Have US special operations collaborated with Mexican forces to target cartel production sites recently?
Executive summary
U.S. intelligence and covert agencies have worked directly with Mexican security forces on operations against cartel figures in recent years; Reuters reports the CIA helped Mexico locate and attempt to capture Ovidio Guzmán in 2023 using U.S. surveillance and then “worked hand‑in‑glove” with Mexican army and navy units [1]. Public reporting also shows broader U.S. moves — increased surveillance flights, legal designations of cartels as terrorist organizations and interagency sanctions — that expand U.S. authorities’ tools to target cartel networks and their revenue streams [2] [3] [4].
1. What the reporting actually documents: U.S. covert support, not open combat
Investigations by Reuters describe years of covert U.S. involvement, notably CIA surveillance that helped Mexican forces locate Ovidio Guzmán for the January 2023 operation in Sinaloa; Reuters says the CIA “leveraged its vast eavesdropping apparatus” and cooperated with Mexican special army and navy units on captures [1]. That coverage portrays U.S. agencies as intelligence partners who enabled Mexican raids, not as U.S. special operations forces directly conducting kinetic strikes on Mexican soil in public view [1].
2. Public U.S. military posture has shifted toward greater authority and surveillance
U.S. officials and reporting indicate an expansion of military authorities and activity around cartel targets. Reuters and other outlets document increased airborne surveillance of Mexican cartels and discussions in the U.S. government about giving naval and other military units broader authority for interdiction and “targeted military raids” — a potential shift from intelligence support to operational roles if politically approved [2]. Congressional and policy documents also note continued U.S. assistance frameworks and intelligence sharing with Mexico [5].
3. Legal and policy moves that change options for U.S. action
In 2025 the U.S. designated multiple Mexican cartels as foreign terrorist organizations and applied sanctions and Treasury designations tied to cartel revenue streams like fuel theft and money laundering; those designations broaden legal authorities available to U.S. agencies and were accompanied by coordinated sanctions with DOJ, FBI, DEA and Mexico’s financial unit [3] [4]. Analysts note those designations can enable more intrusive intelligence and financial measures even if they do not themselves authorize unilateral U.S. military strikes inside Mexico [4] [2].
4. Reporting of planning for more direct U.S. operations — contested and not yet executed
Recent reporting describes U.S. administration planning for missions that could include U.S. troops or strikes against labs and leaders in Mexico; NBC and Reuters reported officials saying plans were being discussed though deployment was not imminent, and such steps would mark a break with past practice of U.S. agencies supporting Mexican operations rather than executing them [6] [2]. These accounts are based on current and former U.S. officials and describe planning rather than confirmed, ongoing U.S. ground strikes inside Mexico [6] [2].
5. Mexican sovereignty, political backlash, and limits on overt U.S. action
Public and diplomatic sources emphasize Mexico’s resistance to foreign forces operating on its soil; reporting cites Mexican leaders’ insistence that they will not accept foreign intervention and warns that military action would raise legal and political problems [7] [8]. Analysts and civil society exercises have simulated the destabilizing consequences of U.S. strikes in Mexico, warning strikes may not reduce fentanyl flows and could prompt cartel adaptations and political backlash [9].
6. Two competing narratives in today’s coverage
One narrative: U.S. agencies are expanding tools — intelligence, sanctions, surveillance — to go after cartels and have already covertly supported Mexican raids [1] [3]. Alternative or cautionary narrative: public debates and legal scholars stress that overt U.S. military strikes in Mexico would be unprecedented, legally fraught, politically explosive, and so far remain in planning or debate stages rather than routine practice [2] [9]. Both narratives are present in the available reporting [1] [2].
7. What sources do not confirm
Available sources do not mention a sustained pattern of U.S. special operations units operating openly on Mexican soil to destroy cartel production sites as a regular, acknowledged campaign. They report covert intelligence cooperation and discussions/planning about expanded operational roles, but not confirmed, ongoing U.S. combat raids carried out without Mexican authority [1] [6] [2].
Conclusion — concise read of the facts and stakes: Reuters documents concrete U.S. intelligence cooperation that has supported Mexican raids [1]. Policy shifts — terrorist designations, sanctions, increased surveillance and internal U.S. planning — expand the options Washington can use against cartels, but public sources show these remain politically sensitive, legally complex, and often framed as support for Mexican operations rather than unilateral U.S. strikes inside Mexico [3] [4] [6] [2].