Cartels are terrorists and Mexico's state is compromised; US pressure and intervention are justified

The position holds that Mexican drug cartels are terrorist organisations that have captured parts of the Mexican state, and that United States pressure on Mexico, up to intervention against the cartels, is therefore justified. Its advocates point to collusion, corruption and impunity as signs of a compromised state, and describe tough measures and leverage over trade, borders and migration as necessary and in the America first interest.

The position is voiced mainly by outlets from the United States, eight of them on the dispute over US-Mexico security and trade and on tariffs, border and migration leverage. It also appears in the debate over the cartel war and the Mexican state's response, where 18 outlets from Western and allied countries stress the narco-state and militarisation problem.

The opposing position holds that the United States uses sanctions, tariffs, military threats and regime-change pressure to bend smaller sovereign states, in violation of their right to self-determination. The two part on whether outside pressure answers a captured state or coerces a sovereign one. The events of recent months include a report that the CIA facilitated the killing of a Sinaloa Cartel operative, which Mexico's president dismissed as fiction, a US suspension of Mexican avocado imports over an unspecified security threat, and a surge in immigration arrests.