The Quiet Expansion of Trump’s War on Cartels
OPINION — “The [narco-trafficking] boat strikes [in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific] aren’t the answer. What we’re moving for right now might be an extension of [Operation] Southern Spear, really a counter [narcotics] cartel campaign process that puts total systemic friction across this [drug] network.”
That was Marine Corps Gen. Francis Donovan, Commander of U.S. Southern Command (SOUTHCOM), testifying last Thursday before the Senate Armed Services Committee about the expanded Trump military campaign against Western Hemisphere drug cartels.
With most public attention focused on the Iran War, I decided to look at this hearing, which also received testimony from Air Force Gen. Gregory Guillot, Commander of U.S. Northern Command (NORTHCOM), who, as I will discuss below, made clear that talks are moving ahead with Greenland and Denmark and that there was little behind President Trump’s talk of invading that Arctic island.
Just months ago, the Trump administration’s repeated destruction of narco-trafficking boats and Presidential talk of taking Greenland were front page stories, causing Americans to wonder where the President was taking the country militarily, particularly after the initial one-day June 2025 bombing of Iran nuclear sites and the later January 2026 successful seizure of Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro.
Trump’s military action appetite has clearly grown so I believe it worth using last week’s testimony to see where his earlier efforts have led.
Since September 2, 2025, when Trump first told reporters about the initial strike against a narco-trafficking boat and later published a dramatic video of the operation on Truth Socialthere have been 45 more such attacks in the Caribbean and Eastern Pacific along with the killing of 159 individuals whom Trump or his officials have described as terrorists or narco-traffickers.
Last week, after Gen. Donovan told the Senators directly, “The boat strikes aren’t the answer,” he later referred to creation of what has been called the Americas Counter Cartel Coalition or the Shield of the Americas.
Donovan described it as 17 Western Hemisphere countries along with the U.S. establishing on March 7. what he called “a coalition that will have a military aspect to it. When I say military, it’s really partners that are willing to join with us to move forward against the cartels with different degrees based on what they can bring.”
In his prepared statement for the committee, Donovan described how the U.S. Embassy in Bogota, Colombia, has what is called an Embassy Intelligence Fusion Cell which, in partnership with Colombian officials, works to stop drugs “by committing airborne ISR [intelligence surveillance and reconnaissance] and fostering a holistic intelligence sharing effort. We [the U.S.] provide timely, critical information on cocaine labs, production and departure zones, and top FTO [foreign terrorist organization] leaders to enable Colombian security forces to take action.”
In answering a Senator’s question, Donovan said, “We just recently established an Ecuador fusion cell and with the Ecuadorian minister of defense, because they are leading the way.”
The SOUTHCOM Commander did not mention to the Senators that earlier this month he and Rear Admiral Mark A. Schafer, head of U.S. Special Operations-South, visited Quito and held talks with Ecuadorian President Daniel Noboa. The Ecuadorian president’s office said in a statement that the three discussed plans for the sharing of information and operational coordination at airports and seaports.
Along with Ecuador, Donovan said, “The other nation that is really is stepping forward is Paraguay.” He said it recently signed a SOFA (status of forces) agreement with the United States which allows us to operate much more closely together with FMS (foreign military sales) of radars coming down it will increase the air domain awareness in Paraguay.
At one point Donovan said of the Americas Counter Cartel Coalition, “Putting that together, I believe actually kinetic [boat] strikes will be one of the many tools and probably not the most effective tool when we actually look at it as more of a campaign approach.”
One matter raised several times during the hearing focused on questions about the legality of the military killing of persons as alleged narco-traffickers without any trial or proof they in fact are traffickers.
Donovan more than once said he could talk about the intelligence involved in a closed session. But when asked about the targeting criteria to approve strikes in international waters Donovan replied they are using “near reasonable certainty, reasonable certainty, near certainty to make the final decision.”
Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), however, raised questions about terms used to by the Trump administration to describe those on the boats. She asked at one point, “What guidance have you received or issued for how to treat associates of a group differently from a confirmed direct member of a group?”
Her question implied that among those being killed are individuals “associated” with a drug cartel and she further pointed out “the administration in their legal justifications are calling these folks associates, but it’s different from being a confirmed direct member of a group.”
