Politics
Will Trump send troops to Mexico? His pick for ambassador worries officials there
One of the more surprising foreign policy ideas the Trump team has proposed on the eve of its ascension to power is military intervention in Mexico to go after drug cartels and possibly stop migrants headed to the United States.
The idea seemed so wild and provocative — siccing U.S. troops on a peaceful neighbor — that Mexican officials figured it was nothing more than Trump bluster aimed at revving up his base.
But now President-elect Donald Trump’s choice of Ronald D. Johnson to serve as ambassador to Mexico has them wondering if he is serious.
Johnson is both a former U.S. military officer — a Green Beret — and a former CIA official. And in his previous post as U.S. ambassador to El Salvador, Johnson was an enthusiastic enforcer of Trump’s policies in support of its president, Nayib Bukele, an authoritarian widely accused of human rights abuses in a massive crackdown on gangs and in silencing dissent.
Trump has already threatened Mexico with 25% tariffs on many of its exports to the U.S. — including tomatoes, avocados, tequila and car parts — if the government of President Claudia Sheinbaum does not “do more” to stop the entry of migrants and fentanyl into the U.S. over its southern border with Mexico.
Many economists say such an action would not only blow up prices for U.S. consumers but also probably send the Mexican economy into a free fall, which in turn could spur more migration to the United States.
“Mexico can expect enormous pressure,” Maureen Meyer, programs vice president at the Washington Office on Latin America, said in an interview. The focus will be almost exclusively on immigration and law enforcement, she predicted, while “issues of concern to the human rights community — reproductive rights, climate, democracy — will all take a step back.”
She and others said that will probably be true across Latin America as a Trump government fortifies common cause with right-wing governments and parties in Argentina, Brazil and elsewhere, but will have the most impact in Mexico because of its 2,000-mile border with the United States and its close economic and cultural ties.
Johnson, not to be confused with the Republican Wisconsin senator of the same name, has resided in Florida since stepping down as ambassador to El Salvador at the end of the first Trump administration. He is an Alabama native, married with four grown children and five grandchildren, and spent time in Iraq and Afghanistan as part of his CIA duties. He also worked on counter-insurgency operations during El Salvador’s civil war in the 1980s, when the U.S. supported the right-wing government against leftist guerrillas.
“Ron will work closely with our great Secretary of State Nominee, [Florida Sen.] Marco Rubio, to promote our Nation’s security and prosperity through strong America First Foreign Policies,” Trump said on Truth Social in announcing the nomination this month.
“Together, we will put an end to migrant crime, stop the illegal flow of Fentanyl and other dangerous drugs into our Country and MAKE AMERICA SAFE AGAIN!” Trump wrote. This week, Trump added a plan to designate Mexican drug cartels as terrorists, a step that might be used as authorization for deploying U.S. troops.
In his campaign platform, Trump said he would order the Pentagon to use “special forces, cyber warfare, and other covert and overt actions to inflict maximum damage on cartel leadership, infrastructure, and operations.”
But it remains unclear how many of these steps Trump could take unilaterally. Terrorist designations usually require action by other agencies, such as the State Department, and some members of Congress who advocate a tougher approach to Mexican drug trafficking are nevertheless reluctant to send U.S. troops into the fray without approval by the Mexican government.
In Mexico, news of Johnson’s nomination was greeted warily, with many seeing a clear signal of the Trump administration’s intended, narrow focus.
Johnson’s “resume is the message,” Jorge Castañeda, a former foreign minister in Mexico, said in an essay for the Nexos news website. “Johnson has no experience in economic, commercial or financial matters. He is not coming to Mexico for that.”
Where Johnson does have ample experience is in counter-insurgency.
Johnson probably “will demand a change in the security strategy in Mexico,” said Mexican commentator León Krauze. “Trump likes spectacle, and has long considered the possibility of delivering to his electorate images of unilateral incursions into Mexican territory to arrest major drug lords, Hollywood-style.”
Many in Mexico are weary of U.S. intervention in security matters and blame the U.S. in part for backing former President Felipe Calderon’s military assault on drug cartels beginning in 2006, which sparked devastating levels of violence that persist to this day. Still others, just as exhausted by high murder and kidnapping rates, and having lost confidence in Mexican law enforcement often bought off by criminals, have started to lean toward welcoming U.S. troops.
Security cooperation between the U.S. and Mexico diminished greatly during the presidency of Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who accused U.S. forces of “abusive meddling” in 2020 when the former Mexican defense secretary, Salvador Cienfuegos, was arrested at Los Angeles International Airport on suspicion of drug trafficking.
López Obrador forced the Trump administration to return Cienfuegos to Mexico, where he was awarded a major military decoration. The damage strained U.S.-Mexico relations and hampered work in Mexico by the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration.
Sheinbaum, who took office Oct. 1, is similarly likely to be reticent in cooperating with Trump.
