Elections

McCarthy was ousted by hard-right members of his own Republican party, eight of which voted with 208 Democrats to remove him from office. ‘Chaos is Speaker McCarthy. Chaos is somebody who we cannot trust with their word,’ said Florida Republican congressman Matt Gaetz, who tabled the motion to vacate the chair that led to McCarthy being removed after nine months in the role. More

This article has been updated to include new information about Mr. McCarthy’s decision not to run for speaker again.The U.S. Capitol may be perched on a hill, but it is understandable why so many Americans look down on it.One of the main reasons is that their Congress, which ought to be a global beacon of liberal values, continues to succumb to self-inflicted paralysis. How else can it be that fewer than a dozen lawmakers from the outer fringes of the Republican Party are holding one of the world’s oldest democracies hostage to their wildest whims?On Tuesday a small group of Republicans effectively shut down all business in the House when they voted to oust Kevin McCarthy as speaker. Though 210 of 218 House Republicans supported him, he lost his job when just eight members of the caucus voted against him, joining all Democrats who voted.Without a speaker, the House can get nothing done. There will be no votes or even debate about paying for the government’s operations, though the money runs out in six weeks. There will be no discussion of how to help Ukraine or how to deal with the nation’s immigration crisis or any of the other crises facing Washington.Even before he lost his job, Mr. McCarthy and his caucus lurched the nation from debt limit crisis to shutdown crisis to win debating points that might help them in the next elections rather than pass meaningful legislation that addresses the nation’s challenges. We’re now in the middle of yet another pointless fight, this time over the funding of the federal government and the leadership of the House.Republicans in the House showed briefly, on Saturday, that they were willing to do the right thing and compromise to avoid a shutdown. In the upcoming votes to choose a new speaker, they can and should do that again, by showing their commitment to responsible governance. If Democrats can help achieve that, they should. The next candidates for speaker could win Democratic votes by promising a different course, one that brings both parties together for the common good. Any other candidate for the job will also face the same choice.Voters have given Republicans a majority of seats in the House and thus control over selecting the speaker, who sets the agenda in the House. Those voters, in turn, should expect the body to serve the people who elected them.It’s possible that the Republican Party is finally ready to again choose pragmatism over partisanship. Last weekend Mr. McCarthy sought and received the support of hundreds of Democrats to pass a continuing resolution to fund the federal government, a measure that pushed a potential government shutdown 45 days down the road.It’s hard to get excited about a victory in a fight that never needed to happen, especially at the last possible moment. But the saga reflects the reality of D.C. today: Bipartisan compromise has become the sole path to governing in the United States in 2023.Democrats have the White House and a one-seat majority in the Senate, while Republicans control the House of Representatives and appointed a supermajority of conservatives on the Supreme Court. President Biden’s executive authority extends only as far as the courts have allowed, while the only path through the Senate is with enough bipartisan support to skirt the shoals of a filibuster. The government, like the nation, is divided.But political polarization is not the excuse for inaction that so many grandstanding politicos too often take it to be. With a divided Congress, the only way to get any legislation passed is with some support from the center of both parties. A Congress that operated in a more bipartisan manner could move the country beyond its impasses over issues like immigration or the sustainability of the social safety net. A more confident center-right party that doesn’t genuflect to Donald Trump would have an easier time achieving those ambitious acts of self-governance.While that’s a tall order, it is not impossible: Just look at the past few days.Mr. McCarthy did the right thing on Saturday, outmaneuvering the radicals in his own party, led by Representative Matt Gaetz, to keep the federal government open. The next speaker needs to deprive Mr. Gaetz and his ilk of the weapon they’ve been using to force the House leadership into compliance with their demands. Congress represents more than 330 million Americans; Mr. Gaetz and his allies should not be given a heckler’s veto over the business of government.It was a conscious choice by the ousted speaker of the House to give them one. In the face of intransigence from his right flank, the next speaker should drop the anachronistic practice that demands Republicans bring up only legislation backed by a majority of their members. The so-called Hastert rule, named for Dennis Hastert, the disgraced former speaker, appears nowhere in the Constitution and can be used to prevent