• Trump and others have floated sending US special operations forces to Mexico to combat cartels.
• Experts told Business Insider that intervention in Mexico could create instability.
• SOF missions like foreign internal defense could be prudent, but only to augment nonmilitary approaches.

Trump world is kicking around the idea of sending special operations forces into Mexico to combat drug cartels. There's a risk these operations could make things worse, experts said.

While designating Mexican cartels as "foreign terrorist organizations" on Monday, President Donald Trump was asked by reporters whether he would consider sending US special operations personnel to Mexico.

"Could happen," the president said, noting that "stranger things have happened."

Experts on the cartels and warfare said that sending any military troops into Mexico risks stirring instability, which could then spill over the border into US territory.

"I don't think that the American people have the stomach for what's going to happen if we start messing around down there," a senior active-duty special operator told Business Insider, speaking on condition of anonymity because he wasn't authorized to speak to the media.

"Just throwing any military mechanism at this problem for the purpose of just killing cartel leaders is not going to change anything," he said. "It's only going to make things worse."

Trump floated the idea of military intervention in Mexico in his first term, but his team now appears to be considering the idea more seriously.

"How much should we invade Mexico?" a transition team member told Rolling Stone in November 2024 for a report on Trump's musings about combating cartels in Mexico. "That is the question."

Trump's new national security advisor, Mike Waltz, a former Green Beret, has pushed the idea of using special operators. And Trump's "border czar," Tom Homan, has said that special operations forces could be used to take the cartels out, or "take them off the face of the Earth."

Direct action raids — hard-hitting missions US special operations is known for and which Trump appears inclined to pursue — on Mexican soil would bring disastrous consequences, especially if conducted without an invitation from Mexico, the operator and other experts BI spoke with warned. But other, less kinetic missions, like training foreign troops or improving foreign internal defense, could prove worthwhile, they said.

Such missions have long been the bread and butter of forces like the Army's Green Berets. With Trump's formal designation of cartels as foreign terrorist organizations, those kinds of missions could augment other government efforts to more effectively stem the flow of drugs into the US, sources told BI.

An idea that keeps coming up

The idea of using special operators to combat cartels in Mexico has gained traction among leading Republicans, particularly military veterans. Before Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis, a former naval officer, ended his bid for the White House, he told CNN that if elected president, he would deploy US special operations forces into Mexico "on day one."

In 2023, Waltz, then a congressional representative from Florida, and Dan Crenshaw, a Texas congressman and former Navy SEAL, introduced new Authorization of Military Force legislation aimed at Mexican cartels. Such legislation is notably not often quickly reversed — both of the AUMFs that allowed the Global War on Terror to balloon in scope are still in place.

Wanting to send special operations forces into Mexico is understandable, said Bruce Hoffman, a senior fellow for counterterrorism and homeland security at the Council on Foreign Relations. Other measures have failed to curb the flow of drugs into the US, though some of the efforts at home appear to be working, as deaths from fentanyl overdoses are finally on the decline.

But special operations is much smaller than conventional military forces, he said, and isn't designed to solve every problem that might warrant military intervention.

"Despite the public imagination, SOF is not on a regular basis engaged in the kinds of operations that people often imagine, that are depicted in Hollywood," Hoffman said.

"They're engaged in less glamorous things like training indigenous forces, gathering intelligence, psychological operations, [and] civil affairs," he said.

Bolstering Mexico's internal defenses could be a worthwhile endeavor, the active-duty special operator told BI, but prioritizing military intervention over non-violent approaches, like empowering the State and Treasury departments to apply pressure on the financial institutions used by cartels, would be foolhardy.

The dangers of getting it wrong

Violence against cartels could trigger a humanitarian crisis and spur more immigration to the US, said Guadalupe Correa-Cabrera, a professor at George Mason University who has extensively studied cartels.

Mexican civilians caught in the crossfire would likely flee communities, which could create a refugee crisis, she said. "They are going to apply for asylum in a desperate situation," she said, calling the idea of immediate military intervention illogical.

It's not as simple as killing top leaders either. Complicating the grip cartels have on Mexican society is their seemingly infinite complexity, she said.

