The US depends a lot on cooperation with Mexico for immigration control. Hard to believe it would really want to lose all that by doing strikes against the will of Mexico
First this is about strikes on drug cartels not on ordinary Mexicans. But Mexico is a very different situation from Venezuela.
- Claudia Bardo is a democratically elected leader in a free and fair election not a criminal who rigged elections.
- Mexico is a close collaborator and long term friend of the US with many Mexicans living in the US and vice versa many Americans living in Mexico
- The US depends a lot on cooperation with Mexico to do immigration control and would have floods of immigrants if Mexico didn’t help.
So - Trump has SAID many things he never did. People forget that because of this one dramatic thing that he did do.
So he is very likely to do nothing. On the remote chance he really is serious this time and he either orders a strike without telling Congress first or he makes it clear he is going to do one - then Congress CAN stop him.
This is so serious a thing to do that I believe Congress would easily achieve the ⅔ majority needed in both chambers to stop any further military action against Mexico. I think there’s a possibility they’d go so far in that case as to require Congresional approval for any military action for the duration of his presidency from then on.
Congress has that capability as we see from the bill currently being discussed by the Senate to stop all further military action in Venezuela. That one is not likely to reach the ⅔ threshold but a similar bill for Mexico very well might.
There’d be a lot of opposition from Congress, from ordinary voters, from Mexico, etc. And the US would lose much of its ability to work with Mexico on stopping immigration. It would have huge downsides and almost no upsides for the USA.
Not likely to slow down the flow of fentanyl into the USA. Might make it worse by making it hard to cooperate with Mexico, which it relies on a lot right now.
The most obvious effect of this would be a likely huge increase in immigration to the USA if Mexico withdraws from immigration enforcement on its side. That is why it would likely reach the ⅔ majority needed to override the presidential veto in both chambers.
There are numerous political obstacles to prevent Trump attacking Mexico.
Not like Venezuela - with Maduro a wanted criminal and holding power because of a rigged election - presidents in the past have abducted wanted criminals without extradiction orders on rare occasions including the former leader of Panama
This is very different from the situation in Venezuela when Maduro was a wanted criminal with a reward against him. Venezuela was not cooperating with the US on drug control. And Maduro was holding power against his people’s will in a rigged election.
While Claudia Pardo is the democratically elected leader in free and fair elections.
The Venezuela strike has made people forget somehow that Trump says lots of bizarre things he never does.
- Claimed he would make Canada a 51st state of the USA
- Claimed the US would take over and own Gaza Strip, that Palestinians wouldn’t be able to return and he’d make it into a Riviera of the Middle East - to much condemnation in the Middle East and he soon reversed it.
- Claimed that Europe faced civilizational erasure and he’d take action to stop immigration into Europe and change its hate speech laws so that they would be like the US free speech laws - none of that has happened.
- Said he would force France to raise drug prices and he claimed that Macron actually agreed to do that - in reality Macron has no capability to set drug prices in France and France is LOWERING drug prices even further
- Said he’d like to be Pope and posted an AI image of himself as a pope when the cardinals were choosing a replacement for Pope Francis, despite not even being a Catholic (a Pope has to be a baptised Catholic male and is in practice always selected from the college of cardinals)
N.B. this is not insanity. When he proposed himself as pope - it doesn’t mean he had an insane belief that he could be pope. It’s just that the likes provoking attention. If he’d gone around telling everyone he was pope counter to the evidence that the cardinals had chosen pope Leo XIV that would be delusive. But what Trump said wasn’t delusive it was just provocative.
I expect some of you can think of more examples, do say in replies to this post.
US and Mexico are friends not enemies and no way that he attacks Mexico - that would be war with Mexico.
He could assist Mexico in law enforcement in some way but not attack them not in reality.
Just a short while back, Trump said he has offered to send in US troops every time he talks to Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo president of Mexico but she always says no. Transcript from here
QUOTE STARTS
Trump: And by the way, you have to do something with Mexico. Mexico has to get their act together because they’re pouring through Mexico and we’re going to have to do something.
We’d love Mexico to do it. They’re capable of doing it, but unfortunately the cartels are very strong in Mexico.
Q. I remember one time you actually, speaking of Mexico, I asked you about Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo, and you told me at one point you had offered to send US troops into Mexico to combat drug trafficking there. Is that something you talked about?
Trump: I liked Claudia. I think she’s a terrific person. I would say every single time I talked to her, I offered to send troops
Q. and she’s just not willing?
Trump: She’s concerned. She’s a little afraid. The cartels are running Mexico. Whether you like it or not, it’s not nice to say, but the cartels are running Mexico
Earlier fact check of Biden some of the main points apply to Trump also
This is a fact check which covers some of the main issues. It’s from 2024 about an earlier fake story about Biden invading Mexico from March 2024
I know that Biden is not Trump but some of the same points apply:
QUOTE A U.S. invasion would be an abrupt departure from how the U.S. has engaged with its longtime ally. The U.S. State Department describes Mexico as “one of the United States’ closest and most valued partners,” noting on its website that the two countries have had 200 years of diplomatic relations
https://eu.usatoday.com/story/news/factcheck/2024/03/04/us-not-invading-mexico/72792322007/ False claim US wants to invade Mexico; countries are longtime allies | Fact check
- Mexico would likely expel US law enforcement and intelligence services in the country
- Would stop cooperation with Washington on migration issues
- Would slow down trade along the US border
QUOTE STARTS
- First, Mexico would most likely respond to a U.S. military strike by expelling the DEA and other U.S. law enforcement and intelligence agencies operating in the country.
