer choice. But when in the last 50 years has the American military quickly resolved a problem in another country? Vietnam took over 17 years of U.S. involvement. Iraq, over 8 years of U.S. involvement. Afghanistan, nearly 20 years. Even in a world of increasingly sophisticated drone warfare technology, the ongoing Russia-Ukraine war is nearing 4 years. Two years in, the Israel-Hamas war is being held together by a fragile peace agreement. Even the U.S. war on drugs is now nearing 54 years since it first began in 1971. We now have decades of evidence suggesting that killing a cartel leader or disrupting one cartel organization only leads to new ones taking over — with the drug flow and violence continuing unabated (and often increasing).
I personally think the U.S. has willing and eager partners in President Sheinbaum and Security Minister García Harfuch to reduce the levels of violence and the flow of drugs. That being said, as the recent brazen murder of the mayor of Uruapan, Michoacan, showed, the task is not one to be taken lightly. I believe the U.S. should share both intelligence and weapons (showing trust) while at the same time insisting on and verifying results from Mexico. The U.S. must also show tangible results on its side of the border with increased drug and weapons seizures — which have begun to happen. In parallel, the U.S. should finally articulate a domestic plan including expanded treatment and recovery capacity, cracking down on U.S.-based distribution cells and money laundering, expanding precursor controls and e-commerce enforcement, and investing in community-level prevention. Given that drone weapon technologies are rapidly advancing, it seems logical and reasonable that the U.S. could train Mexico to quickly and effectively use them selectively against cartel targets.
Of course, the unknown of all of this is the response of the cartels. Would they just get out of the drug business? Would they move it elsewhere? Would they accelerate diversification into other industries (avocados, fuel, extortion, etc.)? If these questions are not well thought out well in advance, the impacts could lead to a situation that is even worse than the current one.
The bottom line: Let’s hope that the previous decades of learnings and failures from the war on drugs and U.S. military involvement in other countries increase our degree of cautiousness and care. This is not a problem that a few drone or F15 strikes will solve. The right path would be an increasing degree of collaboration, cooperation and trust between the U.S. and Mexican governments. Hopefully, this would result in continued pressure on the cartels that decreases the level of violence, decreases drug production, and ensures that new areas of crime do not take its place. That would truly be a wonderful development for the citizens of both countries. It will take time, and not be easy, but we can get there if both countries acknowledge that much work needs to be done on both sides of the border.
Which course of action do you think would be most effective? I look forward to hearing your points of view in the comments.
Travis Bembenek is the CEO of Mexico News Daily and has been living, working or playing in Mexico for nearly 30 years.