In answering, Donovan further complicated the situation by saying, “We have a definition of affiliates tied to that classified definition. In a closed setting. I would like to share word-for-word what that definition is, Senator.”
Duckworth responded, “I’m concerned about the looseness of the term that SOUTHCOM has been using to publicly to report an individual we killed, specifically affiliate or associate. Those are the two words that were used, which implies an even weaker association with any concerning threat.”
Just before the session closed, Sen. Jack Reed (D-R.I.), ranking Democrat on the committee, raised questions about the “exords” related to the boat attacks, meaning the execute orders to initiate the military action.
Reed said, “There is a legal requirement for the [Defense] Department to provide those exords to the committee which you [Committee Chairman Sen. Roger Wicker (R-Miss.)] and I have requested multiple times…The [Defense] Secretary [Pete Hegseth] has not fulfilled this legal requirement and your testimony General Donovan further confirms in my mind that we need these documents to understand and oversee. That’s our role — oversee these operations.”
The takeover of Cuba has been on President Trump’s mind for some time. Most recently, during an Oval Office meeting March 17, he told reporters, “We’ll be doing something with Cuba very soon.” A day earlier, the President talked of “taking Cuba in some form,” adding, “Whether I free it, take it, I think I could do anything I want with it.”
Donovan, asked, “Are we currently conducting any military rehearsals that involve seizing, occupying, or otherwise asserting control over Cuba?” replied, “U.S. Southern Command is not,” and he added he knew of no other command that was.
To a subsequent question of seizing Cuba, Donovan said, “The number of forces required, we have general ideas, but the focus right now is purely on securing Guantanamo Bay and the U.S. embassy to protect American personnel. That is the only facts and figures and planning we have underway at this time.”
As for Greenland and Denmark, NORTHCOM’s Gen. Guillot said, they both had been “very cooperative… very eager to discuss ways to move forward to improve our defense capabilities.”
He said, “We are pursuing with Denmark expansion on the defense areas which are allowed under the 1951 agreement…We don’t really need a new treaty. It’s very comprehensive and it and it’s frankly very favorable to our operations or potential operations in Greenland.
One area Guillot mentioned was expanding “the [Greenland] defense areas from Pituffik Space Force Base, where we are now, into these other areas, which would help our homeland defense mission.”
He added that the Pentagon “challenges in the Arctic start with…ports and the ability to navigate freely through the harsh conditions of the Arctic both in maritime, land and air. So I’m working with our department and others to try to develop more [sea]ports, more airfields which leads to more options for our [Defense Department] secretary and for the President should we need them up in the Arctic…that is from Alaska all the way across through Canada and into Greenland.”
Guillot said he specifically wanted “the resources and the force projection capability along that avenue of approach to North America [from Russia]which you know through the Arctic is the shortest route. So therefore, in many ways our most vulnerable route. We’re very well established in Canada and Alaska and having more capability along what I call the 2:00 [o’clock] approach would be key.”
He also said, referring to Trump’s Golden Dome missile defense proposal, “the ability to launch fighters and tankers to get be the first line of defense against cruise missiles that could be launched from the Arctic [part of Greenland].” Also, Guillot mentioned, “Port presence for our our Navy, which also gives us [logistic support for] Golden Dome and [therefore] ballistic missile defense capability.”
Trump apparently was never serious about seizing Greenland; his war on Western Hemisphere drug cartels is a work in progress, as is Venezuela, although the capture of Maduro was a well-carried out special operation.
Common to the above Trump actions has been surprise, and lack of preparing the public or Congress for what was going to take place.
Attacking Iran was and has become a much bigger and more dangerous move, and as we have seen — again undertaken without preparing the public or Congress and in this case paying attention to its worldwide economic and diplomatic longer-term implications.
Trump will pay a domestic political price for Iran, but so will the U.S. when it comes to continued world leadership.
The Cipher Brief is committed to publishing a range of perspectives on national security issues submitted by deeply experienced national security professionals. Opinions expressed are those of the author and do not represent the views or opinions of The Cipher Brief.
Have a perspective to share based on your experience in the national security field? Send it to Editor@thecipherbrief.com for publication consideration.
Read more expert-driven national security insights, perspective and analysis in The Cipher Brief