the House from moving forward with bipartisan legislation.A new speaker should also commit to plain dealing with Democratic colleagues and may need them to prevent another putsch. Mr. McCarthy lost faith among Democrats by failing to keep his word and honor a deal over spending caps that he negotiated with the White House in May. The next speaker might consider that a good starting point for negotiations.Once a new speaker is chosen, the House will have less than 45 days to avert yet another standoff over a shutdown, and members of good will in both parties will again need to show that they are willing and able to compromise; the Democrats could permit more spending on border security, and Republicans should continue the vital flow of aid to Ukraine, among other issues.The House Democratic leader, Hakeem Jeffries, said Tuesday that his caucus would “remain willing to find common ground on an enlightened path forward,” one that did not leave the public’s business at the mercy of a few extremists. Whichever leader Republicans now choose should agree to a similar path.The Times is committed to publishing a diversity of letters to the editor. We’d like to hear what you think about this or any of our articles. Here are some tips. And here’s our email: [email protected] The New York Times Opinion section on Facebook, Twitter (@NYTopinion) and Instagram. More

In an overwhelmingly Republican district, Mr. Gaetz is admired for shaking up the House, but he also has plenty of critics.He is polarizing in Washington and polarizing at home. And in both places these days, he is getting more attention than anyone might expect, given his lack of seniority and thin legislative record.As Representative Matt Gaetz of Florida orchestrated the ouster of Speaker Kevin McCarthy on Tuesday, constituents in his overwhelmingly Republican district had plenty of thoughts about their congressman’s actions and suddenly robust national profile.“If we got rid of the speaker of the House, hopefully we get someone in there who doesn’t make backdoor deals with Democrats,” said Sandra Atkinson, the chairwoman of the Republican Party of Okaloosa County, adding that Republicans were proud of him for following through on his word.Critics in his district saw a political moment that was about ego and ambition and little more.“He is following through on using chaos as both a performative art — that phrase is overused but it’s true — and because he’s frustrated he’s not getting his own way,” said Phil Ehr, a Democrat who ran against Mr. Gaetz in 2018 and is now running for the U.S. Senate. “In some ways, he’s acting like a petulant child.”Yet for all of his time spent picking fights — and, his critics say, little time crafting legislation — Mr. Gaetz remains broadly popular in his district, a stretch of the western Florida Panhandle, where he won re-election last year by nearly 36 percentage points. His skirmishes in Washington, and a federal investigation that revealed embarrassing details about this private life, have done little to bruise him.Palafox Pier in Pensacola, Fla., on Tuesday. Mr. Gaetz remains broadly popular in his district, a stretch of the western Florida Panhandle where he won re-election last year.Elijah Baylis for The New York Times“There’s a lot of people who like Matt Gaetz,” said Joel Terry May, 67, a local artist, as he showed off a painting in downtown Pensacola to visitors from New Orleans. “He speaks for the people, and he speaks out.”Mr. May, who grew up in Alabama, remembers a time when former Gov. George C. Wallace visited his school back in the 1960s.“People didn’t like George Wallace nationally, but the people who elected him and represented him did,” he said. “That’s what Gaetz also understands. When you represent somebody, you want them to maintain the feel of the people. People want to see Washington work. They want their representatives to have a pulse on the area.”Mr. Gaetz is widely disliked by his peers in Congress but is grudgingly acknowledged to be smart and crafty, and certainly a master of drawing attention to himself. Mr. Gaetz was re-elected last year while under the cloud of an investigation in a federal sex-trafficking case that ultimately resulted in no criminal charges against him. (A congressional ethics review is pending.) Twice, women have been arrested after throwing their drinks at him.Now, his support for a far-right posture that could shut down the federal government — directly affecting many of the people he represents — is unlikely to dent him, his critics acknowledged.“He is loved by the First Congressional District,” said Mark Lombardo, who unsuccessfully challenged Mr. Gaetz in last year’s Republican primary.Mark Lombardo, who unsuccessfully challenged Mr. Gaetz in last year’s Republican primary. campaigning in Pace, Fla., last year. Gregg Pachkowski/Pensacola News Journal/ USA TODAYMr. Lombardo attributed his loss, among other things, to Mr. Gaetz’s family ties — his father, Don Gaetz, is a wealthy and well-known former president of the Florida Senate who on Monday filed to run for the Senate again after stepping down in 2016 — and his devotion to former President Donald J. Trump. Mr. Gaetz is one of Mr. Trump’s closest allies in Congress and has backed him for the 2024 Republican presidential nomination over Gov. Ron DeSantis of Florida.