On Mexico’s Independence Day, Trump’s Bombs Edge Closer

From fireworks to firepower: Venezuela today, Mexico tomorrow, the line between law and force is collapsing.

Two strikes in two weeks. That’s what the Trump administration has now admitted to carrying out against alleged Venezuelan drug-smuggling vessels in international waters.

Strike One (Sept. 2): A speedboat in the southern Caribbean was destroyed, 11 killed. The White House claimed the vessel belonged to the Tren de Aragua gang, newly designated as a foreign terrorist organization. But reporting since has raised serious doubts: people familiar with the incident say the boat was actually turning back after spotting the U.S. aircraft overhead when it was struck.

President Trump insisted it was self-defense. Venezuelan Interior Minister Diosdado Cabello said none of the dead were drug traffickers, citing investigations and families of the victims. The Pentagon has refused to say whether the boat was retreating at the time of the strike.

Strike Two (Sept. 15): Another “narco-terrorist” boat destroyed, three killed. This time, President Trump himself announced the strike from the White House podium, saying the U.S. military would use “every tool at our disposal” to stop drug traffickers.

The administration has released video footage of the strikes, but little else. No independent evidence of narcotics. No verifiable proof of who was on board. Just a sweeping claim of self-defense, even as the facts grow murkier by the day.

Venezuela is an easy target for this White House, isolated, vilified, and aligned with U.S. adversaries. But here’s the bigger question: who’s next?

This isn’t hypothetical. During the 2023 GOP presidential debates, there was one moment that I’ve never forgotten. Multiple Republican candidates openly floated using U.S. military force inside Mexico:

• Ron DeSantis said suspected smugglers would end up “stone cold dead” and pledged to use the U.S. military against cartels.

• Nikki Haley promised to send American special forces into Mexico.

• Vivek Ramaswamy accused Mexico’s president at the time of treating cartels as his “sugar daddy” and declared that if elected, “there will be a new daddy in town.”

• Donald Trump, then the frontrunner, vowed new military operations and covert action if he returned to the White House.

Fast forward to now: The Trump administration is actively weighing military action against cartels in Mexico.

Pentagon deliberations have apparently ranged from Navy destroyer missile strikes on cartel infrastructure to armed drone operations inside Mexico. A working group involving the Pentagon, DHS, and intelligence agencies has been meeting since the start of Trump’s second term. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth has already been briefed on options.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has publicly rejected any unilateral U.S. action, but the White House has designated cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, a move that dramatically expands the president’s claimed authority to use military force.

Democratic U.S. Sen. Tim Kaine of Virginia warned:

“Signing a secret directive to potentially send U.S. servicemembers into harm’s way — without consulting Congress, notifying the American people, or any legal authority to launch strikes within the sovereign territory of our neighbors — is shortsighted and lawless.”

And yet, this is exactly where things are heading. The strikes on Venezuelan boats look less like outliers and more like test runs.

I’ve Seen This Before

This isn’t abstract for me. During Trump’s first term, I received a late evening call at home from Stephen Miller. He wanted to discuss proposals to bomb cartel strongholds in Mexico. I was taken aback, stunned that a senior White House adviser was seriously pushing military strikes against a sovereign neighbor. And it was not lost on me who Miller chose to call: the Mexican-American on staff, Vice President Mike Pence’s homeland security advisor. It felt like an attempt to use my identity and my family’s personal tragedy at the hands of cartels to lend legitimacy to his plan, and to pressure me into helping secure Pence’s buy-in. But I refused to lend credibility to an idea that was reckless and unlawful. As if my background could serve as cover for a policy that would have crossed one of the gravest lines in international relations.

Let me be clear: cartels are brutal, violent organizations. They’ve murdered innocent people, and I’ve lost family members myself to their violence in Mexico. I have no sympathy for them. But that doesn’t mean the United States simply bomb cartel targets inside of Mexico at will or anywhere else for that matter. Unilateral U.S. military strikes in Mexico would violate long-standing international norms, risk shattering one of our most important bilateral relationships, and set a precedent that other countries, including our adversaries, would be all too eager to exploit.

That moment has stayed with me. And it’s why I read Project 2025’s language about Mexico, starting on page 587, with such alarm. When I see it describe Mexico as “arguably functioning as a failed state run by drug cartels” and openly contemplate military involvement at the border, which is already happening now, I know these aren’t abstract words. I’ve seen how the seeds of those ideas were already being planted inside the Trump White House. And I fear we’re watching them sprout now. In short, Project 2025 not only emphasizes cartels as a top-tier threat, it portrays Mexico itself as compromised by them, and explicitly leaves the door open to U.S. military involvement at the border.

Which raises the urgent question: How far will that reach go?

The actions we are seeing by the Trump Administration on Venezuela stretch, if not break, the law. Designating cartels as terrorist groups does not authorize military force against them. It enables sanctions and prosecutions, not missile strikes. Under international law, military force requires either the consent of the affected state, United Nations authorization, or a valid claim of self-defense against an armed attack or imminent threat. Striking a boat that appeared to be turning back does not meet that bar. Military force is only justified if there’s an actual armed attack or an imminent one, and it must be a necessary and proportional response. That’s clearly not what happened here.

Today, Mexico celebrates its Independence Day, a holiday about sovereignty and freedom from foreign domination. And yet, across the border, the U.S. administration is not only bombing Venezuelan boats but openly preparing military plans for Mexico.

Will they actually consult Congress before carrying out such a strike? They didn’t when it came to Venezuela. Why would they start now? The administration calls these actions “self-defense.” But what they really mark is a collapse of the line between policing and war.

If the White House can bomb boats today, it can bomb anything tomorrow. Venezuela is just the first test. And on the very day Mexico celebrates its independence, its sovereignty is already under threat.

America should be asking: Is this about drugs, or about unchecked power?

More soon,

Olivia