By Cliff Potts, CSO, and Editor-in-Chief of WPS News

Washington, D.C.
January 8, 2026

What the President Said

On January 8, 2026, President Donald J. Trump publicly declared that the United States would begin “hitting land” in its fight against drug cartels. The statement was made during a televised interview in which Trump was discussing narcotics trafficking and border security. He offered no clarification, no operational details, and no legal framework. The phrase was left intentionally broad and unmistakably militarized.

Trump paired the remark with a claim that U.S. interdiction efforts had already stopped “97 percent” of drugs coming into the country by water. No evidence was offered. No federal agency was cited. The figure was presented as fact, despite there being no publicly available data that supports it.

Why the Language Matters

There is no recognized law-enforcement meaning for the phrase “land strikes.” In military and international-law terms, force delivered on land against targets on land refers to ground operations or land-launched attacks. When such force is used inside another country without that country’s consent, it constitutes an armed incursion.

Put plainly: if U.S. troops or U.S.-launched land-based weapons are used inside Mexico without Mexican authorization, that action meets the definition of an invasion. Scale does not matter. Duration does not matter. A single unauthorized raid qualifies.

Trump did not use the language of policing or cooperation. He did not reference extradition, joint task forces, or bilateral law-enforcement agreements. He chose language associated with warfare, not criminal justice. That distinction is critical, especially when the words come from a sitting president.

The Problem With the “97 Percent” Claim

Trump’s assertion that “97 percent” of drugs enter the United States by water is unsupported by publicly available evidence. Data from U.S. agencies consistently indicate that significant quantities of illicit drugs—particularly fentanyl—enter the country overland through ports of entry, concealed in vehicles or commercial cargo.

Drug-flow data is inherently incomplete, but no credible dataset places maritime trafficking anywhere near the figure Trump cited. The number appears to be invented or, at best, grossly exaggerated. This matters because it was used to declare one domain “handled” and to justify escalation into another.

Policy driven by fabricated statistics is not aggressive leadership; it is reckless decision-making.

Sovereignty and International Law

Mexico immediately rejected the premise behind Trump’s remarks, emphasizing its sovereignty and opposing any unilateral U.S. military action on Mexican soil. That response is decisive. Without Mexico’s consent, any U.S. “land strike” inside Mexico would violate international law.

Threatening such action carries consequences regardless of whether an order is issued. Statements by a sitting president are treated as signals by foreign governments, militaries, and international institutions. Ambiguity does not reduce the impact of a threat; it amplifies instability.

What Can Reasonably Be Inferred

Trump did not announce a signed order. He did not publish a war plan. There is no public evidence of an approved invasion plan. But none of that is required for a statement to function as a threat.

What can be reasonably inferred from the January 8 remarks is this:

  • The president expressed a willingness to use military force on land against targets associated with Mexico.
  • He did so using unsupported statistics to frame the action as necessary.
  • He offered no indication of Mexican consent.

Under established legal definitions, the actions implied by his words would constitute an invasion if carried out.

Calling this rhetoric a “threat to invade Mexico” is not inflammatory when the terms are defined and explained. It is a factual description of what the language implies under international law.

Why Precision Is Necessary

Most media outlets avoid the word “invasion” because it is uncomfortable and politically explosive. Instead, they rely on euphemisms such as “operations” or “strikes.” Those substitutions obscure reality and dilute accountability.

Responsible analysis requires calling actions by their proper names, while clearly distinguishing between threats and executed orders. On January 8, 2026, the President of the United States issued a statement that reasonably reads as a threat to use ground force inside a neighboring sovereign nation. That is a fact worthy of being recorded plainly, for posterity.

For more social commentary, please see Occupy 2.5 at https://Occupy25.com

This essay is archived as part of the WPS News Monthly Brief Series. Archives are available through Amazon.

References (APA)

Reuters. (2026, January 9). Mexico rejects U.S. military action after Trump remarks on cartels. Reuters.

Time. (2026, January). Trump signals escalation against drug cartels with “land” comments. Time.

U.S. Congressional Research Service. (2023). Illicit drug flows and border interdiction: Limitations of seizure data. CRS Report.

Discover more from WPS News

Subscribe to get the latest posts sent to your email.