February 2, 2025
The idea of issuing letters of marque to authorize private military forces to combat Mexican drug cartels is not only historically absurd but also presents a security nightmare with disastrous consequences. Unlike the traditional use of letters of marque—which involved seizing ships and their cargo during wartime—this proposal attempts to apply an outdated maritime concept to a violent land-based conflict. The sheer scale of the cartels’ power, their access to sophisticated weaponry, and the potential for severe retaliation make this idea one of the most reckless strategies ever proposed for dealing with transnational crime.
Cartels Are Not 18th-Century Merchant Ships
In history, privateers under letters of marque targeted enemy ships, which were relatively isolated and had limited defenses. This is a far cry from attacking highly organized, militarized criminal organizations operating across vast territories. Mexican cartels possess billions of dollars in resources, heavily fortified compounds, and military-grade weapons, including armored vehicles, drones, and even submarines. Some cartels have better intelligence networks than certain nation-states, and their ability to corrupt and infiltrate law enforcement and political systems makes them vastly more complex adversaries than ships at sea.
Attempting to seize “spoils” from the cartels is also logistically impossible. Unlike a ship’s cargo, which can be taken and distributed, cartel resources—drugs, weapons, and cash—are hidden in extensive networks of warehouses, tunnels, and offshore accounts. Moreover, much of their “wealth” is in human capital—extortion networks, assassins, and traffickers who will not simply surrender their operations because a group of private mercenaries shows up.
Risk of Retaliation Against the U.S.
One of the most dangerous aspects of this idea is the near certainty that the cartels would see it as an act of war by the U.S. government, regardless of whether private military groups are used. Unlike traditional military forces, cartels are not bound by international rules of engagement or concern for civilian casualties. If provoked, they would likely retaliate not just against private military contractors but against U.S. civilians, government facilities, and border communities.
Cartels already have networks operating in the U.S., and an attack on their operations could trigger a wave of assassinations, kidnappings, and terrorist-style reprisals on American soil. The precedent for this is clear: when the Mexican government has tried to crack down on cartels, they have responded with brutal violence, sometimes targeting high-ranking officials and their families. If private armies were authorized under a U.S. government directive, the cartels could justify taking the fight directly into the United States. So, If we have to fight them anyway, we should use air strikes.
Destabilizing Mexico and Creating a Failed State
Another catastrophic consequence would be the further destabilization of Mexico, a key U.S. trade partner and regional ally. Sending private military forces into Mexico, even with unofficial backing from the U.S., would be seen as a blatant violation of sovereignty, leading to a diplomatic crisis. The Mexican government would be forced to respond—either by expelling American operatives or escalating its own military efforts in ways that could further empower the cartels.
History has shown that when cartels are threatened, they don’t disappear; they adapt. They would likely become even more decentralized, making them harder to combat, and could even align with other criminal networks or terrorist organizations to resist U.S. intervention. Instead of solving the problem, such a move would likely lead to prolonged conflict and a humanitarian disaster.
Why President Trump Should Reject This Proposal
There are countless reasons why President @realDonaldTrump should not authorize letters of marque for cartel-related warfare:
1. It is legally dubious. While letters of marque are technically still in the U.S. Constitution, they have not been used in modern warfare, and their application to land-based conflict is unprecedented. This could set a dangerous precedent for private wars and unregulated military action.
2. It undermines national security. Allowing private military groups to wage war against cartels would mean unleashing independent actors with their own financial incentives, creating chaos rather than stability. You don't think for one second that Eric Prince's military would be tempted to CONFISCATE ALL THE DRUGS AND NOT ONLY USE THEM BUT SELL THEM FOR PROFIT THEMSELVES? This is why it is so troubling that Eric Prince would even suggest this!! That even Congressman Mike Lee would suggest this is troubling to say the least as well. Anyone who would want the spoils of the Mexican Cartel should be looked at with a suspicious side eye to say the least! What do they plan to do with all the drugs? No doubt probably at least $1 Billion or more worth of drugs that could be seized. You think they're just going to burn all the cocaine instead of selling it?? What a shameful and totally reckless and disgraceful suggestion; to even consider wanting to be issued a letter of Marque for this purpose. I get that a private army could significantly weaken the cartel so the U.S. Military could go in there easier but there are other far more creative ways to get the cartel to stand down.
3. It endangers U.S. citizens. Cartels have the capability to retaliate within American borders. By escalating the conflict, innocent civilians could become targets.
4. It violates Mexico’s sovereignty. The U.S. cannot simply send private armies into another country without facing serious diplomatic fallout. Mexico is already dealing with cartel violence—further militarization without government coordination would make matters worse.
5. It ignores viable alternatives. There are smarter, more strategic ways to combat cartel influence, including economic and diplomatic solutions.
A Smarter Approach: Economic and Diplomatic Solutions
Rather than resorting to outdated and dangerous military strategies, the U.S. should consider innovative solutions that address the root causes of cartel power—namely, the lucrative drug trade and the lack of alternative economic opportunities.
One such proposal is WLBJ’s Global E-commerce Manufacturing Venture (GEMV), which offers a sustainable way to transition cartel operations away from the drug trade and into a much more lucrative industry, the legitimate $6 -$12 trillion dollar a year e-commerce and manufacturing industries. This approach would provide cartels with a pathway to economic stability through legal means, reducing their reliance on illicit activities.
The U.S. government should at least attempt to open diplomatic channels and economic incentives before engaging in military action. If cartels refuse to transition peacefully, then the full weight of the American military—including precision airstrikes—could be threatened and eventually used to dismantle their most dangerous operations if they don't comply. But this should be a last resort, not the first step.
The Bottom Line: Avoiding a War That Can’t Be Won
Issuing letters of marque to private military forces against cartels is not only reckless but also strategically and morally flawed. It would escalate violence, provoke retaliation, destabilize Mexico, tempt ANY private military to both use and sell all the drugs, and create legal and diplomatic chaos. Instead of diving headfirst into a war with unpredictable consequences, the U.S. should prioritize economic and diplomatic efforts like GEMV in conjunction with the threat of full military force before anything else..
If all else fails, military force should be used in a structured and official capacity—not through an outdated system of privateering. President Trump, or any future U.S. leader, must recognize that fighting cartels requires smart, modern solutions, not 18th-century piracy tactics. SMH!
Grace, Mercy, And Peace To You All,
WLBJ