"We're not talking about businesses that operate vertically, like El Chapo and El Mayo, and all these guys that provide orders to everyone," she said, referring to two infamous drug kingpins. Most cartels operate with less centralized command structures and are splintered into smaller cells. Some of these focus on drug movements and production, while others focus on kidnapping, extortion, and human smuggling.

If the goal is to limit the reach of the cartels and the violence and the destruction that comes with them, "you are going to get the exact opposite effect" if you start killing leaders, said Carolyn Gallaher, a professor at American University who studies cartels, in an interview with BI.

Top leaders can be easily replaced by others zealously vying for power, creating an even more complex battlefield for American troops and Mexican civilians.

"When you start fighting an army that is not behaving like a regular military, you are basically in the middle of civilian life," Gallaher said. "And you don't have an accurate way to differentiate between civilian and soldier."

Doug Livermore, vice president of the Special Operations Association of America and a senior Green Beret officer in the National Guard who has written about narcoterrorism, said special operations is just one tool in the vast US government toolbox, and can't be the main effort.

"A military approach by itself will not be sufficient. It will not solve the problem," Livermore told BI.

He suggested a broader approach involving US special operations-provided intelligence or efforts to bolster internal security. However, Livermore said rampant corruption in Mexico's government agencies could complicate these efforts.

He also recommended a closer examination and targeting of China's role in the US drug crisis, pointing to the supply of chemical and financial support to cartels.

It's unclear what endstates the Trump administration desires to achieve to define success, said the SOF operator. Lacking such parameters could lead to another quagmire. It seems likely, however, that any effective operation to dismantle them will take years, he said.

"It's not done in a short amount of time; it takes consistent effort and partnership," the operator said. "It's going to take a generation or two; it's not going to be done in four years."

• DARPA seeks to modify red blood cells to enhance troop performance.
• The Red Blood Cell Factory program aims to insert biologically active components in cells.
• The agency says this research could one day lead to longer-lasting meds and blood-cell drug delivery systems.

The Defense Advanced Research Project Agency, the Pentagon's top research arm, wants to know if red blood cells can be modified in novel ways to protect troops and help them manage extreme battlefield environments.

The DARPA program, known as "Red Blood Cell Factory," is looking for researchers and is interested in inserting "biologically active components" or "cargoes" in red blood cells. The hope is that modified cells would bring with them special enhancements, "thus allowing recipients, such as warfighters, to operate more effectively in dangerous or extreme environments."

Red blood cells could act like a truck, carrying "cargo" or special protections, to all parts of the body, since they already circulate oxygen everywhere, Christopher Bettinger, a professor of biomedical engineering overseeing the program, told Business Insider.

"What if we could add in additional cargo … inside of that disc," Bettinger said, referring to the shape of red blood cells, "that could then confer these interesting benefits … protective capabilities that we're trying to sort of imbue to our warfighters?"

What could these modifications do?

DARPA does not expect the researchers to experiment on people or animals, just on bags of blood. The research is foundational, Bettinger said, but could allow scientists to identify how red blood cell modification could evolve over time.

The research could impact the way troops battle diseases that reproduce in red blood cells such as malaria, for example, Bettinger hypothesized.

"Imagine an alternative world where we have a warfighter that has a red blood cell that's accessorized with a compound that can sort of defeat malaria," Bettinger said. In this scenario, a red blood cell could be "accessorized" with a countermeasure.

"It's kind of like an automatic drug delivery system," he said, "that could then protect the warfighter from the harmful effects of subsequent infection and sort of replication of the parasite."

It could also be possible to modify the red blood cells in ways that would allow medications to last longer without a service member having to ingest them daily — instead, relying on doses that protect a person for weeks or months instead of just 24 hours.

Another potential use of modified cells could be stopping a hemorrhage from trauma, including battlefield wounds.

"Trauma induces a kind of host of biological responses, one of which is rupturing of red blood cells," Bettinger said. DARPA's research efforts could ascertain from its blood research whether a catastrophic injury that would normally mean death from blood loss instead sees blood automatically coagulate.