“He was Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump, Trump,” Mr. Lombardo said of the congressman, “and the First District is all about Trump.”No other congressional district in the country has as many military veterans, a group that could have been badly hurt by a shutdown. Yet even his critics concede that Mr. Gaetz remains popular among them.Barry Goodson, 70, a registered Democrat and retired Army veteran who once helped organize people against a plan backed by Mr. Gaetz to privatize some of Northwest Florida’s sandy-white beaches, said he worries his health care providers at the Department of Veterans Affairs would suffer under a shutdown.“I still can’t understand why Gaetz hates negotiating rather than working out something for the people in the district,” he said.“A chaos agent is not good for public policy,” said Samantha Herring, a Democratic national committeewoman in Walton County. “It’s not good for getting highway funds, education and veterans affairs.”And Mr. McCarthy’s ouster left even some fans of Mr. Gaetz with questions about exactly what had been accomplished.“That just makes me support him even more,” said Tim Hudson, 26, a lifelong Pensacola resident, upon learning on Tuesday about the congressman’s successful ouster of Mr. McCarthy.Elijah Baylis for The New York TimesJohn Roberts, chairman of the Escambia County Republican Party, said that Republicans, even those typically sympathetic to Mr. Gaetz’s views on other policies like immigration and the national debt, generally supported keeping Mr. McCarthy as speaker.“It’s not like we’re mad at Matt Gaetz; he’s still a good congressman,” he said. “But I think this was probably the wrong move.”But as the House smoldered and shook, other backers of Mr. Gaetz said they were all in.Tim Hudson, 26, a lifelong Pensacola resident, has voted for Mr. Gaetz. Upon learning on Tuesday about the congressman’s successful ouster of Mr. McCarthy, Mr. Hudson offered only more praise.“That just makes me support him even more,” Mr. Hudson said.He added that the ouster of Mr. McCarthy “speaks to how the world really is right now. We’re tired. We’re fed up. We want to see people start getting things done.”Susan C. Beachy More

Kari Lake, the Republican former news anchor who refused to acknowledge her loss in the Arizona governor’s race last year, filed paperwork on Tuesday to run for Senate, setting up what is expected to be one of the most competitive Senate races in the country as Republicans try to win back the chamber.The incumbent, Senator Kyrsten Sinema, who left the Democratic Party last year to become an independent, has not confirmed whether she will run for re-election, but a prominent Democrat, Representative Ruben Gallego, is already challenging her. Mark Lamb, a right-wing sheriff and an ally of former President Donald J. Trump, is also running.On Tuesday, Ms. Lake was in Washington, where she met with several Republican members of the Senate, including John Cornyn of Texas and Ron Johnson of Wisconsin, according to people familiar with the discussions who insisted on anonymity because they were not authorized to discuss private conversations.She also met with Senator Steve Daines of Montana, the chairman of the National Republican Senatorial Committee. Mr. Daines is considering an endorsement for Ms. Lake, which may convince moderate donors to give the conservative firebrand a second look.A person close to Ms. Lake confirmed that she had filed paperwork to open her Senate campaign. She is scheduled to hold her first rally as a candidate next week.Ms. Lake lost the governor’s race to Katie Hobbs by about 17,000 votes, a little over half a percentage point. She was one of many Republicans, including several in Arizona, who lost close contests last year after running on Mr. Trump’s lie that the 2020 election had been stolen. While most of those Republicans conceded their own losses, Ms. Lake followed Mr. Trump’s lead and continued to insist that she had won even after her legal challenges were rejected.Her campaign circulated testimonials from supporters who claimed to have been disenfranchised by technical problems with voting machines, but a New York Times review found that most of them had been able to vote. She filed a lawsuit in December alleging deliberate misconduct by election officials — though she did not provide evidence of that, or of any unintentional disenfranchisement. A judge rejected her claims later that month.In February, when she said she was considering running for Senate, she was still claiming to be the rightful governor and raising money for lawsuits. The Arizona Supreme Court refused to hear her case in March, and in May, a lower-court judge threw out a challenge she had filed over the verification of signatures for mail-in ballots.During her campaign, she followed Mr. Trump in both style and substance, using the news media as a foil after working for years as a local television anchor in Phoenix. She repeatedly promoted Mr. Trump’s election lies, won his endorsement and in the Republican primary, defeated Karrin Taylor Robson, a rival supported by the state’s G.O.P. establishment. More

