Categories Finance

Survey Indicates Strong Mexican Support for US Military Action Against Cartels

  • 2026年9月15日
  • Estimated read time 12 min read
  • 0 comments

The claim that most Mexicans would endorse U.S. military involvement is not only absurd but also contradicts various recent polls.

Echoing a familiar refrain, the Trump administration has once again intensified its rhetoric regarding potential military action against Mexican drug cartels. Leading this charge is Marco Rubio, who last Thursday (Sept. 10) emphasized that while “the Mexicans have done more than they have ever done to combat these groups, it is simply not sufficient.”

Rubio also revived a misleading allegation popular among certain Trump 2.0 supporters—that Mexico lacks control over significant portions of its territory and, therefore, requires U.S. military assistance, regardless of its own wishes:

“It’s not a mystery to anyone. Extensive areas in Mexico, are not governed by the State; they are indeed under the control of drug trafficking organizations.”

This assertion has faced criticism from experts across the U.S.-Mexico border, including crime journalist Ioan Grillo, who argued:

Furthermore, Rubio remarked that Mexico’s “top issue, as confirmed in numerous surveys” is security, highlighting the alarming rates at which political candidates, judges, and journalists are routinely murdered.

Speaking from the U.S. embassy in Quito, Rubio contrasted the actions taken by Ecuador and Mexico against drug cartels. This comparison is striking given that Mexico’s homicide rate has nearly halved since President Claudia Sheinbaum took office in October 2024, while Ecuador currently grapples with the highest homicide rate in Latin America, standing at 51.3 per 100,000.

Significantly, the dramatic improvement in Mexico’s security—July 2026 was reported as the least violent month in a decade—has seen little coverage in English-language media, with Bloomberg being a notable exception. This lack of attention contradicts the narrative promoted by Washington that suggests Mexico is incapable of ensuring its own security.

In stark contrast, Ecuador’s situation has deteriorated dramatically. Following a security agreement with Washington grounded in the failed Plan Colombia of the Clinton Administration in January 2024, violence has surged. Although Ecuador is not a cocaine-producing country, over 70% of the global supply traverses its borders.

In 2025 alone, the homicide rate rose by 31%, according to Insight Crime. As depicted in the graphic below, the annual homicide count has increased nearly tenfold since 2017, the year Lenin Moreno took office, with subsequent governments seeing the murder rate soar from 5.8 per 100,000 inhabitants to 51.3.

Imagen

Under President Daniel Noboa, who has familial connections to multiple cocaine seizures linked to banana shipments to Europe, violence continues to escalate—ironically, despite his government’s rigorous crackdown. Historical patterns in Colombia and Mexico demonstrate that militarizing the drug war only leads to increased casualties while drug trafficking remains unabated.

Colombia, now under new leadership, has joined the Trump administration’s Americas Counter Cartel Coalition (ACCC or A3C). Rubio has urged Mexico to follow suit, a proposition that may gain traction if the Trump administration offers certain benefits regarding bilateral trade.

“These groups pose significant threats and must be confronted. Our ideal scenario is to address this challenge in collaboration with the Mexican government. However, we will have to face this threat eventually, with or without their cooperation,” Rubio emphasized, reviving the persistent specter of U.S. military intervention in the nation.

A Strange Poll

The day subsequent to Rubio’s remarks, the MAGA-affiliated network News Nation published a report suggesting that a leaked poll purportedly from the U.S. State Department indicated that “a majority of Mexican citizens are in favor of the United States taking action against the cartels controlling Mexico,” which includes:

  • U.S. indictments against Mexican officials alleged to have cartel ties.
  • U.S. military strikes on suspected drug traffickers in the Caribbean and Pacific.
  • U.S. operations targeting drug labs or initiating arrests within Mexico without alerting the Mexican government.
  • The U.S. military autonomously executing alleged cartel members in Mexico.

However, there is a significant issue: the article does not feature the complete document, fails to indicate the organization that conducted the survey, and lacks clarity on the specifics of the questions or responses. All we know is that a local research firm interviewed a mere 1,000 respondents aged 18 and older, a relatively small sample size.”

The story has garnered minimal traction in U.S. media, with even FOX News largely ignoring it. Nonetheless, several Mexican news outlets, such as Excelsior and Aristegui Noticias, reported it largely uncritically, omitting any mention of News Nation’s pro-MAGA bias.

This is not the only poll that has stirred up controversy in Mexico. Recently, Simón Levy, a former government official known for disseminating anti-government misinformation on social media, conducted a Twitter poll. The question posed to Levy’s followers in English—a detail that speaks volumes—was:

As a Mexican, are you willing to allow U.S. special forces to enter Mexico to capture politicians sought by that country?

Unsurprisingly, 89% of Levy’s followers voted in favor. This exercise serves as a reminder of why Twitter polls are often contentious:

  • Results are heavily influenced by the demographic of followers for any particular account; a poll set forth by an individual reflects the biases of that specific audience. In Levy’s case, the majority of followers are fervently pro-U.S. and oppose the Sheinbaum administration.
  • Survey participation requires no identity verification, allowing one person to vote with multiple accounts.
  • Automated bot accounts and fake profiles may easily skew results. Recent controversies in Latin America have shown the populist right often relies heavily on such bots.

Nevertheless, this did not stop Derek Maltz Sr., a former acting administrator of the U.S. Drug Enforcement Agency, from using the survey results to argue that “Mexican citizens overwhelmingly want U.S. military special forces to apprehend corrupt politicians in Mexico.” Journalist Kurt Hackbarth humorously remarked that Maltz’s tweet epitomizes U.S. intervention aspirations:

Maltz Sr further reiterated his claims with another tweet:

Beyond Absurd

Perhaps the most ludicrous aspect of this entire situation is that Mexico is one of the least likely nations in Latin America, if not worldwide, to endorse U.S. military intervention. The country bears deep scars from past interventions, having lost over half its territory to the U.S. in the mid-19th century. Why would it desire a repeat of that history?