A path to a more capable warfighter

"Each red blood cell stays in the blood for about four months, and it accesses pretty much every organ in the body," said Samir Mitragotri, a professor of bioengineering at Harvard. Their prevalence and relatively long lifetime are partly why red blood cells are such an attractive target for scientists.

Part of the challenge, Mitragotri said, is that the cells can't be so radically changed that the body no longer recognizes them as red blood cells, thus prompting quicker bodily digestion.

Such advances in bioengineering could be a game-changer in fields like infectious disease treatment and oncology, said Mitragotri, illnesses which require long periods of drug treatment. Though the science is still emerging, it's "a very promising area," he said.

The Department of Defense has long been interested in learning how biomedical engineering could benefit troops.

For years, the US military has been looking into the benefits of biofeedback technologies to better understand mental and physical health. And there's also been research into potential physical enhancements through various lines of effort.

In 2019, for instance, the Army released a "Cyborg Soldier 2050" report detailing how the military is thinking about a future where troops could benefit from things like neural and optical enhancements, though the report acknowledged ethical and legal concerns surrounding such possibilities.

US rivals like China are, as the Foundation for the Defense of Democracies noted in a new report, also exploring this space, but with less concern for ethical considerations.

The Chinese People's Liberation Army "has long recognized the strategic importance of biotechnology, engaging in extensive collaborations with Chinese biotechnology behemoths," the report said. "These and other partnerships have yielded research with potential military applications, including efforts to enhance Chinese soldiers' physical and cognitive abilities."

• Mark Milley's Pentagon portrait was removed shortly after Trump took office.
• Milley was hired by Trump as a top military advisor only to later fall out of favor.
• The former chairman of the Joint Chiefs served under Biden, retired in 2023, and received a preemptive pardon.

The Pentagon portrait of former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff Gen. Mark Milley was suddenly removed Monday shortly after President Donald Trump took office.

The portrait had been displayed in the Pentagon for less than two weeks before being taken down. The painting previously hung in a corridor filled with portraits of past chairmen.

When asked why Milley's portrait was taken down, Pentagon officials declined to comment on the matter. Voice of America's Carla Babb talked to the painters who patched up the holes where the portrait had been hanging. She reported they said they were doing as told and had not been given a reason.

Trump hired Milley for his position as chairman, though Milley later fell out of favor.

There had been clashes behind the scenes, such as a shouting match with Trump over nationwide racial justice protests in 2020. But the rift became more noticeable after Milley apologized for appearing in a photo op with Trump after the forceful clearing of protesters in DC. That rift has only gotten wider with time, especially as Milley's concerns about Trump have come out in reports and books.

Trump has expressed irritation with Milley's characterizations of his administration and the president himself in discussions with reporters, criticized Milley for US failures in Afghanistan, calling him a "loser," and has called for the former top general to be "tried for treason" in response to his efforts to ensure nuclear and geopolitical stability after the events of January 6, 2021.

The Joint Chiefs of Staff do not have command of troops, unlike military combatant commanders. The job is an advisory role for the highest levels of US leadership, including the president.

Milley continued to serve as Chairman under President Joe Biden and retired in October 2023. In discussions with investigative journalist Bob Woodward, Milley has called Trump a "fascist" and expressed concern he could be court-martialed.

In the final hours of the Biden Administration, Milley was granted a preemptive pardon by Biden, who said in a statement that the pardon, and Milley's acceptance, doesn't indicate any wrongdoing or guilt by Milley.

Biden's statement said that "our nation owes these public servants a debt of gratitude for their tireless commitment to our country."

• Pete Hegseth faced intense questioning over his comments about women in combat roles.
• Hegseth walked back his opposition but said he'd order a review of gender-neutral standards.
• The military does not have a quota for women in combat roles as Hegseth had suggested.

President-elect Donald Trump's pick to lead the Pentagon, Pete Hegseth, walked back his outspoken opposition to women serving in the US military's combat jobs as he faced intense questioning from lawmakers on Tuesday.

Hegseth, an Army veteran of Iraq and Fox News host, had built a large following with blunt commentary that criticized female troops and claimed standards had been lowered to help them. But in the Senate hearing, he signaled he wouldn't attempt to ban women from combat roles, a backtrack that may have been necessary to get enough votes.

