President Donald Trump has signalled that he is prepared to authorise military strikes in Mexico and Colombia against drug cartels and cocaine production sites, telling reporters he would be “proud” to see such operations carried out as part of a wider campaign against narcotics trafficking in the Americas. The comments, made during an Oval Office event on preparations for the 2026 FIFA World Cup, have sharpened concerns in Latin America over the prospect of unilateral United States action at a moment when Washington is already conducting lethal strikes on suspected drug boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific.
Trump was speaking at the White House on 17 November as he hosted FIFA president Gianni Infantino and members of the US taskforce overseeing the jointly hosted World Cup, which will take place in the United States, Mexico and Canada. In an exchange with reporters that shifted from football to foreign policy, the president was asked whether he would support ground or air strikes in Mexico to disrupt drug cartels and trafficking routes. Trump replied that such operations were “OK with me, whatever we have to do to stop drugs,” making clear that he regarded the option as legitimate even though he stopped short of announcing any imminent intervention.
Pressed further on whether the United States might extend its campaign to target cocaine production sites in neighbouring Colombia, Trump raised the prospect of attacking laboratories directly. “Colombia has cocaine factories where they make cocaine. Would I knock out those factories? I would be proud to do it personally,” he said, before adding that he was not announcing a decision but would be “proud to do it because we’re going to save millions of lives.” The remarks were later widely shared on social media and in regional media outlets, framed by critics as a threat to “bomb Mexico and Colombia” despite the president’s insistence that he was describing an option rather than a formal order.
The comments come against the backdrop of an escalating US military campaign at sea that the Trump administration says is aimed at cutting narcotics flows to North America. Since early September, US forces have carried out at least 21 strikes on small boats in the Caribbean and eastern Pacific that officials describe as drug-trafficking vessels, killing more than 80 people, according to figures cited by the Pentagon and reported by multiple outlets. The operation, conducted under the banner of “Operation Southern Spear,” has involved guided-missile destroyers, aircraft and other assets, and represents the largest US naval deployment in the region in decades. Supporters within the administration argue that the campaign is necessary to disrupt what they portray as “narco-terrorist” networks; human rights advocates and some members of Congress have questioned both the intelligence underpinning the strikes and the legal rationale for killing suspects at sea rather than intercepting and arresting them.
In Washington, Trump has presented the maritime strikes and the possibility of further action in Mexico and Colombia as part of a broader war on drugs that he says is essential to protecting American communities. The president has repeatedly described cartels as enemy forces and has argued that the United States is engaged in an “armed conflict” with them, a framing that his legal advisers say justifies the use of lethal military force. At the Oval Office event, he linked his comments about Mexico and Colombia to this wider campaign, citing what he called a major reduction in drug shipments via maritime routes and suggesting that similar tactics could be used on land. “There is almost no drugs coming through our waterways anymore,” he said, claiming that naval surveillance and interdiction had cut traffic sharply.
The suggestion that US forces might strike inside Mexico has unsettled observers because it touches directly on questions of sovereignty that have long been sensitive in the bilateral relationship. Mexico has historically resisted any suggestion of unilateral US military action on its soil, even as the two countries have cooperated on intelligence sharing and law enforcement operations against cartels. When Republican lawmakers in 2023 floated proposals to designate Mexican cartels as foreign terrorist organisations and authorise US military force against them, then-president Andrés Manuel López Obrador responded that Mexico would “not allow any foreign government to intervene in our territory, much less with armed forces,” describing such plans as an insult to national sovereignty.
Under Trump’s current term, relations with Mexico are being managed by President Claudia Sheinbaum, who took office earlier this year. According to reporting based on US and Mexican officials, Sheinbaum has sought to reassure the public that no unilateral US operations are taking place, even as both governments discuss joint measures against trafficking. After Trump’s latest comments, her office declined to issue a formal response, and Mexican officials have so far stuck to their position that security cooperation must respect Mexico’s laws and territorial control. Financial markets nonetheless reacted quickly: according to market reports, the Mexican peso briefly weakened after traders parsed Trump’s remark that launching strikes in Mexico would be “OK with me” as raising the risk of instability.