Fulton county prosecutors in Georgia have approached several defendants about plea agreements in the sprawling criminal racketeering case dealing with Donald Trump’s efforts to overturn the result of the 2020 election, the Atlanta Journal-Constitution reported on Tuesday.Plea agreements are common in such cases accusing defendants of violating the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (Rico) Act, where prosecutors will often try and get individuals at the lower level of a criminal enterprise to “flip” and assist the prosecution in exchange for a lighter sentence or immunity. The district attorney’s office has already reached immunity plea agreements with at least half of the fake set of electors in Georgia.Michael Roman, the head of election day operations for the Trump campaign in 2020, rejected a plea agreement, a person involved in his defense told the Atlanta Journal-Constitution. One of his lawyers told the paper that his legal team had sought to negotiate for dismissal of the charges against him in exchange for truthful testimony. An attorney for Roman did not immediately respond to a request for comment.Several people who were involved in the breach of Coffee county election equipment as well as a scheme to harass the election workers Shaye Moss and Ruby Freeman have also been approached, the paper reported.The Fulton county district attorney’s office did not immediately return a request for comment.Scott Hall, a bail bondsman who was involved in efforts to breach voting equipment in Coffee county, became the first of the 19 defendants to plead guilty last week. He received five years of probation, a $5,000 fine and 200 hours community service, and he agreed to write a letter of apology after pleading guilty to five counts of intentional interference of performance of election duties, a misdemeanor. Before pleading guilty, he gave a recorded statement to prosecutors, which they are likely to use as they make a criminal case against Sidney Powell, one of Trump’s attorneys.skip past newsletter promotionafter newsletter promotionTrump and 18 of his associates were charged earlier this year on 41 counts of various crimes in Georgia, including racketeering and forgery, for their efforts to overturn the election. Two of the defendants, Powell and Ken Chesebro, have successfully severed their cases from the others and will be tried together soon after requesting a swift timetable. Jury selection is expected to begin in that case on 20 October. More

As legal cases against former President Donald J. Trump churn forward on at least five fronts, two of them related to his lie that the 2020 election was stolen from him, his campaign is advancing baseless claims that the 2024 election, too, is on track to be stolen from him.In a statement on Monday, two advisers to Mr. Trump’s campaign — Susie Wiles and Chris LaCivita — called on the Republican National Committee to “immediately cancel the upcoming debate in Miami and end all future debates in order to refocus its manpower and money on preventing Democrats’ efforts to steal the 2024 election.”They declared that if the R.N.C. proceeded with the debate, it would prove that “national Republicans are more concerned about helping Joe Biden than ensuring a safe and secure election.”Mr. Trump refused to attend the first two debates. The third is scheduled for Nov. 8. A Trump campaign spokesman did not respond to a request for comment. Ms. Wiles and Mr. LaCivita did not cite any evidence in their statement to support their claim that Democrats are trying to steal the 2024 election.A spokeswoman for the R.N.C. did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The committee is formally neutral in the primary; Mr. Trump’s campaign is effectively asking it to abandon that neutrality and turn its focus to the general election before any votes are cast.The statement follows a playbook that Mr. Trump used in both 2016 and 2020, pre-emptively suggesting that the upcoming elections would be rigged against him. He repeatedly planted in his supporters’ minds the idea that he could not possibly lose a fair vote and that, therefore, if he did lose, it would be evidence of fraud in and of itself.Trust in the security of U.S. elections among Republicans has plunged. Supporters of Mr. Trump, many of whom believed his lie that the 2020 race was stolen from him, stormed the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, in an effort to block the formalization of President Biden’s victory. Election officials have faced harassment and violent threats. More

