The Plan for U.S. Drone Strikes in Mexico: Cartel Crackdown or Geopolitical Land Grab?

Tariffs, Drones, and Lithium: Decoding the U.S. Elite’s Bid for Hemispheric Control

Diego Rivera’s Gloriosa Victoria (1954): A premonition of modern interventionism. The mural depicts CIA-backed regime change in Guatemala. Today, its helicopter shadows loom over Mexico.

The Unseen Hand of History

We’ve been here before. The scent of gunpowder from the 1846 Mexican-American War still lingers in the arid borderlands, where the U.S. annexed half of Mexico’s territory. Today, a different kind of conquest simmers—one draped in the rhetoric of “security,” “sovereignty,” and “counterterrorism,” but no less imperial in its ambitions. The recent mutterings from Washington about drone strikes in Mexico to combat cartels aren’t just about fentanyl or border walls. They’re threads in a larger tapestry: the U.S. scrambling to cement its dominance in a multipolar world (in essence, keeping it unipolar), where China’s rise looms, and old allies grow restless.

I’ve been watching the steady drumbeat of this news regarding the United States’ posture toward Mexico, and it’s both surreal and troubling. Maybe it’s the result of a renewed and emboldened colonialist mindset—this idea that other nations simply aren’t capable of handling their own affairs—coupled with a hankering for resources, territory, and strategic vantage points in the face of perceived threats elsewhere. In a recent discussion, Senator J.D. Vance floated the idea that Greenland might soon become a target for Chinese and Russian influence, and the U.S. should consider ways to bring Greenland into its own orbit (Source: BBC). That’s quite the statement. It underscores the longstanding belief among some factions in Washington that the U.S. has both the privilege and the obligation to interfere wherever it chooses.

But shifting our gaze closer to home, we see the same story possibly unfolding in Mexico. The allegations of unauthorized surveillance, calls for drone strikes under the guise of fighting cartels, and open talk of forcibly ensuring Mexico’s “sovereignty” on Washington’s terms, all paint a bleak picture: This is bigger than stopping a handful of kingpins. It’s about shaping an entire region to serve U.S. geopolitical interests, particularly if a confrontation with China is in the works. And that, I fear, is the real driver behind these moves.

So, what’s happening in Mexico? I’m talking specifically about the ban on unauthorized intelligence gathering, the hush-hush Joint National Defense Plan, the paradox of U.S.-Mexico collaboration, and the potential for “drone diplomacy.” I’ll also draw on research from government documents, policy briefs, and investigative journalists. And if we’re going to talk about authenticity, let me be honest: I find this entire situation both profoundly concerning and strangely predictable, given our current era of shifting global alliances and old-school ambitions.

---

I. Mexico’s Quiet Rebellion: Sovereignty in the Shadow of the Bald Eagle

According to a new constitutional reform from April 2025, Mexico will no longer permit foreign intelligence gathering without explicit authorization. This measure targets U.S. agencies—DEA, CIA, and the like—which have operated with a sizable footprint in Mexico for years (Source: RedStreamNet). Given the long history of covert and not-so-covert U.S. involvement in Mexican affairs, it’s hardly surprising that Mexico’s government, under President Claudia Sheinbaum, wants to limit external meddling.

But this was more than bureaucratic housekeeping. And it’s not paranoia: It’s something that was once whispered in back channels but now surfaces in everyday commentary—from investigative journalists to official statements: the United States is preparing potential drone strikes within Mexican territory, nominally aimed at “destroying cartels.”

It’s in the echo of these whispers that investigative reporter Zósimo Camacho shed some light on Mexico’s “Plan de Defensa Nacional Conjunto” (Joint National Defense Plan, here). It’s typically stored under lock and key in Military Camp Number One, accessible to only a handful of officials. And for good reason: it spells out exactly how Mexico would respond to foreign aggression, including potential warfare scenarios involving the United States.

“The document acknowledges that in the face of an attack from the greatest military power in human history—namely the United States—the balance of forces would be totally asymmetrical… it indicates that in such a case, Mexican troops would shift to guerrilla tactics so that, in conjunction with the Mexican populace in arms, they could expel the invaders in such a scenario.”

