There are moments in business, and in politics, when courtesy becomes an unproductive luxury. Donald Trump understands this better than many leaders in the hemisphere, and the recent US intervention in Venezuela confirms it. The capture of Nicolás Maduro not only closed an uncomfortable chapter for Washington; it opened a new phase in which the US makes it clear that it is willing to act when it perceives that external disorder affects its internal interests. Anyone who reads this as a simple military outburst is making a miscalculation.
Trump is not improvising when he mentions Mexico, Colombia, or Cuba after the Venezuelan episode. He is drawing a line. For years, Latin America asked for attention, investment, and respect. Now it is receiving something different: demands. You may like it or not, but the logic is consistent. The United States is not willing to continue bearing the costs of drug trafficking, uncontrolled migration, and failed states without demanding verifiable results from its partners.
In the case of Mexico, the message is uncomfortable because it touches a raw nerve. Trump insists, and rightly so, that cartels dominate large areas of the country and that traditional cooperation is no longer enough. That statement is irritating, but it does not come out of nowhere. The flow of fentanyl into the United States is not a media perception, it is a measurable reality. From this perspective, Washington’s pressure takes on a different meaning: it is not about humiliating an ally, but rather forcing it to go beyond its usual commitments.
Claudia Sheinbaum has opted for a firm stance in defense of sovereignty, and that is understandable. No Mexican government can accept foreign troops without paying a severe political price. However, it is also clear that her administration has stepped up security measures, reinforced the border, and handed over key drug traffickers to the United States. None of this is happening by chance. The pressure is working, even if no one admits it out loud.
Venezuela serves as an extreme example. The message to the region is clear: patience has its limits. For some Latin American governments, this sounds like a threat. For others, it represents a useful warning. Inaction also has consequences, only less visible and more prolonged.
For Latin America, the clearest consequence of this stance is the end of ambiguity. Governments in the region now face a relationship with the United States based less on diplomatic rhetoric and more on concrete results. Countries with structural problems related to security, drug trafficking, or migration are exposed to direct pressure that forces them to make internal decisions that have been postponed for years. For better or worse, Latin America is entering a stage where omission also has a cost, and where each government must decide whether to assume that cost or adjust its strategy before the pressure increases.
In Miami, where the Spanish-speaking community follows these events closely, the interpretation tends to be more practical. Many businesspeople and migrants understand that stability does not come from rhetoric, but from firm decisions. Maduro’s downfall cannot be explained by a symbolic gesture, but rather by a cold assessment of risks and benefits. Trump applied the same reasoning to Mexico, albeit with different tools.
Some will say that Trump acts solely on impulse, and that is a comfortable but false interpretation. His confrontational style seeks quick results. In the case of Mexico, he has already achieved them in terms of border control and judicial cooperation. It remains to be seen how far this dynamic will go during the review of the USMCA, but no one can deny that Washington has regained its ability to exert pressure in the region.
Ultimately, the discussion is not about personal sympathies. It is about power, interests, and costs. Trump has decided that Latin America will once again be a priority on his agenda. For the countries involved, including Mexico, the question is not whether the tone is acceptable, but how to respond without losing room for maneuver. In politics and business, ignoring a clear warning rarely comes cheap.