Recent incendiary statements by the former president come at a time when his supporters are already angry over his indictments.Former President Donald J. Trump had a lot to say on the first day of the fraud trial against him and his company. Speaking to reporters at a Manhattan courthouse on Monday, he dismissed the judge as a “rogue” justice and said he did not “think the people of this country are going to stand for it.” And he focused on the official who filed the lawsuit against him, New York’s attorney general, Letitia James.“This is a disgrace,” he said, “and you ought to go after this attorney general.”The remark urging people to “go after” a top elected official in New York, by a former president whose invective has become a familiar backdrop of American life, was part of a pattern of increasingly sharp language from Mr. Trump.Days earlier, he told hundreds of Republican activists in California that shoplifters should be shot. Not long before that, he insinuated that the military general he personally appointed as chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff should be executed for treason.Since he first became a political candidate in the 2016 presidential race, Mr. Trump has glorified violence, suggesting he wanted to hit a protester and offering to pay the legal fees if his supporters struck protesters at his rallies. But as Mr. Trump has been indicted four times in four jurisdictions in the last five months, and now faces a civil fraud trial in New York, his violent speech has escalated.Mr. Trump’s public remarks, whether online, in interviews or at rallies, have always had the potential for incendiary effects. A number of defendants prosecuted over the attack on the Capitol on Jan. 6, 2021, said they believed they were acting on Mr. Trump’s orders.Part of what has changed is that his violent remarks now come at a time when the indictments have already stoked anger among his supporters and when attacks against institutions, judges and prosecutors around the country have increased. The special counsel, Jack Smith, has asked the federal judge overseeing the case in which Mr. Trump was charged with trying to subvert the democratic process in 2020 for a limited gag order because of his threatening statements against witnesses, prosecutors and others.In a statement, Mr. Trump’s spokesman, Steven Cheung, was unapologetic, saying, “President Trump is a truth teller and calls it like he sees it. He has laid out the most transparent policy proposal of any campaign and voters will know who they are voting for — someone who will Make America Great Again!”On Tuesday, Mr. Trump was given a gag order in the New York case, after sending around a campaign email with lengthy attacks on Justice Arthur F. Engoron, who is presiding over the civil fraud trial, as well as a post on his own social-media website attacking the judge’s clerk. The judge told the courtroom he ordered Mr. Trump to delete the post, and Mr. Trump did.Any gag orders will be legally constraining for Mr. Trump in a way he has rarely experienced. But in the political realm, where he is increasingly trying to focus attention on the cases, gag orders may only increase Mr. Trump’s appeal with his supporters: The former president, who claims to be a victim of political persecution, is finding a receptive audience for his increasingly menacing language at campaign appearances. Mr. Trump has always leavened his sharpest words with humor, which can have a softening effect, a pattern that has continued with his recent appearances.At the G.O.P. convention in California last week, Mr. Trump mocked Paul Pelosi, the husband of Representative Nancy Pelosi, the former House speaker. Last year, Mr. Pelosi was brutally attacked in his home by a man who was wielding a hammer and who was motivated by right-wing conspiracy theories. “We’ll stand up to crazy Nancy Pelosi, who ruined San Francisco,” Mr. Trump said, before pausing and looking out at the crowd.“How’s her husband doing, by the way, anybody know?” he deadpanned, drawing laughter and a smattering of applause. “She’s against building a wall at our border even though she has a wall around her house, which obviously didn’t do a very good job.”Mr. Trump also talked about mass shoplifting incidents at stores in major cities. Republicans have focused on the shoplifting sprees as examples of lawlessness, saying the punishment should be severe.“Very simply, if you rob a store, you can fully expect to be shot as you are leaving that store,” Mr. Trump told the crowd at a hotel ballroom in Anaheim. The audience cheered wildly. “Shot!” he added for emphasis.The moment was Mr. Trump’s biggest applause line of the day. Attendees rose to their feet and chanted: “Trump! Trump! Trump!”Mr. Trump holds relatively few campaign appearances compared with his rivals running for the Republican presidential nomination. And several of his recent public appearances have been connected to his indictments and court-mandated appearances.That reality, in which his legal travails and his political campaign are merging into one, has meant that Mr. Trump’s defenses of himself — and his calls for supporters to refuse to “stand” for what he insists is a broad miscarriage of justice — are front and center in nearly every statement he makes.Mr. Trump voices most of his anger these days in a far less visible forum: Truth Social, the social media website he started in early February 2022, just over a year after he was barred from X, formerly known as Twitter. His X account was reinstated by the new owner, Elon Musk, but he has used it only once: to post the mug shot that officials took when he was arrested in Fulton County, Ga., in connection with his efforts to overturn his 2020 election loss in the state.On Truth Social, he criticizes the prosecutors, reposts videos and memes attacking his critics and rivals, and blasts out clips from his own speeches. In one recent clip of a speech he gave in Michigan, he