Video: Why is declaring war on Mexican cartels so popular?
A growing number of Republicans have called for military action to address the fentanyl crisis. A new video from the Quincy Institute explores what is behind this idea.
The idea of going to war with Mexican cartels to address the fentanyl crisis has been growing in popularity among Republican members of Congress and GOP presidential candidates this year.
QI’s Adam Weinstein spoke to journalist and author Ioan Grillo on why the idea of declaring war on Mexican drug cartels has gained steam in Washington but why it won’t solve the crisis.
Grillo, who is the author of three books including 2021’s Blood Gun Money: How America Arms Gangs and Cartels, says those proposing military action have that right diagnosis. “They’re right when they say the fentanyl problem is a really serious, severe problem that should be at the top of the political agenda,” he says. “There is a really serious organized crime in Mexico and they are working with corrupt government officials.”
However, warns Grillo, “where they’re wrong, and very seriously wrong, is you can’t simply send in a couple drones and send in a couple American military and solve this. It just doesn’t work strategically. “
In January, Reps. Dan Crenshaw (R-Texas) and Mike Waltz (R-Fla.) introduced an Authorization for the Use of Military Force against the cartels. A number of Senators have endorsed similar proposals, with, for example, J.D. Vance (R-Ohio) telling NBC News in July that he wants to “empower the president of the United States, whether that’s a Democrat or Republican, to use the power of the U.S. military to go after these drug cartels.”
During the first primary debate of the election cycle last month, Florida Governor Ron DeSantis said that, if elected president, he would send U.S. special forces into Mexico on “day one.” Other candidates, including former president Donald Trump and Vivek Ramaswamy, have said that they, too, support a military solution to the fentanyl crisis.
Weinstein and Grillo also discuss the history of Mexico’s wars against drug cartels, how cartel violence has affected life in Mexico, and more.
Blaise Malley is a former reporter for Responsible Statecraft. He is also a former associate editor at The National Interest and reporter-researcher at The New Republic. His writing has appeared in The New Republic, The American Prospect, The American Conservative, and elsewhere.
In an op-ed today for the Detroit Free Press, Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.) blasted her colleagues who voted to increase Pentagon spending while owning stock in weapons manufacturing companies.
“Our elected officials should not be able to profit off death,” she wrote. “They should not be able to use their positions of power to get rich from defense contractors while voting to pass more funding to bomb people.”
Tlaib also touted her Stop Politicians Profiting from War Act, which she introduced in the House early last year. The law would ban all members of Congress and their immediate families from owning stock in defense contractors.
If passed, the law would hamper dozens of congressional portfolios. A recent data analysis by the Quincy Institute’s Nick Cleveland Stout at Responsible Statecraft found that 37 members of Congress traded between $24 million and $113 million in defense stocks last year.
At the top of that list is Rep. Josh Gottheimer (D-N.J.), who traded a staggering $22 million in defense-related stocks despite claiming that he has “no idea” where his money is invested. Gottheimer sits on the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence and the National Security subcommittee in the Committee on Financial Services.
While congressional representatives are often accused of using privileged government information to guide their trades, the military industrial complex is so profitable that even mainstream investment newsletters are urging their readers to get in on the action.
“The defense sector outlook remains strong as geopolitical conflict persists,” reads a U.S. News and World Report tagline for a January article titled “7 Best Defense Stocks to Buy Now.”
keep readingShow less
Top Photo: In this image from United States Senate television, this is the scene in the US Senate Chamber during debate concerning an amendment to US Senate Resolution 483, during the impeachment trial of US President Donald J. Trump in the US Senate in the US Capitol in Washington, DC on Tuesday, January 21, 2020. Mandatory Credit: US Senate Television via CNP
The Senate voted Tuesday against advancing H.R. 23, which would impose sanctions on the International Criminal Court (ICC), to the Senate floor. This follows the successful passage of the same bill in the House — by a 243 to 140 vote — earlier this month.
The legislation is primarily a rebuke of the court for warrants issued in November for the arrest of Israeli Prime Minister Netanyahu and former Israeli Defense Minister Yoav Gallant for their alleged war crimes and crimes against humanity committed against Palestinians in Gaza.
But it turns out the Republican sponsors could not rally the 60 votes to advance the bill to the Senate floor. Only one Democrat, Pennsylvania's John Fetterman, voted with them, resulting in a final tally of 54-45.