In Colombia, where decades of armed conflict have been intertwined with the cocaine trade, Trump’s remarks about “knocking out” factories landed amid already tense relations. The US government under Trump has accused President Gustavo Petro of failing to curb coca cultivation and has imposed sanctions on the Colombian leader, moves that prompted Bogotá to scale back intelligence cooperation on maritime trafficking. Petro has positioned his government as favouring a public health approach to drug use and has criticised what he calls the militarisation of anti-narcotics policy, arguing that bombing rural areas or processing facilities would deepen social conflict without eliminating demand in consumer countries. Although his office did not issue a fresh statement after Trump’s Oval Office comments, the two leaders have been at odds for months over how to tackle the trade.
Trump’s rhetoric also intersects with a broader regional strategy that has increasingly focused on Venezuela, which US officials accuse of providing safe haven to traffickers. The United States has deployed its most advanced aircraft carrier, the USS Gerald R Ford, and a flotilla of warships to the Caribbean as part of Operation Southern Spear, a move that Venezuelan president Nicolás Maduro has condemned as a prelude to possible aggression. Washington is simultaneously moving to designate the alleged Venezuelan network known as Cartel de los Soles as a foreign terrorist organisation, a label that would place it in the same legal category as groups such as the Sinaloa cartel and allow harsher sanctions. Trump has said he believes increased pressure, including boat strikes and the threat of further action, will hasten Maduro’s departure from power, while also disrupting flows of cocaine and other drugs northwards.
Domestically, Trump’s hard line on cartels plays into a central theme of his political message, pairing a tough stance on crime and border security with a promise to use US military strength against non-state actors he accuses of fuelling the opioid and fentanyl crises. He has previously floated the idea of using special forces or other units to carry out targeted raids against cartel leaders, and allies in Congress, including Republican senator Lindsey Graham, have argued that Washington has a “legal and moral right” to attack cartels unilaterally if Mexico does not act. Trump’s latest comments, in which he openly endorsed the idea of strikes in Mexico and expressed enthusiasm about destroying Colombian facilities, go further than the carefully calibrated language usually used in official briefings, even if they fall short of a formal policy announcement.
Critics within the United States have warned that expanding military operations into Mexican or Colombian territory without clear consent could trigger a serious diplomatic crisis and might violate international law. Legal scholars and human rights groups have already raised concerns about the boat strikes, questioning whether individuals killed at sea can legitimately be treated as combatants and whether the United States has provided sufficient evidence that the vessels targeted were engaged in trafficking. Some lawmakers have urged the administration to be more transparent about the rules of engagement, arguing that drug offenders, even when armed, should be arrested and tried rather than killed in pre-emptive attacks.
For residents of Mexico and Colombia, Trump’s remarks tapped into longstanding anxieties about the collateral impact of US drug policy. Social media reaction in Spanish-language forums highlighted fears that ordinary communities, not just cartel members, could be caught up in any cross-border strikes. Users in Colombian online discussions expressed alarm that talk of bombing “factories” overlooked the reality that many processing sites are located in rural areas where civilians live and work, while others argued that the comments amounted to political theatre aimed at US audiences. Some Mexican commentators, recalling previous episodes of US involvement in Latin America, saw echoes of Cold War-era interventions and warned that even speculative talk of using force risked destabilising cooperation against organised crime.
Trump, for his part, has portrayed his stance as both morally necessary and consistent with his broader foreign policy. In public appearances, he has claimed that aggressive action against cartels will “save millions of lives” by reducing the flow of fentanyl, cocaine and other drugs into the United States, and has linked that goal to his administration’s domestic agenda on crime, immigration and public health. He has also tied the issue to the upcoming World Cup, suggesting that securing regional stability and curbing trafficking will help ensure a safe tournament across the three host nations, which are expecting a surge of visitors in 2026 and significant economic gains from tourism and infrastructure projects.
For now, there is no indication that orders have been given to carry out strikes in Mexico or Colombia, and US officials have continued to emphasise cooperation with regional partners. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has previously said the United States is “not considering unilateral action” in Mexico and has highlighted joint interdiction and intelligence efforts instead. But Trump’s language has again placed the possibility of cross-border force on the table, leaving governments in Mexico City and Bogotá, as well as lawmakers in Washington, to weigh how seriously to take the president’s words at a time when US military activity against alleged traffickers is already intensifying offshore.
As Operation Southern Spear continues and the death toll from boat strikes rises, Trump’s suggestion that he would be “proud” to extend similar tactics to land targets in Mexico and Colombia underlines the scale of the shift in US anti-drug policy he is prepared to contemplate. Whether those remarks remain rhetorical, intended for a domestic audience that has grown accustomed to tough talk on cartels, or evolve into concrete plans for strikes on foreign so