President Donald Trump’s public warnings to Mexico, Colombia, and Cuba following the US military operation in Venezuela mark a dramatic escalation in Washington’s posture toward Latin America. What began as a controversial special forces raid that resulted in the capture of Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro has now widened into a broader confrontation with multiple governments in the region, raising alarms about sovereignty, international law, and the future stability of the Western Hemisphere.

The January 3 operation, which US officials framed as a decisive blow against what Trump labeled a “narco-terrorist regime,” was immediately condemned across Latin America and beyond. But Trump’s subsequent remarks suggest that Venezuela may be only the beginning. By openly criticizing and issuing thinly veiled threats against Mexico, Colombia, and Cuba, the US president signaled a willingness to extend American military and political pressure well beyond Caracas.

Speaking to reporters while defending the Venezuela operation, Trump intensified his rhetoric against Colombian President Gustavo Petro, whom he described as a close ally of Maduro. In comments that sparked outrage in Bogotá, Trump accused Petro of presiding over cocaine production facilities, declaring bluntly that the Colombian leader “has to watch his ass.” Such language, unprecedented in its directness toward a sitting head of state from a neighboring country, underscored the confrontational tone of the administration’s approach.

Colombia has long been a strategic partner of the United States, particularly in counter-narcotics efforts. Trump’s remarks therefore struck many observers as a sharp departure from traditional diplomatic norms. Rather than engaging through established bilateral mechanisms, the US president appeared to publicly threaten a government that has itself struggled for decades with drug violence, insurgency, and the social consequences of the global cocaine trade-much of which is driven by demand in the United States.

Trump’s comments regarding Cuba were similarly ominous. Without announcing specific actions, he suggested that Washington would soon be “talking about” the island nation, describing it as a “failing country” similar to Venezuela. While framing his position as concern for the Cuban people, Trump also emphasized the interests of Cuban exiles living in the United States, a political constituency that has historically supported hardline policies against Havana.

For many in Latin America, this language revived memories of Cold War-era US interventions justified under the banner of liberation or democracy, but which often resulted in prolonged instability and authoritarian rule. Cuban President Miguel Díaz-Canel responded forcefully, condemning the US attack on Venezuela as “cowardly, criminal, and treacherous,” and calling on the international community to reject what he described as blatant aggression.

Mexico, meanwhile, found itself squarely in Trump’s rhetorical crosshairs. In a phone interview with Fox News earlier the same day, Trump claimed that drug cartels effectively control the country and portrayed Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo as too afraid to confront them. He alleged that he had repeatedly offered to deploy US forces to “take out the cartels,” only to be rebuffed.

“They’re running Mexico,” Trump said, adding, “So we have to do something.”

Such statements strike at the heart of Mexican sovereignty. While Mexico has faced severe challenges from organized crime, successive governments have firmly rejected foreign military intervention as a solution. The idea of US troops operating on Mexican soil evokes a long and painful history of intervention, occupation, and territorial loss that remains deeply ingrained in the national consciousness.

Mexico’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs responded swiftly and sharply to the Venezuela operation, warning that US military action “seriously jeopardizes regional stability.” The statement emphasized that Latin America and the Caribbean must remain a “zone of peace,” a principle enshrined in regional agreements and repeatedly reaffirmed by Latin American governments seeking to avoid becoming arenas for great power conflict.

Colombian President Petro echoed these concerns, expressing “deep concern” over the US raid and reiterating his rejection of “any unilateral military action” that bypasses international law. While careful not to provoke a direct rupture with Washington, Petro’s response reflected growing unease among US partners who fear being drawn into a cycle of escalation driven by American domestic politics rather than regional consensus.

At the core of the controversy is the legality of the US operation against Venezuela. Critics argue that the raid constituted a clear violation of Venezuelan sovereignty and the United Nations Charter, which prohibits the use of force except in cases of self-defense or with Security Council authorization. The Trump administration has offered little evidence to support claims that Maduro posed an imminent threat justifying such action.

The broader implications are profound. By normalizing the use of unilateral military force and coupling it with public threats against neighboring governments, Washington risks undermining the already fragile diplomatic architecture of the Americas. Rather than isolating adversaries, this approach may encourage closer coordination among Latin American states seeking to protect themselves from external coercion.

International condemnation of the Venezuela operation continues to mount, with many governments warning that the precedent set by the US could be used elsewhere, eroding global norms designed to prevent powerful states from imposing their will by force. For Latin America, a region with a long history of foreign intervention, Trump’s warnings have reopened old wounds and reignited fears of a return to gunboat diplomacy.

Whether the White House intends to follow through on its threats remains unclear. What is clear, however, is that the US intervention in Venezuela has already reshaped regional dynamics. By extending its confrontational rhetoric to Mexico, Colombia, and Cuba, the Trump administration has transformed a single military operation into a wider crisis-one that threatens to destabilize relations across the hemisphere and test the limits of international law itself.

Please follow Blitz on Google News Channel