Sen. Joni Ernst, an Iowa Republican and Iraq veteran whose support has been seen as pivotal, asked if Hegseth supports women continuing to serve in combat roles.

"Yes, exactly the way that you caveated it," Hegseth said. "Yes, women will have access to ground combat roles, given the standards remain high, and we'll have a review to ensure the standards have not been eroded in any one of these cases."

Hegseth said that if he's confirmed by the GOP-led Senate, he would initiate a review of gender-neutral standards within the Pentagon for combat jobs held by female service members.

Hegseth had been a vociferous critic of the 2015 lifting of combat exclusions for women.

"I'm straight-up just saying we should not have women in combat roles," Hegseth said in an interview after Trump's re-election in November. Combat roles include jobs in the infantry, artillery, and special operations, among others.

"They're gonna change the standards, they're gonna push the quotas," he continued during the interview. "They pushed that under Obama in a way that had nothing, zero to do with efficiency… with lethality," he said.

The military does not have a quota requirement for women who fill combat roles and Hegseth's claims to the contrary provoked a confrontation before the Senate Armed Services Committee.

"Commanders do not have to have a quota for women in the infantry," Sen. Kirsten Gillibrand, a New York Democrat, said during questioning. "That does not exist."

According to Military.com, almost 700 female Marines currently serve in infantry jobs, over 700 serve in the Navy's submarine forces and nearly 4,000 in the Army hold combat-related jobs. Roughly 98% of the Army's armor and infantry jobs were held by men as of 2020.

Since opening ground combat jobs to women in 2015, critics have contended that women who passed notoriously grueling training is a result of lowered physical standards, putting combat missions at-risk of catastrophe.

Ground combat roles were opened to female service members only after years of war in Iraq and Afghanistan in which women routinely found themselves in a grey zone, operating outside the wire at a time when restrictions on women in combat at times burdened units with bureaucratic red tape.

In the hearing, Hegseth emphasized his focus would be on the Defense Department's warrior ethos and making troops and the arms they carry even deadlier, implying that his earlier opposition to women stemmed from concern over fair and rigorous standards.

"Our standards will be high, and they will be equal — not equitable, that is a very different word," Hegseth said in his opening statement. "When President Trump chose me for this position, the primary charge he gave me was to bring the warrior culture back to the Department of Defense."

Since women began attending sought-after training schools, allegations have popped up about unequal treatment. Military news site Air Force Times reported in 2021 concerns from a female student at the Air Force's special operations course who questioned whether course standards were lowered for her.

The US Army has repeatedly said it did not lower standards for female soldiers at Ranger School, over 100 of whom now wear its coveted tab on their sleeve.

• The secretary of defense nominee pledged to re-recruit troops discharged over COVID-19 vaccine refusal.
• Over 8,400 troops were separated due to the vaccine mandate, which has now been rescinded.
• Hegseth said discharged troops should receive back pay, restored ranks, and an apology.

President-elect Donald Trump's pick for secretary of defense, Pete Hegseth, pledged Tuesday to re-recruit troops forced out of the military for refusing to receive the COVID-19 vaccine, and said they would receive back pay, restored ranks, and an apology.

"Service members who were kicked out because of the experimental vaccine," Hegseth told lawmakers, "they will be apologized to. They will be reinstituted with pay and rank."

Hegseth, if confirmed by the Senate, would build on the groundwork laid by Trump, who told supporters last summer he would "rehire every patriot who was fired from the military," because of the vaccine mandate.

Over 8,400 troops were separated from the services after refusing to receive the vaccine following a lawful order from Secretary of Defense Lloyd Austin in 2021. The Pentagon argued that the vaccines, similar to over a dozen others servicemembers receive, were crucial to military readiness.

The Pentagon reversed course and dropped the vaccine mandate in 2023 following a decision by Congress. At that time, it stopped separating troops who had not received the shot. Roughly 99% of the active-duty Navy, Marine Corps, and Air Force had been vaccinated and around 98% of the Army. Guard and Reserve rates were lower but over 90%.

Sen. Jim Banks, a Republican from Indiana, asked if Hegseth Tuesday if he would commit to "recruit these folks back" with back pay.