This plan also showcases what many have called the great paradox of U.S.-Mexico relations: on the one hand, the Mexican Armed Forces cooperate with the U.S.—joint exercises, intelligence sharing, arms purchases, and training under U.S. Northern Command. On the other hand, they consider the U.S. the most immediate and existential threat to their national integrity. It’s like you’re forced to train with someone you view as a possible invader—deeply ironic and yet historically grounded when you remember episodes like the Mexican-American War of 1846–1848 or more modern “security” interventions.

II. Washington’s Double Game: Cartels, Drones, and the “Unable or Unwilling” Doctrine

Now, with a second Trump administration, tensions are again ratcheting up. On April 8th, 2025, news reports indicated that the White House was pondering drone strikes on cartels inside Mexican territory. The next day, a Pentagon official downplayed it, saying special operations forces don’t yet have the legal authority for such action. Yet, a few days later—on April 11th, 2025—President Trump issued an NSPM-4 (National Security Presidential Memorandum) ordering an expansion of the U.S. military’s border presence. Officially, it’s about halting an “invasion” of drugs and migrants. Unofficially, many suspect it’s about applying pressure on Mexico to align with the U.S. on trade, strategic resources, and possibly future Sino-American tensions.

President Sheinbaum, for her part, cut right to the chase, stating:

“The people of Mexico will not, under any circumstances, accept intervention, interference, or any other act from abroad.”

Her straightforward stance doesn’t seem to quell the hawks in Washington, who continue spinning up narratives about Mexico’s cartels, fentanyl, and infiltration by foreign adversaries. Indeed, some in U.S. policy circles are eyeing Mexico as a vulnerable corridor of commerce, labor, and raw materials that must be locked down.

---

U.S. Strategic Shifts in Latin America

The broader context involves bigger geopolitical realignments. Marco Rubio as Secretary of State and Pete Hegseth as Secretary of Defense reflect more than just another round of hawkish leadership. Rubio is laser-focused on curbing Chinese influence in the Western Hemisphere—whether by forging alliances or issuing threats to those who might open doors to Beijing. Meanwhile, Hegseth’s push to scale back commitments in Europe and redirect resources to Latin America (and the Indo-Pacific) is telling. The thinking is that the Western Hemisphere must be squared away for a possible showdown in the Indo-Pacific. Resource mobilization is the name of the game, and that includes Canada, too, if you read the subtext.

In essence, the Trump administration inherited an expanded network of U.S. bases and alliances in Latin America—courtesy of the Biden administration and SOUTHCOM under General Richardson (Source: Antiwar.com). The question now is how far that infrastructure might be used to keep Mexico and other Latin American nations “in line,” so to speak.

Drone Strikes: From Proposal to Policy?

Various policy documents and think tank papers have begun to discuss the possibility of direct U.S. military action inside Mexico. One example is a Harvard Model Congress Boston 2025 paper titled COMBATTING FENTANYL CARTELS IN MEXICO by Miguel Chiapetta. The impetus is to designate the cartels as “narco-terrorists,” thereby granting the U.S. the legal scaffolding to send in special forces.

As one excerpt reads:

“Proponents argue that the US needs [to] eliminate the leaders of cartels by any means possible, adding that doing so would destabilize super-cartels and allow the United States to dismantle their network within Mexico and the United States.”

The Heritage Foundation’s January 2025 report, “How the President Can Use the U.S. Military to Secure the Border With Mexico,” also nods at the option of direct strikes, especially when they might “prompt cooperation from a resistant Mexican government.” There’s a repeated theme in these white papers: if Mexico won’t comply with Washington’s demands, the use of force might become the “last resort.” But the question is—last resort in response to what? Is it truly just about cartels, or is it about pressure to secure Mexico’s resources and strategic compliance? Because last time I checked, destroying clandestine labs or arresting cartel leaders doesn’t typically require fighter jets, drones, and a massive troop presence. The Heritage report spells it out: unilateral action could “galvanize the Mexican government into cooperation.” Translation: Attack them into compliance.