complained that if he hadn’t run for president, he “would have had the nicest softest life” but that “instead, I have to beat these lunatics up all day long.”It was on Truth Social where Mr. Trump made the comment about the former chairman of the Joint Chiefs of Staff, Gen. Mark A. Milley. The general was increasingly critical of Mr. Trump as his role came to an end, an extraordinary rebuke of a former president by a senior military leader.In a Truth Social post, Mr. Trump wrote of the general’s calls with his Chinese counterpart, “This is an act so egregious that, in times gone by, the punishment would have been DEATH!”At a ceremony honoring his departure, General Milley said, “We don’t take an oath to a country, we don’t take an oath to a tribe, we don’t take an oath to a religion, we don’t take an oath to a king or a queen, or to a tyrant or a dictator, and we don’t take an oath to a wannabe dictator.” More

La idea republicana de usar la fuerza militar en México contra los cárteles de la droga comenzó como una fantasía de Donald Trump en el Despacho Oval. El expresidente busca hacerla realidad en 2025.La primera vez que Donald Trump habló en privado sobre lanzar misiles a México para destruir laboratorios de droga, por lo que recuerdan sus exasesores, fue en 2020.Y la primera vez que esos comentarios salieron a la luz pública fue cuando su segundo secretario de Defensa, Mark Esper, escribió en sus memorias que Trump se lo había planteado y le había preguntado si era posible que Estados Unidos hiciera parecer que el responsable era otro país. Esper describió la idea como algo absurdo.Sin embargo, en lugar de condenar la idea, algunos republicanos celebraron de manera pública la noticia de que Trump había querido emplear la fuerza militar contra los cárteles de la droga en territorio mexicano, y sin el consentimiento del gobierno de México. Muy pronto, la idea de Trump de una intervención militar al sur de la frontera estadounidense ha pasado de ser una fantasía del Despacho Oval a algo parecido a la doctrina del Partido Republicano.Durante la campaña presidencial y en el escenario del debate republicano en California la semana pasada, casi todos los aspirantes republicanos han defendido versiones distintas de un plan para enviar soldados de las Operaciones Especiales de EE. UU. a territorio mexicano para ejecutar o detener a miembros de los cárteles de la droga y destruir sus laboratorios y centros de distribución.En el Capitolio, un grupo de legisladores republicanos escribió una autorización robusta para el uso de la fuerza militar contra los cárteles, similares a los poderes de guerra que el Congreso le otorgó al expresidente George W. Bush antes de las invasiones de Afganistán e Irak. También han presionado para designar a los cárteles mexicanos como organizaciones terroristas extranjeras, una idea relacionada con la que coqueteó Trump como presidente, pero se retractó después de que México se opusiera de manera vehemente. Ahora, si Trump vuelve a la Casa Blanca en 2025, se ha comprometido a impulsar la designación y a desplegar soldados de las Operaciones Especiales y a las fuerzas navales para, según sus palabras, declarar la guerra a los cárteles.La proclividad del Partido Republicano de buscar una solución militar al problema de las drogas es un recordatorio de que el partido —a pesar de su viraje populista al antintervencionismo en los años de Trump y a que una facción que se opone a armar a Ucrania contra la invasión de Rusia ha crecido— todavía emplea la fuerza armada para lidiar con algunos temas complejos e inextricables. El propio Trump ha sido una especie de contradicción andante en lo que respecta al uso de la fuerza en el extranjero: por una parte, ha querido retirar la participación de Estados Unidos en el extranjero y, por otra, ha amenazado con lanzar bombas a enemigos como Irán.Los planes han indignado a las autoridades mexicanas. El presidente del país, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, ha denunciado las propuestas como indignantes e inaceptables. Hace más de un siglo que Estados Unidos no envía personal militar a México sin el consentimiento del gobierno mexicano.México tiene una historia amarga con la injerencia estadounidense: un gran trecho del suroeste estadounidense era parte de México antes de que Estados Unidos lo tomara por la fuerza a mediados del siglo XIX. Por lo general, México no permite al día de hoy que agentes estadounidenses armados ejecuten operaciones en su territorio, a diferencia de otros países latinoamericanos que han aceptado realizar operaciones conjuntas con la Administración para el Control de Drogas y que han invitado al gobierno estadounidense a ayudar a instruir, equipar y asistir a sus fuerzas de seguridad.Los analistas también han señalado la posibilidad de que una acción militar provoque daños económicos importantes. Los planes podrían romper la relación de Estados Unidos con México, su mayor socio comercial, y reducir otros tipos de cooperación, como la detención y extradición de delincuentes y los esfuerzos de México para disuadir a los migrantes de intentar cruzar de manera ilegal a Estados Unidos. Algunos republicanos conciben la amenaza de enviar el ejército a México como una herramienta de negociación