"I will commit to this because the Commander in Chief has committed to this," Hegseth replied. "Not only will they be reinstated, they will receive an apology, back pay, and rank that they lost because they were forced out due to an experimental vaccine."

Top military brass considered the possibility of providing back pay to troops after the vaccine mandate was repealed in early 2023, but Hegseth's remarks Tuesday drive home the incoming administration's intent to re-recruit separated troops back into the military. It is the first such indication since Trump won reelection in November.

Such a change could affect the Marine Corps, the DoD's smallest service, the most — of the roughly 8,400 troops discharged, 3,717 were Marines. For the other services, 2,041 were discharged from the Navy, 1,841 from the Army, and 834 from the Air Force.

Republicans have long criticized these separations, arguing they were unnecessary and detrimental amid US military recruitment struggles. The military, however, maintained that the mandate was a lawful order essential to readiness and the well-being of the force.

• The Air Force and Space Force must grow over the next two decades to counter emerging threats.
• China's rapid military advancements pose a significant challenge.
• The US is boosting cyber defenses and AI, with "machine speed" being necessary for some decisions.

Winning wars 25 years from now will hinge on achieving an edge in artificial intelligence and the ability to make certain decisions at inhuman speeds, the US Air Force's top civilian official said Monday.

Future war will be "highly automated, highly autonomous, action at long range, precision," and space will be a "decisive theater," Air Force Secretary Frank Kendall said. "Response times to bring effects to bear are very short."

Advances in technology, including the proliferation of sensor technology and machine learning, have led to the ability to execute complex kill chains on faster timelines. Maintaining a competitive edge demands change and further innovation.

"We're going to be in a world," Kendall said, "where decisions will not be made at human speed; they're going to be made at machine speed." Meeting that challenge will mean transforming the Department of the Air Force through AI to shield troops from a range of threats and prepare for higher-level combat.

Kendall's remarks on Monday at a Center for Strategic and International Studies event looking at Air Force plans for the future align with Air Force leadership visions for 2050.

A December 2024 report titled The Department of the Air Force in 2050 says that the "areas of conflict that move at speeds vastly exceeding human decision time constants, such as cyber warfare and electronic warfare, are likely to be dominated by AI technologies that assess events happening at unimaginably fast speeds and unimaginably small dimensions."

"These technologies will be used to make crucial decisions with no possibility of human intervention," the report says. "Victory or defeat in the air or in space at the human scale is likely to be determined by which combatant has fielded the most advanced AI technology in the areas most crucial to achieving victory."

The Air Force secretary has previously said that he doesn't think people who say that AI is "going to determine who's the winner in the next battlefield" are "all that far off."

What Air Force leadership says is needed for future fights

"China is doing everything it can to exploit the opportunities that emerging technologies are providing to field forces designed to defeat the United States in the Western Pacific, especially in space and in the air," the Air Force plans for 2050 say.

The Air Force and Space Force have expressed concern over the pace at which China has been developing military space capabilities, including a network of hundreds of military satellites that may assist in targeting troops, among other challenges.

"The joint force will not be able to go anywhere and do anything unless we can protect it from targetings in space," Kendall explained Monday.

A more powerful Space Force is a must to combat China's growing abilities, Kendall said. "We have to go from having a merchant marine [force] to essentially having a Navy," the secretary said, comparing where the force is today and where it needs to eventually be to civilian cargo mariners and armed naval forces.

The Space Force was established during the first Trump administration and remains in the early stages of development. But strengthening US technological capabilities doesn't stop there.

The US needs to boost defense against cyber-attacks while also increasing offensive capabilities, Kendall said, adding that he expects more developments on both fronts this year. That sentiment comes on the heels of a recent alarming hack of US telecommunications systems and the US treasury, allegedly by Chinese hackers.

Autonomous vehicles and aircraft are also expected to become more prolific and play a greater role in future wars. "The only open questions about autonomy are how fast it will mature and what form it will take," the Air Force said in its report on 2050.

"The direction is quite clear at this point," it said. "By 2050, we can reasonably expect autonomous vehicle operation to be the norm, in all domains."

