What Secretary Rubio’s Visit Reveals About U.S.-Mexico Security Cooperation and the Prospect of Drone Strikes

Critical Questions by Diego Marroquín Bitar

Published September 9, 2025

Last week, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio made his third trip to Latin America, with stops in Mexico and Ecuador. Security dominated the agenda. The visit came just days after President Trump ordered the Pentagon to prepare for military action against Latin American cartels designated as foreign terrorist organizations. Among them are Mexico's most powerful groups: the Sinaloa Cartel and the Jalisco New Generation Cartel. The timing of Rubio's trip amplified Mexico's concerns. Just one day before his arrival, the U.S. military conducted a missile strike against a suspected Venezuelan narco vessel in the Caribbean, an operation the Trump administration cast as part of its "war on narco-terrorist organizations." Whether coincidence or deliberate signaling, the strike sent a clear message to Mexico.

Q1: What was the context behind Secretary Rubio's visit to Mexico?

A1: Since his inauguration, Trump has demonstrated an enduring focus on security in Mexico. Alleging an "intolerable alliance" between the cartels and the government, he has pushed the administration of President Claudia Sheinbaum to do more. Trump has paired these threats with economic pressure, mostly in the form of tariffs.

Citing what he describes as Mexico's weak response to organized crime, the United States threatened to impose a 30 percent tariff on Mexican exports. Mexico secured a 90-day pause in July to negotiate, but it still faces a 25 percent tariff on non-United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) compliant goods, along with steel, aluminum, copper, and auto tariffs. Most Mexican exports remain protected under the USMCA, but the risk of escalation is constant. Mexico has sought to allay these fears by signing a security agreement with the United States, setting expectations through the implementation of a framework.

Q2: What happened during Rubio's visit?

A2: What had initially been advertised as the signing of a new bilateral security agreement evolved into a reaffirmation of ongoing cooperation. Both governments announced the creation of a "high-level implementation group" to monitor commitments: disrupting cartel operations, expanding border inspections, targeting illicit financial flows, cracking down on arms trafficking, and improving intelligence sharing. The benefits for both sides are that the priorities remain clear: stopping fentanyl and other drugs from reaching the United States, preventing high-powered firearms from flowing south, and sustaining lower levels of migration.

Despite Rubio's praise and his cordial ties with President Sheinbaum and Secretary of Foreign Affairs Ramón de la Fuente, the reality is quite fragile. Tariffs and the prospect of unilateral U.S. military action threaten to derail cooperation and downgrade relations between the two neighbors.

Q3: What does the Trump administration want from Mexico in security cooperation?

A3: U.S.-Mexico security collaboration has evolved from the Mérida Initiative (2008-2021) to the Bicentennial Framework (2021-present). Under President López Obrador (2018-2024), cooperation largely stalled, but President Sheinbaum (2024-present) came to office understanding that security remained a political vulnerability and has resumed cooperation with the United States with vigor. In 2025 alone, Mexico has aggressively stepped up cartel arrests, seized record amounts of fentanyl, delivered 55 alleged cartel figures to be held in the United States, and deployed the National Guard to Mexico's northern and southern borders. Rubio applauded these steps, calling them "the closest security cooperation we have ever had, maybe with any country but certainly in the history of U.S.-Mexico relations."

Yet Washington's demands extend further. The Trump administration wants Mexico to dismantle what it views as an "intolerable alliance" between transnational criminal organizations and power structures in Mexico. From Washington's perspective, drug seizures and arrests are necessary, but not sufficient conditions for the removal of tariffs.

As a result, tariff relief has not followed Mexico's actions. Rubio underscored that the ultimate authority on tariffs and sanctions under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act rests with Trump alone. The message was unmistakable: Goodwill and cooperation may slow escalation, but it does not ultimately guarantee protection. In other words, the new agreement provides yet another framework for cooperation, but it is unlikely to shield Mexico from Washington's demands.

Q4: Will the new security deal change the trajectory of bilateral cooperation?

A4: Not fundamentally. At best, it is a stopgap. It demonstrates goodwill, creates a framework to track progress, and provides a forum for regular dialogue. But the underlying dynamic remains the same: Washington sets the terms, and Mexico reacts.

Unlike Trump's first term, the second Trump administration has a disciplined team determined to implement his most controversial campaign promises, including the possibility of military action against criminal organizations on foreign soil. This makes the current arrangement less of a breakthrough than a holding pattern.

Sheinbaum's government is balancing cooperation with firm red lines, especially around territorial sovereignty. By documenting progress on extraditions, seizures, and border enforcement, Mexico hopes to strengthen its case in broader negotiations on trade, investment, and the 2026 USMCA review. This was clear both in the joint press conference and the joint statement released after Rubio's visit, where territorial sovereignty was mentioned six times.

In a State of the Nation address marking her first year in office, Sheinbaum said, "Under no circumstance will we accept interventions, interference, or any other act from abroad that is detrimental to the integrity, independence, and sovereignty of the country."

Q5: Are U.S. drone strikes in Mexico off the table?

A5: The timing of Rubio's trip amplified Mexico's concerns. Just one day before his arrival, the U.S. military conducted a missile strike against a suspected Venezuelan narco-vessel in the Caribbean, an operation the Trump administration cast as part of its "war on narco-terrorist organizations." Whether coincidence or deliberate signaling, the strike sent a clear message to Mexico.

When asked directly, Rubio offered no assurances. He dismissed drug interdiction as ineffective, arguing that cartels calculate a 2 percent loss from interdiction and thus treat seizures as the cost of doing business. "What will stop them," he said, "is when you blow them up."

As mentioned before, the joint U.S.-Mexico statement that was published after the visit emphasized "respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity," but Rubio made clear that decisions ultimately rest with Trump. As with tariffs, the White House holds the final say.

The implication is clear: Unilateral military action such as drone strikes in Mexico remains possible, perhaps even more likely than some had anticipated. The threat of unilateral action continues to hang over the relationship like the sword of Damocles.

Q6: What would unilateral U.S. military action mean for U.S.-Mexico relations?

A6: In Shakespeare's Julius Caesar, the line "Et tu, Brute?" conveys disbelief at betrayal by an ally. For Mexico, U.S. drone strikes would carry a similar sense of rupture.

The journey from distant neighbors to strategic partners for Mexico and the United States has been long, forged through migration, trade, and shared political vision. Unilateral U.S. action would not only undo decades of trust-building but risk returning relations to the pre-North American Free Trade Agreement era of distrust and, in some cases, open antagonism.

Mexico has made major strides and allows U.S. surveillance drones to operate in its airspace. But Sheinbaum has drawn a firm line: no U.S. strikes on Mexican soil. Such action would feed into Mexico's long-dormant anti-U.S. sentiment, pushing Mexico closer to nonalignment and thus away from North America as a strategic concept. It would also undermine Mexico's ability to negotiate the 2026 USMCA review in good faith, threatening a cornerstone of North American competitiveness.

The gains of partnership achieved in the last 20 years far outweigh the fleeting appeal of unilateral action. Unless the goal is to see U.S.-Mexico relations suffer Caesar's fate, the path forward must remain one of collaboration, not intervention.

Diego Marroquín Bitar is a fellow with the Americas Program at the Center for Strategic and International Studies in Washington, D.C.

Programs & Projects

Commentary by Ryan C. Berg - October 29, 2021