After his initial threats about military attack and tariffs, she telephoned him at his resort in Mar-a-Lago and then posted on X that Mexico would cooperate with the U.S. on relevant topics, but that the country would not bend to the will of the U.S. as it had in drug war that began in 2006.
“We are going to collaborate .. but without subordinating ourselves,” she wrote. “We will always defend Mexico as a free, sovereign and independent country.”
Eschewing the military-heavy approach of some of her predecessors could set Sheinbaum on a collision course with Trump and Johnson.
Sheinbaum “is not a Bukele type,” said Rep. Jim McGovern, a Massachusetts Democrat who specializes in Latin America and has been highly critical of the Salvadoran leader. “She wants good relations with Mexico … but is not looking to kiss Trump’s ring.”
Another major question is how Johnson would treat human rights issues in Mexico.
In El Salvador, where he was ambassador from 2019 to 2021, Johnson refrained from criticizing Bukele as the government rounded up tens of thousands of people in an effort to reduce gang crime. Some had gang affiliations, but many did not. According to human rights organizations, most were denied due process, innocents including children were detained, and hundreds were tortured in jail and died. Homicide rates declined substantially, although there is dispute over by how much.
Johnson also failed to sound the alarm over Bukele’s attempts to stack the country’s Congress and the Supreme Court with loyalists in what critics have described as a power grab that eroded El Salvador’s hard-fought democracy.
Bukele frequently spoke of his warm friendship with Johnson. The two were photographed yachting together in the Pacific off El Salvador’s coast. In June, long after Johnson had left his posting as ambassador, he joined Donald Trump Jr., Tucker Carlson and Rep. Matt Gaetz to attend Bukele’s inauguration to a questionably legal second term.
It is highly unlikely Johnson will have a similar relationship with Sheinbaum, Mexico’s first female president, a climate scientist by training, and representative of a leftist political party.
Wilkinson reported from Washington and Linthicum from Mexico City. A special correspondent in San Salvador also contributed.
Politics
Biden vetoes bill that would have given Trump more judicial seats to fill
President Biden on Monday vetoed a bill that would have added 66 federal district judgeships over a span of more than a decade, a once-bipartisan effort designed so that neither political party would have an advantage in molding the federal judiciary.
Three presidential administrations, beginning with the incoming Trump administration, and six Congresses would have had the opportunity to appoint the new trial court judgeships, according to the legislation, which had support from organizations representing judges and attorneys.
Despite arguments from the organizations that additional judgeships would help with cases that have seen serious delays in resolution and ease concerns over access to justice, the White House said that Biden would veto the bill.
In a statement, Biden said he made his decision because the “hurried action” by the House of Representatives left open questions about “life-tenured” positions.
BIDEN’S DECISION TO COMMUTE SENTENCES FOR DEATH ROW INMATES SPARKS SOCIAL MEDIA FRENZY
“The House of Representative’s hurried action fails to resolve key questions in the legislation, especially regarding how the new judgeships are allocated, and neither the House of Representatives nor the Senate explored fully how the work of senior status judges and magistrate judges affects the need for new judgeships,” Biden said.
“The efficient and effective administration of justice requires that these questions about need and allocation be further studied and answered before we create permanent judgeships for life-tenured judges,” Biden added.
He said the bill would also have created new judgeships in states where senators have not filled existing judicial vacancies and that those efforts “suggest that concerns about judicial economy and caseload are not the true motivating force behind passage of this bill now.
GOP CONGRESSMAN CHARGES BIDEN ADMINISTRATION’S FOREIGN POLICY ‘LEFT THE WORLD IN A WORSE OFF PLACE’
When Biden’s plan to veto the legislation surfaced earlier this month, Sen. John Kennedy, R-La., told “America’s Newsroom” that the act is “the last spasm of a lame-duck.”
“President Biden and his team don’t want to allow it to become law simply because a Republican administration would get to appoint some of the judges,” Kennedy said.
“I wish they’d put the country first,” the senator added.
The legislation was passed unanimously in August under the Democratic-controlled Senate, though the Republican-led House brought the measure to the floor only after Donald Trump was reelected president in November, creating an air of political gamesmanship.
Biden’s veto essentially shelves the legislation for the current Congress.
CLICK TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP
Overturning Biden’s veto would require a two-thirds majority in both the House and Senate, and the House vote fell well short of that margin.
The Associated Press contributed to this report.
Politics
Opinion: Romney's Senate exit marks an end to the bipartisanship Washington desperately needs
Mitt Romney delivered his farewell speech before the U.S. Senate in early December. It isn’t hyperbole to say it marked the end of an era.
Romney’s time in public service, which has spanned well over two decades, will be considered historic — he is the only American to serve as governor of one state and senator for another, as well as presidential nominee for a major political party. But perhaps more important, Romney’s departure, along with others recently, represents the end of a period in which bipartisanship and dealmaking have been valued, or even aspired to, in Washington.
What we are left with is a Senate — and politics in general — that is too much like the House of Representatives: fundamentally partisan and majoritarian, less interested in cutting deals or passing major legislation, and far more inclined toward showmanship than workmanship.
