After a brief phone call with her US counterpart, Donald Trump, President Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo stated that military intervention by Washington in Mexico has been ruled out. At her morning press conference, the president reported that they discussed respect for sovereignty, security, and trade, and revealed that once again, the New Yorker offered her “help” by sending troops to fight the cartels, a proposal she rejected once again.
Although everything indicates that the conversation took place in a cordial tone, with mutual respect, and that for the moment the tycoon’s eagerness to bring his warlike delusions to our country has been appeased, it is clear that the threat remains latent. This was demonstrated by White House spokeswoman Anna Kelly when she spoke of an “excellent conversation with the President of Mexico,” adding that Trump’s main objective “is to stop the scourge of narco-terrorism that is destroying communities across the country, and he is willing to use any tool at his disposal to save American lives.” Hours earlier, Secretary of State Marco Rubio urged Foreign Minister Juan Ramón de la Fuente to strengthen cooperation against “violent narco-terrorist networks.”
This language does not speak of cooperation, but of coercion: it should be remembered that in US law, labeling a person or organization as a “terrorist” opens the door to armed action above and beyond local and international laws. Thus, the erroneous classification of criminal organizations as terrorists is not a strategy to combat crime, but a pretext for the abuse of force, as demonstrated by the murderous blockade against Cuba, the prolonged colonial occupation of Afghanistan and Iraq, the extrajudicial executions of ship crews in the Caribbean, and the kidnapping of the constitutional president of Venezuela, Nicolás Maduro.
As long as the White House persists in confusing crime and terrorism, and as long as Trump places his “own morality” as the only restraint on his actions, without any consideration for laws or human rights, neither Mexico nor any other country can take for granted that it is safe from aggression by the United States, a fact that authorities must keep in mind in any interaction with their counterparts in Washington. A cool head and the ability to dodge the tycoon’s provocations should not be confused with naivety regarding the Republican’s intentions.
Finally, those who justify any excess in the name of combating drug trafficking and addiction would do well to remember that Trump and his predecessors have not used “every tool at their disposal to save American lives”: they have not articulated a reasonably coherent prevention policy, they have not taken action against the pharmaceutical companies that caused the opioid addiction epidemic, they do nothing to expose and dismantle the large criminal groups operating on their own territory, they openly tolerate drug use among the middle and upper classes, and, above all, they promote a financial system and business environment that have made their country the largest money laundering center on the planet. Instead of “offering its help” to export a strategy of violence that has never been successful in reducing drug trafficking, Trumpism should focus on fixing the domestic disaster; for example, by allocating the tens of billions of dollars it wastes on manhunts against migrants whose only crime has been to believe in the myth of the American dream to addiction treatment.
Original text by the editorial desk of La Jornada published on January 13th, 2025.
Translation by Schools for Chiapas.
Unlimited Power: With Trump, Anything Can Happen
The kidnapping of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro and his wife Cilia Flores on January 3 was illegal and unconstitutional. It was a military intervention, without the knowledge or approval of Congress, and President Donald Trump violated international law. Among others, Article 2, Section 4, of the United Nations Charter states: “All Members shall refrain in their international relations from the threat or use of force against the territorial integrity or political independence of any state, or in any other manner inconsistent with the Purposes of the United Nations.”
The UN avoided even the slightest condemnation of this serious violation. Geopolitics in action and the interests at stake in other ongoing conflicts determine non-involvement, a kind of laissez-faire attitude. They did not even call their ambassadors in the United States for consultation.
Ten days after the kidnapping, we can note some of the elements that are important to consider. First, there is no detailed report on the military operation deployed or on the victims, including those from the invading country, which tried to deny that it had suffered any casualties. The news reported by the Cuban government itself was the death of 30 of its guards assigned to the custody and defense of President Maduro; the rest remains completely unclear.
We know that the incursion was intended to bring the victims of the kidnapping before the New York court, where they pleaded not guilty at the first hearing, and President Maduro stated that he remains the president of Venezuela.
The indictment concerns involvement in drug trafficking. This pretext, based on very flimsy evidence, has been abandoned by Trump in recognition that what is really at stake is control over Venezuela’s oil.
Since the announcement of the kidnapping, President Trump has effectively assumed command of the Republic of Venezuela. Regardless of the country’s internal decisions, he announced that he had spoken with Vice President Delcy Rodríguez and reached agreements, threatening that if she did not comply, she would fare worse than President Maduro. This cast doubt on her constitutional appointment as acting president in the absence of the president.
In addition to this stance, he publicly denied his endorsement of Nobel Peace Prize winner Corina Machado to take the helm of the country. Along with the priority of direct control and trade of oil, he publicly stated that Venezuela should break relations with Cuba, China, and Russia, and announced on January 7 that the “interim authorities of Venezuela will deliver between 30 and 50 million barrels of high-quality oil to the United States.”
Oil, he said, will be sold at market prices and “the money will be controlled by me, as president of the United States.” To this end, he has met with oil companies in his country and is in the process of lifting sanctions he had imposed on Venezuela as limitations on its oil policy.
At the same time, he has opened fronts against Cuba and Colombia and maintains his intention to take over Greenland. This imperialist policy has a history of aggression by the US government: Iraq, Libya, Syria, Honduras, Panama, Venezuela, Iran, Cuba, and now Venezuela again.
In this context, the reformer of the Monroe Doctrine has reactivated his threat against Mexico, considering that it is governed by cartels. In the United States, society is divided, and two initiatives have been promoted in Congress. The Senate approved the decision to prohibit new military aggression against Venezuela without explicit authorization from Congress, which still must be approved by the House of Representatives and enacted by the president.
On the other hand, in the case of Mexico, a group of legislators sent a letter referring to US military action within Mexico without Mexico’s consent and without congressional authorization. They argued about the negative impacts this would have on trade and society, as well as weighing up Mexico’s extradition of drug lords to the US.
Within our country, we find that critical positions have been expressed regarding the defense of and solidarity with Venezuela; they speak, for example, of “outdated nationalism” or that radical slogans should be avoided, and they emphasize criticism of President Maduro more than condemnation of the policy of intervention. At the risk of being accused of editorial nepotism, I must point out that the newspaper La Jornada has provided outstanding coverage of the analysis and information, as well as the regional and global implications. What is clear is that the outcome of the conflict is not yet clear.
President Trump stated that “my own morality. My own conscience. That’s the only thing that can stop me.” What morality is he referring to?
Original text by Magdalena Gómez published in La Jornada on January 13th, 2026.
Translated by Schools for Chiapas.