Some Democrats have expressed support for legislation sanctioning the ICC but believe the current bill is too broad or, as Minority Leader Chuck Schumer indicated, “poorly crafted and deeply problematic."
New Hampshire Senator Jeanne Shaheen, top Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, spearheaded negotiations with Republicans over some of the bill’s broad language and provisions. She and other Democrats were worried that the legislation, as written, could harm American tech contractors and companies that do business with the ICC and that the Senate should amend the legislation to protect these actors.
Humanitarian agencies have also expressed concern over the bill's potentially broad implications. Over 130 organizations sent a letter to Congress and the incoming administration urging “other governments, Members of Congress, and advocates for victims everywhere to raise their voices to oppose attacks on the independence and autonomy of international judicial institutions like the ICC.”
The letter points out that dismissing the ICC authority would undermine attempts to curb crimes against humanity in other countries where the United States has sided with the court, such as in cases against Putin in Russia and Sudan.
“(ICC) Sanctions send a signal that could embolden authoritarian regimes and others with reason to fear accountability who seek to evade justice,” claim the letter’s signatories."
Experts have also warned that sanctions could inhibit current investigations into other governments allied with the United States. In the Philippines, for example, the ICC is investigating extrajudicial killings that took place under former President Rodrigo Duterte and are allegedly occurring to this day as a consequence of Duterte’s harsh war on drugs.
“In the Philippines, reported extrajudicial drug war killings still number about one per day, and threats to the lives of people working to bring the perpetrators to justice are very real,” says David Borden, Executive Director at Stop the War on Drugs. “Sanctions have the potential to make the ICC unable to operate any of its programs, including those which provide protection to witnesses, and at a minimum would make things much more difficult.”
It is unclear if Republicans and Democrats in the Senate will work to amend the language of the ICC sanctions bill or if Republicans will opt to drop the issue for now.
keep readingShow less
U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's nominee to be Director of National Intelligence (DNI) Tulsi Gabbard arrives for a service at St. John's Church on Inauguration Day of Donald Trump's second presidential term in Washington, U.S. January 20, 2025. REUTERS/Jeenah Moon
The confirmation prospects for Tulsi Gabbard, President Donald Trump’s nominee for Director of National Intelligence, look slightly better after this weekend.
In an interview with NBC’s “Meet the Press” this past Sunday, Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) revealed that former Sen. Richard Burr (R-N.C.) will introduce Gabbard at her hearing on Thursday. Burr, a former chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee, is highly regarded by incumbent Senate Republicans and has some credibility across the aisle as well (he was one of seven Republican senators who voted to convict Trump during his second impeachment trial).
His assistance will be critical for Gabbard, who must first win the support of the Senate Intelligence Committee before advancing to a full senate vote. Committee members Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Todd Young (R-Ind.) are reportedly undecided on whether they will support her. Losing support from either would put Gabbard’s nomination in serious peril.
Gabbard received additional support on Sunday from Sen. Tom Cotton (R-Ark.), one of the party’s most pro-war voices, who is also chairman of the Intelligence Committee. “It’s fine for people to have policy differences and ask questions about those differences. But I hope no one would impugn Ms. Gabbard’s patriotism or her integrity,” Cotton said Sunday, referencing Gabbard’s military service background.
“You know, Hillary Clinton has basically called her a traitor in the past,” he added. “This is a woman who served more than 20 years in our nation’s army.”
Gabbard has also alienated the national security establishment with less publicized views, including her openness to a more cooperative relationship with China and her caution against going to war with Iran.
Regardless of how Gabbard explains this record, most if not all Democrats will vote against her, making Republicans key to her survival. The Intelligence Committee is 9-8 in favor of the GOP. If she loses one Republican, her nomination may not advance to the Senate floor. That is why some Trump-aligned members are now imploring Chairman Cotton to make it an open roll call vote, to pressure the Republicans who may be on the fence, according to Politico this morning.
Supporters say the opposition from the Washington foreign policy and intelligence community reflects her threat to the status quo, and that she is one of the few voices of reform and restraint that Trump has nominated to top positions in his new administration.
“Sadly, if Gabbard is voted down,” wrote Jacobin correspondent Branko Marcetic, recently for RS, “her most likely replacement would not be someone with more consistent anti-war views than her — it would be someone with much more hawkish bonefides and much less likely to buck the system.”
Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.