Consider other departures from the Senate, including Democrats-turned-independents Joe Manchin III and Kyrsten Sinema, who conclude their service this year. And in the GOP, Rob Portman of Ohio, Richard Shelby of Alabama, Pat Toomey of Pennsylvania and Roy Blunt of Missouri, who left the chamber when their terms were up in 2023. The Republicans were firm in their conservative principles but welcomed opportunities to work with legislators from the other side of the aisle. Numerous examples can be found of similar recent departures from the House of Representatives as well.
Romney’s speech, typically gracious, acknowledged that his significant successes were built on partnerships with others, and that his “life’s work has been a group affair.” In the Senate, he has been a linchpin for bipartisan legislation on issues as eclectic as electoral reform, pandemic-era economic relief, marriage rights and infrastructure development. As governor of Massachusetts, he had a record of fiscal conservatism and reform. And as a presidential candidate, he sounded early warnings about the dangers of Vladimir Putin and a resurgent Russia and presaged the increasingly tense relationship between the U.S. and the People’s Republic of China.
But of all his many accomplishments, it’s clear there is none he is prouder of than his effort to bring affordable health insurance to every resident of Massachusetts. Indeed, elements of “Romneycare” made their way into Obamacare, or the Affordable Care Act, and the Massachusetts law was the first major stroke of bipartisanship in Romney’s career in public service. It attracted the overwhelming support of state legislators from both parties, with the late Massachusetts Sen. Ted Kennedy — whom Romney ran against (and lost to) for U.S. Senate in 1994 — standing beside him when he signed the state health reform legislation into law in April 2006.
The irony is that Romney’s bold healthcare bipartisan dealmaking may have signaled the beginning of the end of the era in which working together advanced one’s political career. The tea party movement burst onto the political scene in 2009 and foretold a time just a few years later, when Romney’s signature gubernatorial achievement would turn into an albatross in his presidential campaign, as Washington battled over Obamacare. The Affordable Care Act had seeming structural similarities with Romney’s reforms, most notably the inclusion of an individual mandate for health insurance. (The provision was so broadly unpopular that Congress and then-President Trump effectively eliminated the requirement from Obamacare in 2017.)
I served as Romney’s policy director in that 2012 campaign, and we were constantly working to emphasize the benefits of the Massachusetts healthcare reforms without at the same time appearing to extol the ACA. No matter that Romney’s was a state plan and, as he argued, state policies might not be well-suited for the federal government. Rather than a badge of honor, Romney’s ultimate act of bipartisanship was seen by some Republican primary voters as a scarlet letter.
In the years since that 2012 campaign, we have witnessed the breaking apart of the political middle. The rhetoric around the 2024 election demonstrated that common ground among Americans is shrinking by the minute. And voices on both the far left and right have gained in notoriety and influence.
To close his farewell speech, Romney warned of the challenge created by those “who would tear at our unity.” It is a real challenge indeed, and one that we are sadly less able to confront with Romney and others like him gone from the Senate and public service.
Lanhee J. Chen, a contributing writer to Opinion, is a fellow at the Hoover Institution and the director of domestic policy studies in the public policy program at Stanford University. He was a candidate for California state controller in 2022.
Politics
Who Are Elon Musk’s Friends, Investors and Family?
A look at the people who influence the world’s richest man, and those who stand to gain from their association with him now.
Elon Musk occupies a rare place at the center of American power.
As the “first buddy,” he has won the ear of President-elect Donald J. Trump, having spent over $250 million in the final months of 2024 to help him get elected. Mr. Musk has appeared in family photos at Mar-a-Lago and joined Mr. Trump on calls with world leaders and chief executives.
Mr. Musk has never had more influence over business, global politics and the American democratic system. He helped kill bipartisan legislation in Congress to avoid a government shutdown, though a bill was later passed.
Where does he go from here?
These are the people who influence Mr. Musk right now, and those whom he influences in turn. They are longtime friends, investors, staff members or party buddies — and sometimes, those boundaries blur.
They shape how Mr. Musk operates and views the world. Many have propped him up, in the good times and the bad, and some now stand to gain from his new position in U.S. politics.
-
Business1 week ago
Freddie Freeman's World Series walk-off grand slam baseball sells at auction for $1.56 million
-
Technology1 week ago
Meta’s Instagram boss: who posted something matters more in the AI age
-
Technology3 days ago
Google’s counteroffer to the government trying to break it up is unbundling Android apps
-
News1 week ago
East’s wintry mix could make travel dicey. And yes, that was a tornado in Calif.
-
Politics4 days ago
Illegal immigrant sexually abused child in the U.S. after being removed from the country five times
-
News4 days ago
Novo Nordisk shares tumble as weight-loss drug trial data disappoints
-
Entertainment5 days ago
'It's a little holiday gift': Inside the Weeknd's free Santa Monica show for his biggest fans
-
Politics1 week ago
Supreme Court may free Catholic charities from paying state unemployment taxes for their employees