Legal justifications? Enter the “Unable or Unwilling” doctrine—a controversial loophole claiming states can intervene abroad if local governments “fail” to act. Georgetown legal analysts twist themselves into knots defending it:

“Mexico has lost control of its territory […] the Mexican state is unable to effectively exercise control […] US military intervention is a necessary solution.”

Never mind that cartels thrive partly due to U.S. gun exports and drug demand. Or that the CIA’s historical ties to narcotrafficking are the stuff of conspiracy and congressional record.

---

Risks and Challenges

We can’t ignore the potential fallout:

• Diplomatic and Economic Effects: Mexico is the U.S.’s largest goods trading partner. Any major incursion would likely plunge these ties into crisis.

• Collateral Damage and Cartel Backlash: Drone strikes aren’t scalpel-precise in urban areas, and cartels might retaliate swiftly against both U.S. and Mexican targets.

• Legal Quagmires: According to the Georgetown legal analyst, a unilateral drone strike would violate international law, but then circles back to say that if Mexico is “unable or unwilling” to address the cartel threat, the U.S. might do it anyway. It’s the old “Unable or Unwilling doctrine,” which remains hotly debated and arguably inconsistent with customary international law.

• Fragility of Governance: The Global and National Security Institute warns that labeling cartels as terrorists could delegitimize the ruling Morena party and the National Guard, leading to possible civil strife. Even though this might be precisely what could be one of the goals of the U.S. administration.

---

III. Project 2025: A Blueprint for Hemispheric Hegemony

A key reference here is Project 2025—a platform that outlines how the U.S. might reframe Mexico as a “failed state” in need of U.S. oversight. Its logic is that a “Sovereign Mexico” requires the U.S. to step in and guarantee said sovereignty because, allegedly, Mexico’s government is losing control to criminal organizations. It’s beyond ironic.

Project 2025 suggests:

1. A Fentanyl-Centric Justification: If Mexico can’t curb the flow of drugs, the U.S. can swoop in. (Even though the demand and supply networks reside inside U.S. territory)

2. Hardening the Border: Realigning resources to build walls, use active-duty military, and brand mass migration as an “invasion.”

3. Tariffs and Trade Pressure: Along with possible stiff tariffs, the U.S. could stifle Mexico’s economy until it “cooperates.”

Page 555 delivers the kicker: “The next Administration must […] support [Mexico’s sovereignty] in as rapid a fashion as possible.” The Orwellian twist? Sovereignty granted through foreign intervention.

But let’s be clear: this isn’t just about Mexico. U.S. tariffs and decoupling efforts aim to fracture the global economy and, as I would argue, create an industrial Fortress America flanked by vassal states. Canada’s whispered designation as “the 51st state” isn’t a joke—it’s a contingency plan. As the logic goes, ensuring stable supply lines of resources and labor is essential before the next conflict. Canada and Mexico aren’t guaranteed to side with the U.S. wholeheartedly—unless they’re forced to.

On a contextual note, this harks back to the Presidential Action of January 20, 2025, in which William McKinley is praised for “an expansion of territorial gains for the Nation.”

In more uncertain terms, the Center for Renewing America which is close to Project 2025 authors, lays out a four-tier strategy regarding Mexico:

1. Declaration: Label cartels as terrorists.

2. Organization: Naval blockades (“The President should activate the U.S. Navy to begin interdicting vessels off the Pacific Coast of Mexico believed to be ferrying synthetic opioids and other narcotics-related chemicals coming out of Chinese drug dens and place the U.S. Coast Guard on a war footing for patrols throughout the Gulf of Mexico and Eastern Pacific.”), migrant crackdowns.

3. Engagement: Military strikes.

4. Victory: Full-scale military deployment (“This means expanding the role beyond Special Forces, targeted strikes, and intelligence operations to include elements of the Marines, Army, Navy, Air Force and Coast Guard”).

