Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum played down the risk of U.S. military action against drug cartels in Mexico after President Donald Trump raised the idea in threats following a U.S. operation in Venezuela, according to analysts and officials cited by The Associated Press.
In comments made Monday, Sheinbaum said she did not see risks of U.S. military intervention in Mexico. “I don’t see risks (of that),” she said, adding that there was “coordination” and “collaboration with the United States government.”
Sheinbaum also rejected the prospect of invasion. “I don’t believe in (the possibility of) invasion, I don’t believe even that it’s something they are taking seriously,” she said, arguing that “Organized crime is not taken care with (foreign military) intervention.”
AP reported that Mexican authorities and outside analysts dismissed the likelihood of unilateral U.S. military action against Mexican cartels, even as Trump’s threats continued. Analysts said the expectations in Mexico were shaped by the broader context that followed the Venezuela operation, but they also emphasized that Mexico’s relationship with the United States differs in key ways.
One reason cited for the skepticism was that Mexico is not Venezuela. AP said Sheinbaum is a “popular and legitimately elected president,” and it cited Mexico’s role as the main commercial partner of the United States, where about 40 million Mexicans live. Martha Bárcena, a former Mexican ambassador to the United States, said U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio has recognized “high-level cooperation with Mexico.”
Another explanation was that threats could function as leverage rather than as an announced plan. David Saucedo, a Mexican security analyst, said the threat is part of a “negotiation weapon” strategy aimed at “commercial, diplomatic and political advantages.” He told AP that Rubio and Trump “play good cop, bad cop,” with Trump threatening while Rubio smooths things over.
Saucedo also argued that the practical costs of military action would be high for the United States. He said U.S. intervention in Mexico would “require money, logistics and risks,” while “a comment, a post on social networks doesn’t cost anything” and has been “very effective.”
AP also reported that Mexico has been complying with much of what Washington has requested since Trump began imposing tariffs. It said Sheinbaum’s administration has taken a tougher stance toward cartels than her predecessor, including more arrests, drug seizures, and extraditions, and it has agreed to receive more deportees from other countries.
Carlos Pérez Ricart, a political analyst at Mexico’s Center for Economic Research and Teaching (CIDE), said U.S. intervention would jeopardize that cooperation. “Intervention, military action in Mexico would suspend that cooperation,” he said, adding that it would be “a great risk to the U.S.” because it would leave the United States “without a partner to work with.”
Analysts said more pressure could follow. They pointed to the timing of U.S.-Mexico-Canada free trade agreement negotiations and the broader antidrug cooperation agenda, which AP said is likely to shape how Washington presses Mexico. Saucedo said Trump could seek more access for U.S. security agencies, even if operations are framed publicly as coordinated with Mexico. He also said Trump could pressure Mexico for more high-profile captures, ask Mexico to stop exporting oil to Cuba, or threaten new tariffs.
Arturo Sarukhán, another former Mexican ambassador to the U.S., told AP that the Mexican government “will have to be very meticulous in its position and statements” because of ongoing talks over punitive tariffs, the “statutory revision of the USMCA,” and the “delicate antidrug cooperation agenda.” Sarukhán said rallying around Maduro “would cost Mexico dearly,” and he said Mexico’s support of Cuba could carry costs as well.
In AP’s account, Bárcena said Mexico still needs to address political corruption tied to organized crime while defending international law. While acknowledging the low odds of intervention, analysts said no one was prepared to rule out a U.S. move entirely.
Pérez Ricart attributed that caution to what he described as unpredictability in U.S. decision-making. “The United States does not function under rational logic,” he said, adding: “At this moment all possibilities are open, including those unimaginable a year ago.”