That would result in an increase in fentanyl smuggling across the border.
- Second, Mexico would also immediately stop cooperating with Washington on migration issues.
Under current bilateral agreements, Mexico is deploying its National Guard to keep migrants from Central America, Venezuela and other countries from crossing the U.S. border. It also allows asylum seekers to wait in Mexico while their petitions are reviewed by U.S. immigration officials
- Third, a U.S. military strike on Mexico would, at the very least, slow down trade along the U.S. border and hurt the U.S. economy.
Unbeknownst to many Americans, Mexico in July [2024] surpassed China as the United States’ largest trading partner. If trade along the border is crippled, U.S. cars prices would skyrocket, because many U.S. vehicles and car parts are imported from Mexico.
- Fourth, a U.S. invasion of Mexico would make a mockery of America’s criticism of Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and of Washington’s defense of the rule of law across the world.
“Any Mexican president, whether it’s the current one or any of his recent predecessors, would react by terminating bilateral cooperation agreements,” former Mexican foreign minister Jorge Castañeda told me.
https://www.miamiherald.com/news/local/news-columns-blogs/andres-oppenheimer/article278616079.html DeSantis’ call for the U.S. to invade Mexico | Opinion
[Added bullet points]
I know that’s from before Trump’s presidency but it gives an idea of the political obstacles here.
Only the last point needs some more comment
The Venezuela strikes and abduction are also illegal. But Maduro was designated a criminal by the US and Venezuela was a country with a leader widely seen as not legitimate and only there because of rigged elections.
It is a form of illegality that the US has often claimed justification for by arguments other countries don’t find plausible.
This would be a far more serious form of illegal to do a strike against a friendly democratic country.
The US also did strikes against alleged terrorists in Pakiistan against Pakistan’s consent under both Bush and Obama.
But Mexico is on far more friendly terms with the US than Pakistan.
Designating Mexican drug caretels as Foreign Terrorist Organisations does NOT give Trump the authority to launch strikes against them
Also designating the Mexican drug cartels as Foreign Terrorist Organizations doesn’t give the US authority to launch military strikes against them legally.
It never designated the Afghan Taliban in that way.
The main thing it does in theory is give more power of enforcement such as tougher prison sentences.
But many of the are designated transnational criminal organizations (TCOs)s already or as Kingpins through the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act.
Compared to that it adds no real extra enforcement powers.
QUOTE STARTS
Many cartels already carry the designation of transnational criminal organizations (TCOs) or have been otherwise identified through the Foreign Narcotics Kingpin Designation Act. Americans are already prohibited from engaging in transactions with a TCO, meaning that an FTO designation does not significantly increase legal leverage.
Both the TCO and the Kingpin Act designations—which allow the U.S. government to impose economic penalties on top foreign drug traffickers and their associates—involve asset freezes. In addition, an existing rewards-for-justice program offers up to $25 million for information leading to the arrest of high-profile organized criminals.
Admittedly, the TCO designation does not have quite the same material support clause as an FTO. But much of the cartels’ activity is already illegal. Moreover, support for a TCO is punishable by criminal penalties up to 20 years in prison or $1 million in criminal fines, and violators of the Kingpin Act can face up to 30 years in prison and/or a $5-10 million fine.
Neither does the FTO designation provide additional authorities to use military force. If an FTO provided more military tools, the Afghan Taliban would have certainly earned this label during the war. But it never was designated as an FTO. Politically, labeling a group “terrorists” may help justify military action and appease U.S. audiences, but an FTO designation alone is insufficient.
https://www.american.edu/spa/news/classifying-cartels-as-ftos-06202025.cfm
Congress DOES have the power to stop strikes on Mexico it already reached a majority int he Senate to start debate on motion to stop further strikes on Venezuela
He can be stopped by Congress. If it came to it they could restrain him with a ⅔ majority in both houses.
They could do this either because Trump already did a strike or made it clear he plans one to the point where there seems a real possibility he’d carry it through.
It’s possible that Congress passes a bill to stop further military action in Venezuela without Congress approval but not likely to reach the ⅔ majority to override the presidential veto.
The Senate advanced a bill to stop all further military action on Venezuela to a discussion which will be followed by a vote. 5 Republicans joined all Democrats.
It can be filibustered by the Republicans so it would take 10 more Republicans to join all he Democcrats and then it would need to pass in the House and finally it needs a ⅔ in both chambers to override the presidential veto.
So this is just symbolic but it already is a level of opposition amongst Republican senators.
There have been many examples of Republicans breaking with Trump recently. For example releasing the Epstein files and they voted 99 to 1 against Trump’s AI bill and many other examples.
This would be a far more serious situation, strikes on Mexico. Especially if he actually did any strikes, I think he would very likely get a ⅔ majority against in both houses to stop the strikes immediately.
Congress does have the power to do that if it so chooses. It’s not limited to the rules it set in previous legislation.
This would be a major international crisis with its closest neighbour and with many people in the US with close ties to Mexico. It would also be clear to many that it would seriously impact on their ability to control immigration from Mexico.
I don’t think Congress would stand by and let Trump do this.
Congress if it wished could pass a bill to prohibit any military strikes anywhere in the world without its authorisation. They are not likely to go that far but they have the power to do that.
If Trump went too far they might possibly do that even as a time limited bill for the duration of his presidency.
