The Economic Risks of US Military Intervention in Mexico

Let us imagine, for a moment, the unthinkable. The threats from US President Donald Trump turn into real headlines: "US Drones Strike Cartel Compound in Sinaloa" or "Special Forces Conduct Raid in Michoacan." The pretext, argued in television networks and congressional hearings, would be noble: to dismantle, once and for all, the power of the drug cartels that plague Mexico and poison the United States. The narrative of a "surgical" intervention may sound seductive to some sectors of American public opinion, frustrated by the complexity of an endemic problem.

However, beyond the warlike rhetoric lies an unavoidable and monumental reality: Any military action, no matter how "precise," would instantly detonate the economic bomb that would obliterate North America's shared prosperity. This situation would go far beyond a regional crisis: it would be an unprecedented economic disaster, with businesses, workers, and consumers on both sides of the Rio Grande suffering the greatest impact of the century.

Pursuing a "quick fix" against the cartels would risk collapsing the most productive and successful economic partnership in the world.

Proposals for tactical attacks assume, incorrectly, that Mexico would accept violations of its sovereignty. Mexican history and constitutional principles strongly support non-intervention. Any government would be compelled by national sentiment and legal obligation to respond decisively, leaving no room for compromise.

The response would go beyond diplomatic statements. The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which underpins $1.7 billion in daily trade and regional competitiveness, would likely vanish immediately, regardless of pending revisions and negotiations.

The Unraveling of the Shared Factory

The consequences would be widespread and severe:

1. Manufacturing paralysis: Industrial plants in Mexico that assemble millions of vehicles with US and Canadian parts would halt. Not for lack of components, but because the legal framework that makes that integration profitable would have vanished. Ford, GM, Stellantis, and all manufacturers would see their business model collapse. "Made in North America" cars would become a thing of the past.

2. Agricultural disruption: Exports of tomatoes, avocados, and berries from Sonora and Sinaloa would cease. US Midwest exports of corn, soybeans, and pork would lose key markets. Food prices in the United States would rise sharply, and significant waste of perishable goods would occur.

3. Capital flight and financial instability: Multinational corporations operating in Mexico would face legal uncertainty and increased risk, prompting capital outflows. The Mexican stock market and peso would decline sharply, with financial repercussions extending to Wall Street and beyond. Opportunities for nearshoring investment would disappear globally.

4. Border chaos: The world's busiest border would become a militarized zone. The crossing of 14,000 freight trucks per day would stop. Just-in-time factories in Texas, California, and Arizona would shut down within hours due to missing components. Shortages of electronics, appliances, and textiles would be immediate. A reversed migration crisis, with Americans fleeing Mexico and potential refugee flows north, would add to the instability. Families would be torn apart.

For the United States, the consequences would be severe and wide-ranging, resulting in a major domestic and international crisis. Domestically, such aggression would cause a constitutional crisis and deepen political divisions, as government branches and public opinion diverge over an illegal act of war. Internationally, the United States would face widespread condemnation from friends and foes, sanctions, and diplomatic isolation, undermining long-standing alliances. 

Legally, Mexico would likely prevail before the International Court of Justice and the Inter-American Court, resulting in binding rulings against the United States and a significant loss of legal legitimacy. In global forums, the United States would be formally accused of state terrorism. Ultimately, the nation would suffer lasting harm to its global image and its credibility as a defender of international law.

180 Years of Resentment Unleashed

Beyond the institutional and economic collapse, the most powerful and unpredictable force would be the volcanic eruption of popular sentiment. The Mexican response would not be dictated solely from the National Palace in Mexico City. It would erupt from the streets, towns, and collective memory. The latent anti-Yankee resentment, a wound in the national psyche since the war of 1846 and the loss of half its territory, would explode with unprecedented ferocity.

This is not abstract nationalism. It is the living memory of humiliation, passed down through generations. The phrase "¡Pinches gringos!" would cease to be a casual insult and become a unifying cry of resistance. The popular sentiment would be clear, visceral, and destructive: "Damn gringos, if we're all going to hell, we will go together." It is the recognition that such an aggression would spell ruin for both nations, but also a defiant promise that Mexico would not go down alone.

This popular fury would manifest as:

• Widespread civil disobedience, including blockades of highways, ports, and railways critical to binational trade.

• A cultural and consumer boycott of unprecedented scale against American brands, products, and media.

• Some marginalized groups might begin to view cartels less as criminals and more as symbols of anti-imperialist resistance.

• A total loss of public support for cooperation with US agencies or companies.

• Increased risks for US nationals residing in Mexico, who currently number in the millions.

• A possible encouragement of Mexican nationals living in the United States to defy law enforcement agents violently, since they would not have anything else to lose.

In such circumstances, national dignity would take precedence over economic considerations. Most Mexicans would likely accept significant economic hardship rather than tolerate a violation of sovereignty. This perspective would be shared across all social and political groups, including elites. Mexico is not Venezuela, it is not Greenland.

The Crime Syndicates' Perverse Victory and the Human Cost

Ironically, such a scenario would likely strengthen the cartels. US intelligence cooperation, which supports extraditions and targeted actions, would end. Cartels could position themselves as defenders of national sovereignty, using anti-American sentiment to recruit and expand their influence. Violence would likely increase, with a new foreign adversary uniting all “bad hombres” and perhaps some “good ones” as justification.

Resorting to force reflects frustration rather than strategic insight. The US-Mexico relationship demonstrates that modern power relies on supply chains, technological integration, and ongoing diplomacy. Security is the child of cooperation, not coercion.

The fight against transnational organized crime requires stronger institutions, development investment, efforts to stop arms trafficking and money laundering, and, most importantly, continued cooperation. Undermining this cooperation through intervention would cause significant harm.

This is a call for the Mexican government to reassess its priorities and take decisive action, both ideologically and pragmatically, against criminal elements protected by power, corruption, and populism. The risk of US intervention is real.

Lasting security depends on respecting sovereignty and strengthening partnerships. The message to business leaders and policymakers is clear: Any military intervention in Mexico, regardless of its scope, would undermine the USMCA, disrupt integrated industries, destabilize prices, and weaken North American competitiveness and must be stopped immediately. It would break human ties that have settled on the scars of past wars. There would be no winners, only broad damage and heightened historical resentment.