Why experts believe Trump’s plan to “take out” Mexican drug cartels vastly simplifies structures

Just hours after the US military operation to capture Venezuelan leader Nicolás Maduro — accused by Washington of “narco-terrorism” — President Donald Trump suggested he could broaden his campaign to target Mexican drug-trafficking organizations. While Mexico may appear, at least on the surface, to be a logical extension of what Trump has framed as a renewed war on drugs, experts caution that the realities on the ground differ sharply from the administration’s apparent assumptions, raising serious risks for any potential US military involvement.

Mexico is the primary source of US-bound fentanyl and a key transit corridor for cocaine from Colombia. Yet specialists warn that Trump’s depiction of the Mexican underworld — dominated by a handful of cartels that could be quickly dismantled — does not reflect how criminal networks actually function, as depicted in an article by the CNN network.

Refined hierarchies of operations

In the 1980s and 1990s, Mexico’s drug trade was largely controlled by a small number of powerful cartels, many operating close to the US border. That image, still common in popular culture, has become outdated. Most of those organizations have splintered, and the landscape is now far more fragmented. Roughly 400 criminal groups of varying size operate across the country today, said Eduardo Guerrero, director of Lantia Intelligence, a Mexican consulting firm that monitors organized crime.

“They’re practically everywhere,” Guerrero said, adding that the largest groups have grown increasingly complex. Mexico’s most powerful organization, the Jalisco New Generation Cartel, now consists of around 90 separate groups, up from 45 just a few years ago.

“This fragmentation has meant that you’ll need a more complex, more sophisticated strategy to weaken and dismember them,” he said.

Experts also stress that targeting a handful of cartel leaders would not necessarily disrupt an industry worth billions of dollars annually. Mexican authorities pursued an aggressive “kingpin” strategy beginning in 2007, arresting or killing dozens of top traffickers with US support. The result was not a collapse of the drug trade, but the rapid emergence of new leaders and continued drug flows into the United States.

The cartels have evolved into sprawling economic systems with large consumer bases, resembling multinational corporations more than insurgent groups, Benjamin T. Smith, author of “The Dope: The Real History of the Mexican Drug Trade” told the network.

“If you took out the CEO of Coca-Cola tomorrow, you wouldn’t stop Coca-Cola sales,” Smith said. “As long as you have a major demand for the drugs, you’re not going to get rid of the supply.”

Analysts argue that the kingpin approach has often worsened violence by splintering groups into smaller factions that fight each other and the state. Many cartels now focus on territorial control, imposing “taxes” on legal businesses such as avocado producers, as well as on smugglers moving drugs and migrants toward the US border. Those who refuse to pay face lethal consequences.

Security conditions are further complicated by the absence of clear authority. “No one is firmly in control, neither the cartels nor the government,” said Falko Ernst, a researcher specializing in Mexican organized crime. While the state dominates in some areas, armed groups effectively rule others.

Criminal influence has increasingly seeped into politics, with the article recalling how gangs openly attempted to install their own mayors in certain regions during Mexico’s 2024 elections. Three dozen candidates were killed, and hundreds more withdrew due to threats and intimidation.

Geopolitics, sovereignty and the risk of escalation

Asked whether the Trump administration was oversimplifying the cartel threat, White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly pointed CNN to the National Security Strategy and the Monroe Doctrine, the 19th-century policy warning foreign powers against interference in the Western Hemisphere.

Unlike Maduro, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has maintained relatively cordial relations with Trump. However, she has firmly rejected the idea of US troops operating on Mexican soil, stressing that cooperation does not mean subordination.

Her stance reflects deep sensitivities. US military action could provoke public backlash rooted in historical memory, resistance from Sheinbaum’s leftist Morena party, and opposition from Mexico’s nationalist armed forces. It could also ignite widespread violence.

The Pacific state of Sinaloa illustrates the danger. Last summer, traffickers apparently coordinating with US authorities captured cartel leader Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada, triggering an internal war that left thousands dead or missing.

Experts remain divided over whether Washington would ultimately act against Mexico, now the United States’ largest trading partner. Trump, however, reiterated this week that “we have to do something” about drugs “pouring through Mexico,” calling Sheinbaum “a little afraid” to accept US troops and repeating his claim that “the cartels are running Mexico.”

By Nazrin Sadigova