Did Trump say we were going to strike Mexico

1. Trump’s words: a plain declaration on television

In a televised interview with Sean Hannity that aired Jan. 8–9, President Trump said “we are going to start now hitting land with regard to the cartels” and framed the move as a follow-on to maritime strikes that targeted suspected drug-smuggling boats ^{[1] [5]}. He repeated related language elsewhere — telling Fox hosts that “something’s going to have to be done with Mexico” and asserting that cartels, not Mexico’s government, were in control ^{[6] [7]}.

2. How multiple outlets carried and characterized the remark

Mainstream outlets from Reuters and The Hill to regional papers and international wire services published near-identical accounts that Trump suggested land strikes against cartels in Mexico were imminent, noting he provided no operational details ^{[2] [8] [9]}. Newsweek and Channel NewsAsia highlighted that the “land” language echoed earlier comments about stopping traffickers “by land” after boat strikes ^{[3] [1]}.

3. Mexican reaction and diplomatic alarm

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum publicly rejected the prospect of U.S. strikes on Mexican soil and emphasized sovereignty, while Mexican officials have combined public rejection with behind‑the‑scenes cooperation on counternarcotics to try to remove any pretext for unilateral U.S. action ^{[5] [4]}. Reporting documents real concern in Mexico City about the possibility of U.S. unilateral military action and its political fallout ^[4].

4. Why reporting stresses uncertainty about action versus rhetoric

Stories uniformly note Trump did not offer details about targets, timelines, or legal authority, and analysts warned that land strikes inside Mexico would constitute a major military escalation and could be viewed as aggression with dangerous consequences ^{[1] [3] [2]}. Reuters and other outlets reported his comments as suggesting possible military action but stopped short of confirming any orders or plans were in place ^[8].

5. Competing narratives: deterrence claim vs. alarm over sovereignty and consequences

The administration’s framing — that maritime strikes had drastically reduced drugs by sea and that moving “to land” is the next step — is reported by outlets quoting Trump’s claim about knocking out drugs by water ^[5]. Opposing views, reflected in reporting from Mexico and some analysts, warn that U.S. strikes on Mexican territory would risk civilian harm, displacement, and a diplomatic crisis that could strengthen hardliners in Mexico ^{[3] [4]}.

6. What the reporting does not establish

Contemporary coverage establishes that Trump said the U.S. would “start hitting land” and suggested Mexico could face action ^{[1] [6]}, but none of the supplied sources documents an executed or authorized U.S. strike inside Mexico, nor do they publish classified orders or legal memos authorizing cross‑border military operations ^{[2] [8]}. Reporting also does not resolve whether comments reflect finished policy, campaign rhetoric, or contingent options being discussed inside the administration ^[3].

7. The takeaway: he said it; the rest remains unresolved

The factual core is straightforward and well‑reported: President Trump publicly voiced a plan to expand counter‑cartel strikes from sea to land and singled out Mexico as a possible focus ^{[1] [2] [5]}. Journalistic accounts simultaneously document Mexican pushback, expert warnings about escalation, and an absence of transparent operational detail in the public record, leaving open whether those words will translate into concrete policy or action ^{[4] [3] [8]}.