para forzar a las autoridades mexicanas a tomar posturas más agresivas contra los cárteles.Por lo general, el derecho internacional prohíbe que un país haga uso de la fuerza militar en el territorio soberano de otra nación sin su consentimiento, salvo con el permiso del Consejo de Seguridad de las Naciones Unidas o en casos de legítima defensa. Pero Estados Unidos ha adoptado la postura de que puede utilizar la fuerza unilateral y legalmente en el territorio de otro país si su gobierno no es capaz o no quiere eliminar una amenaza no estatal que surja dentro de sus fronteras, como la amenaza de un grupo terrorista.Los republicanos han descrito las redes criminales mexicanas de narcotráfico como una amenaza para la seguridad nacional estadounidense, y algunos han calificado el fentanilo como un arma de destrucción masiva.Los estadounidenses gastan miles de millones de dólares al año en cocaína, heroína y otras drogas ilegales. En gran medida y durante décadas, el mercado negro generado por esa demanda ha sido abastecido por las operaciones delictivas de contrabando a lo largo de los más de 3000 kilómetros de frontera con México. Pero el auge del fentanilo —un fuerte opioide sintético de acción rápida que puede elaborarse a bajo costo a partir de sustancias químicas— ha creado una crisis. El fentanilo se ha vinculado a más de dos tercios de las casi 110.000 muertes por sobredosis en Estados Unidos el año pasado, y los legisladores de ambos partidos han estado buscando soluciones con urgencia.También ha crecido la frustración con el gobierno mexicano, cuyo presidente ha abogado por una política de “abrazos, no balazos” para lidiar con la delincuencia relacionada con las drogas, luego de que las medidas enérgicas contra los líderes de los cárteles de gobiernos anteriores derivaran en una violencia generalizada. Los cárteles, que se asemejan a organizaciones paramilitares con alta tecnología, han tomado el control de vastas zonas de México y han corrompido a muchos funcionarios gubernamentales y de las fuerzas del orden.El gobierno de Joe Biden, al igual que las gestiones anteriores de presidentes de ambos partidos, ha intentado colaborar con México para frenar el flujo de drogas y ha descartado la acción militar de manera explícita.Chris Landau, quien fue embajador de Trump en México de 2019 a 2021, consideró que la noción de usar la fuerza militar en un país fronterizo era una mala idea que solo empeoraría la situación. Advirtió que podría crear un nuevo “atolladero” y recordó las consecuencias de las intervenciones militares en Irak y Afganistán.“Entiendo la frustración”, añadió Landau. “Solo creo que un modelo de ‘tiroteo entre forajidos y autoridades’ no va a resolverlo y causará muchos más problemas”.Los orígenes en el Despacho OvalEl expresidente Donald Trump en el muro fronterizo durante una conmemoración en San Luis, Arizona, en junio de 2020. Trump tuvo varias conversaciones con asesores y otros miembros de su gestión sobre el combate a los cárteles mexicanos.Doug Mills/The New York TimesLa historia del modo en el que la idea de enviar fuerzas militares a México pasó del Despacho Oval de Trump al centro de la conversación política republicana es complicada y mucho más que una simple historia de legisladores que imitan a Trump.La propuesta de Trump de lanzar misiles contra laboratorios de drogas mexicanos no fue algo que inventara de cero. Surgió durante una reunión y un hombre en uniforme confirmó que era posible.Sin embargo, ese hombre en uniforme no pertenecía a la cadena de mando militar: era un oficial médico, una persona inusual para asesorar al presidente de Estados Unidos sobre operaciones militares en cualquier lugar.A finales de 2019 y principios de 2020, cuando la crisis del fentanilo se intensificaba, se hicieron reuniones a gran escala en el Despacho Oval en las que se abordó cómo lidiar con el problema. Algunas personas que participaron consideraron que las reuniones no servían de mucho porque los funcionarios tendían a actuar como Trump esperaba, y él actuaba para ellos.Cuando la idea de una intervención militar se planteó en una de esas reuniones, Trump se dirigió a Brett Giroir, quien estaba allí en calidad de subsecretario de Salud de EE. UU. Giroir era también almirante de cuatro estrellas en el Cuerpo Comisionado del Servicio de Salud Pública, y llevaba su uniforme de gala. Su principal argumento fue que Estados Unidos no era capaz de combatir la crisis solo con tratamiento, según una persona informada de sus comentarios.Por la forma en que Trump se enfocó en Giroir, quedaba claro que, debido a su uniforme de gala, había asumido erróneamente que pertenecía al ejército, según dos participantes en la reunión. Giroir, en su respuesta, sugirió poner “plomo al blanco”, recordaron los dos participantes. Trump no reveló lo que pensaba sobre la idea, y los funcionarios de la Casa Blanca, preocupados por ese momento, consideraron la posibilidad de pedirle a Giroir que no volviera a llevar su uniforme de gala al Despacho Oval.Giroir, en una declaración, no comentó sobre la discusión sustancial de la reunión, pero aseguró que nadie había insinuado que la acción militar por sí misma resolvería la crisis del fentanilo. También insistió en que Trump no lo había confundido con un oficial militar.