Thus, the executive order designating cartels as foreign terrorist organizations (FTOs) enables sanctions and lethal action and is the first step in a long list of steps for the current Trump administration, even though, as laid out above, this strategy has already been initiated through General Richardson’s Southcom under Biden.

---

IV. The Irony of Interdependence: Oil, Lithium, and the China Factor

Why Mexico? Two words: lithium and geography. Mexico’s lithium reserves—critical for EVs and batteries—are a goldmine in the green energy race. Meanwhile, China’s Belt and Road Initiative has made inroads across Latin America, from Nicaraguan canals to Argentine ports. For Washington, losing Mexico isn’t an option.

Yet AMLO’s successor, Claudia Sheinbaum, has doubled down on energy sovereignty, nationalizing lithium and tightening control over PEMEX. This defiance irks a U.S. elite accustomed to pliant neighbors. Hence, the drumbeat of “failed state” narratives—a pretext for intervention, much like Iraq’s WMDs.

Analyst Brian Berletic once noted that tariffs might not just be about protecting U.S. industries or containing China. They could also serve as a prelude to “decoupling from a global economy [the U.S.] seeks to deliberately destroy.” In that scenario, the U.S. readies itself for a new era of conflict and closed-off trading blocs. If that’s the real plan, Mexico—rich in resources, a central industrial hub, and physically next door—cannot be allowed too much autonomy.

Moreover, if Mexico started forging deeper ties with Beijing or BRICS, or if it tried to chart a more independent path through Latin American unity, that might threaten U.S. strategic goals. In that sense, the “drone strikes” conversation is about far more than cartels—it’s about sovereignty, resource security, and a domestic U.S. political climate that favors big, dramatic solutions. And it’s about this new geopolitical landscape undergoing rapid and historical changes.

Benito Juárez’s dictum from a speech in 1867: “Among individuals, as among nations, respect for the rights of others is peace.”

---

Closing Note: Vigilance in the Age of Unraveling

In closing, let’s just say the big question isn’t whether the U.S. might try a cross-border incursion under the guise of “fighting cartels.” It’s when. The ban on unauthorized foreign intelligence gathering in Mexico, the secretive Joint National Defense Plan, the rhetorical dance around potential drone strikes—these developments all suggest a powder keg waiting for a spark. And it’s not about sensationalism or alarmism. It’s about paying attention to the slow but deliberate build-up of the legal and logistical frameworks that would make an incursion feasible.

No one’s denying that cartel violence and the fentanyl crisis are severe problems. But it’s worth asking whether these issues are being used as a Trojan horse for something else: an American grand strategy that aims to shore up control over Mexico—and possibly Canada—as part of an impending resource and industrial realignment leading toward a confrontation with China.

History doesn’t repeat, but it rhymes. The 19th-century Monroe Doctrine declared Latin America America’s “backyard.” Today, the rhetoric is updated—“security partnerships,” “drug wars”—but the goal remains: control.

President Sheinbaum’s defiance (“The people of Mexico will not accept intervention”) is commendable, but vigilance must extend beyond palaces and parliaments. As readers, as citizens, we must ask:

• What lies beneath the “cartel” label?

• How do we dismantle doctrines of domination masquerading as policy?

Share your thoughts below. Have you seen similar patterns in your region? How do we build solidarity in an age of fracture?

And remember: Sovereignty isn’t given. It’s defended. And though the question “if” has primarily become “when,” we can hope that a more peaceful path—rooted in cooperation rather than coercion—will prevail.

Stay safe, stay skeptical, and keep talking. Our collective future might just depend on it.

---

Support Independent Analysis

If you found this deep dive into ruling elites and militarization valuable, consider supporting my work:

• Subscribe to this Substack for more long-form analysis of global politics.

• Share this article with friends, colleagues, or social media—debate thrives when ideas circulate.

Democracies fray when scrutiny fades. By subscribing or sharing, you help sustain independent journalism that cuts through noise and dogma.

Contact:

• Bluesky: @themindness.bsky.social

• X: @noirnen @Nen_senb

Stay curious,
Nel