The Air Force has already begun experimenting with AI-assisted flight navigation for some of its jets in anticipation of a space attack that could cripple satellite-based GPS communication. It is also developing uncrewed collaborative combat aircraft and experimenting with AI-piloted fighter aircraft, key developments amid Beijing's investment in its own air forces, which is gradually eroding American air supremacy.

Autonomous military platforms and other variants of AI rely so heavily on chip technology, which the Biden Administration has put new restrictions on.

"To enhance US national security and economic strength, it is essential that we do not offshore this critical technology and that the world's AI runs on American rails," read the White House announcement.

But one of the hardest challenges in the decades to come will be how American troops and machines work together at war, Kendall said. "We're gonna have to figure out how to manage this in a way which is cost effective, which is consistent with our values, which is militarily competitive."

And, he said, "I think that's gonna be a tough problem to resolve."

• NATO pit elite divers against new sensors to protect undersea cables from sabotage.
• Foreign adversaries have increasingly targeted undersea cables and underwater infrastructure.
• The training marks another shift in how NATO countries are preparing for future warfare.

NATO sent special operations divers to test new systems designed to help shield critical underwater infrastructure from damage and sabotage, growing problems.

Underwater cables and pipelines providing internet connectivity and energy have been damaged in a string of alarming incidents in recent years, with accusations of sabotage being thrown around about several just in the past couple of months.

These incidents highlight the vulnerability of these lines, but the NATO alliance is looking for answers.

Last fall, elite special operations divers from within the NATO alliance practiced bypassing underwater electronic detection sensors as part of an effort to boost protection for critical underwater infrastructure. NATO shared footage this week of the November training event — Exercise Bold Machina 2024 in La Spezia, Italy — as well as commentary from leadership.

The 13-nation event was the first of its kind, said US Navy Capt. Kurt Muhler, the maritime development director at the NATO Special Operations Headquarters, and was designed to test new sensors that could be used to defend against underwater sabotage attempts. This exercise, which Defense News first reported on, also tested allied special operations divers and their abilities to operate in increasingly transparent battlespaces.

Divers on offensive operations may not always be able to rely on dark, opaque waters to conceal their movements, Muhler, who has held SEAL team leadership positions, said, citing increased advancements in underwater detection system technologies.

"It's not knowing if somebody knows, or if you're being detected," Muhler told Defense News last fall. "It is understanding that there is a system that has the capability to detect you, but that you know nothing about it and don't know exactly what the capability is."

Undersea cables, pipelines, and other critical underwater infrastructure are at risk

The joint exercise in Italy came as damage to critical underwater infrastructure has become increasingly worrisome to Western officials who are scrambling to deter more damage to cables from vessels often quietly linked to Russian and Chinese governments.

Several underwater cables have been damaged in the past two months, including one telecommunications line linking Finland and Germany and another connecting Finland and Estonia.

Finnish officials said that they found a 60-mile seabed trail suggesting a tanker linked to Russia might be responsible for cutting cables. And around the same time, cables linking Germany and Finland and Sweden and Estonia were damaged with a Chinese vessel detected nearby when the damage occurred.

Such damage has spurred British defense officials to create a new joint operation with 10 European countries throughout the Baltic Sea area, using artificial intelligence to monitor potential threats from ships.

Undersea cables are critical components of international telecommunication infrastructure and the global economy — around 745,000 miles of cables span global seabeds and help transmit 95% of international data, including around $10 trillion in financial transactions daily.

NATO officials highlighted growing threats to cables from Russia last year, noting surveillance activity from Russian units specializing in undersea sabotage. But the barrier to entry for sabotage isn't particularly high. Russia has submarine units known to specialize in underwater sabotage, but cables have also been damaged by commercial vessels simply dragging their anchors along the sea floor.

And the concerns about the risk of underwater cable and infrastructure damage are not limited to European waters. Damage just last week to cables off the coast of Taiwan left that island's officials suspecting intentional damage from China.

"The underwater domain is hard both to protect and hard to attack," said Alberto Tremori, a NATO Centre for Maritime Research and Experimentation scientist who helped oversee the November NATO exercise. "It's not easy to protect because it's a complex environment, it's a vast environment."