• 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."