In fact, Mexico has faced numerous invasions by its northern neighbor in the last 200 years—at least ten, according to the Council on Hemispheric Affairs. In recognition of this history, Mexico even has a National Museum of Interventions—a unique institution, which is definitely worth a visit if you find yourself in Mexico City.

The idea that a significant portion of Mexicans would advocate for unilateral U.S. military intervention is utterly preposterous. While it’s possible that some might naively believe in the potential benefits of such an intervention, recent surveys reflect a different reality (unassociated with U.S. funding).

A January poll by De Las Heras Demotecnia indicated that 76% of respondents opposed U.S. military intervention. Polls conducted by Bloomberg-affiliated El Financiero frequently assess Mexicans’ views on the prospect of U.S. military action on Mexican soil. The most recent poll published in February indicated that 78% disapproved of the use of U.S. military force to combat criminal groups in Mexico.

This figure represents the highest level of opposition recorded in two years, not surprising given that the poll was conducted shortly after the U.S. military’s assault on Venezuela, the abduction of its president Nicolás Maduro, and the subsequent establishment of a protectorate over the country. An additional 74% were against collaboration with the U.S. to combat organized crime after Donald Trump’s return to the presidency, again marking a two-year high.

In essence, sentiment against U.S. military intervention in Mexico appears to be increasing. In contrast, there is a notable inclination among Mexicans to support the extradition of former Sinaloa governor Rubén Rocha Moya, who is widely believed to have links to the Sinaloa cartel. Polls indicate that 60% favor his extradition, while the daily newspaper Reforma reports support at 57%.

Yet, there is a significant distinction between wanting the Mexican government to extradite a corrupt narco-politician and wishing for U.S. military forces to extract him, a scenario that could mirror the Venezuelan experience—leaving a trail of violence in its wake. This entire narrative appears to be an attempt to manufacture consent for yet another U.S. intervention.

The Trump administration is promoting a three-part narrative: (a) Mexico is unable to govern its own territory; (b) the Mexican government has ties to drug trafficking; and (c) U.S. citizens face increasing risks. This narrative lays the groundwork for escalating measures, including tariff pressures, CIA involvement, or even direct intervention.

It is crucial to understand that the CIA’s purpose is not to combat drug trafficking; rather, it aims to destabilize governments, orchestrate coups, and eliminate obstacles to U.S. dominance. The agency has arguably been the most significant enabler of the global drug trade since World War II, either deliberately or by turning a blind eye to its proliferation in regions spanning Asia (through the Kuomintang and Air America), Europe (the Corsican mafia), and Latin America (Batista, Noriega, Escobar).

As previously mentioned, while drug cartels pose a growing challenge for the U.S. and the Americas, the intensifying campaign against them—now classified as “narco-terrorists”—is, at its core, a facade for further regional exploitation and control.

Mexican historian Cristian Nader recently commented that drug trafficking is not merely an industry; it serves as a vital “gringo lever” for accessing and controlling essential resources:

“If you step back and examine the 19th century, you’ll uncover a revealing fact: drug trafficking as a global industry was pioneered by the United Kingdom. The first major drug trafficker was not Pablo Escobar, but Queen Victoria. The British Empire inundated China with opium cultivated in colonized India—a multifaceted commercial, political, and military operation aimed at undermining China’s resistance to the British ‘free market.’ Drug trade was weaponized to break a nation and subject it to a century of humiliation—this approach has been inherited and refined by the United States.”

Since World War II, the U.S. has understood that drug trafficking can destabilize non-aligned governments, fund covert operations, arm paramilitary groups, and exert influence over its own populace.

Notably, in the early 1940s, when the U.S. required opium during World War II, it sought permission from Mexico to cultivate opium poppies in the mountainous regions of Sinaloa, Durango, and Chihuahua. The famed Golden Triangle was not established by local traffickers but by U.S. initiatives; Mexico has since served as a poppy “orchard” for America.

This logic manifested during the Vietnam War when the CIA launched an airline named Air America, which, while officially serving intelligence purposes, was a front for trafficking opium and heroin from the Golden Triangle countries.

In the years that followed, U.S. military tactics have notably prioritized protecting poppy crops instead of destroying them, as evidenced during the 2001 invasion of Afghanistan.

The War on Drugs fundamentally serves to control strategic resources and supply routes. Current discussions surrounding Venezuelan oil—suggesting it could refill the U.S. Strategic Petroleum Reserve at a significant discount—further highlight this dynamic, as U.S. officials ignore the practical challenges associated with importing Venezuelan oil.

The strategic narratives surrounding resources like oil and lithium in Venezuela and South America also resonate in Mexico, which is rich in silver reserves—an essential material for the ongoing digital transformation—along with lithium and hydrocarbons. To achieve this, Washington needs to construct a compelling narrative, just as it did in Venezuela, to instill fear in U.S. voters.

In a 2012 farewell address to the U.S. House of Representatives, former Republican Congressman Ron Paul aptly observed: “Tragically, our government engages in pre-emptive war, otherwise known as ‘aggression,’ without objections from the American people.”

Leave a Reply

您的邮箱地址不会被公开。 必填项已用 * 标注

You May Also Like

Trump’s Administration: Scandals and Backstabbing Unveiled

Suffolk County Voters Support Write-In Candidate to Fight Corruption and Dysfunction

Europe’s Future: Insights from the ‘Years of Lead’