“Sabía exactamente quién era yo, que estaba en el Servicio de Salud Pública y que era el responsable de opioides bajo las órdenes del secretario”, dijo Giroir. “Tuvimos diversas reuniones antes de eso”.Jason Miller, asesor principal de la campaña de 2024 de Trump, se negó a hablar de la reunión de la Oficina Oval o la discusión sobre el lanzamiento de misiles a México.Como presidente, Trump tuvo conversaciones sobre el uso de la fuerza militar en México con Brett Giroir, al centro, el subsecretario de Salud de Estados Unidos; el fiscal general, William Barr, a la izquierda; y el secretario de Defensa, Mark EsperFotografías del New York Times por Anna Moneymaker, T.J. Kirkpatrick y Erin SchaffDurante ese mismo periodo de tiempo, a finales de 2019, el fiscal general, William P. Barr, le había propuesto a Trump la idea de utilizar la fuerza dentro de México, pero lo había vislumbrado como una política que podrían implementar en un segundo mandato, si Trump ganaba las elecciones de 2020. Pensó que la amenaza de una acción unilateral por parte de Estados Unidos daría al gobierno ventaja para presionar a los mexicanos a hacer más por su parte para reprimir a los cárteles.Barr y Trump mantuvieron varias conversaciones sobre el tema. Barr mencionó una serie de opciones de medidas enérgicas, según una persona familiarizada con las conversaciones. Pero Barr no era partidario de los misiles, según la persona, ya que le preocupaba que se pudieran alcanzar objetivos equivocados usando tales órdenes.Al menos dos veces en 2020, Trump preguntó en privado a su secretario de Defensa, Esper, sobre la posibilidad de enviar “misiles Patriot” a México para destruir los laboratorios de drogas, y si podrían culpar a otro país por ello. Los misiles Patriot no son del tipo que se emplearían en tal caso —son armas tierra-aire—, pero Trump tenía la costumbre de llamar “misiles Patriot” a todos los misiles, según dos ex altos funcionarios del gobierno. Durante una de las discusiones de 2020, Trump hizo el comentario en voz baja a Esper mientras estaban cerca del escritorio presidencial, desde donde pudo escucharlo otro funcionario del gabinete. Esper, sorprendido, rechazó la idea.De la boca de Trump a la campaña de 2024En una señal de lo políticamente poderoso que se ha vuelto para los republicanos la idea de enviar tropas a México, Nikki Haley, el gobernador Ron DeSantis, Vivek Ramaswamy y Tim Scott se han apresurado a ofrecer soluciones militares a la epidemia de opioides.Todd Heisler/The New York TimesTras abandonar el cargo, Trump no dejó de hablar de atacar a los cárteles de la droga. Por el contario, convirtió la idea en una propuesta política oficial para su campaña presidencial de 2024.En enero, Trump publicó un video de propaganda titulado “El presidente Donald Trump declara la guerra a los cárteles”, en el que apoyaba explícitamente la idea de designar a los cárteles mexicanos de la droga como al Estado Islámico en Irak y Siria, en lugar de tratarlos como organizaciones criminales transnacionales a las que hay que hacer frente con herramientas para el cumplimiento de la ley.Trump prometió “desplegar todos los activos militares necesarios, incluida la Marina de Guerra de Estados Unidos”, para imponer un embargo total a los cárteles y “designar a los principales cárteles como Organizaciones Terroristas Extranjeras”.Y se comprometió a ordenar al Pentágono “hacer un uso apropiado de las fuerzas especiales, la guerra cibernética y otras acciones abiertas y encubiertas para infligir el máximo daño a los líderes, la infraestructura y las operaciones de los cárteles”.En materia de derecho internacional, surge una pregunta crucial sobre si Estados Unidos usaría la fuerza militar dentro de México solo con el consentimiento de su gobierno o si lo haría unilateralmente sin consentimiento. Trump restó importancia a la posibilidad de una guerra con México en una entrevista reciente con Megyn Kelly, presentadora de un pódcast y antigua estrella de Fox News.Pero en una señal de lo políticamente potente que se ha vuelto para los republicanos la perspectiva de enviar tropas a México, la campaña de su principal rival, el gobernador Ron DeSantis de Florida, destacó los comentarios de Trump a Kelly y enfatizó que DeSantis ha prometido tomar medidas militares agresivas contra los cárteles.Vivek Ramaswamy ha prometido “usar nuestro ejército para aniquilar a los cárteles mexicanos de la droga”. Tim Scott, senador por Carolina del Sur, ha publicado un anuncio de campaña en el que jura “desatar” al ejército estadounidense contra los cárteles. Y la exgobernadora de Carolina del Sur Nikki Haley ha dicho que cuando se trata de los cárteles de la droga, “le dices al presidente mexicano, o lo haces tú o lo hacemos nosotros”.Miller, el asesor de Trump, dijo que Trump había anunciado un “plan detallado para erradicar los cárteles de la droga y detener el flujo de drogas a nuestro país en la primera semana de enero, y es bueno ver que tantos otros ahora siguen su ejemplo”.Poner en práctica la ideaEl representante Dan Crenshaw ha propuesto una ley para autorizar ampliamente el uso de la fuerza militar contra nueve cárteles, un proyecto que más de 30 de sus compañeros republicanos han apoyado como copatrocinadores.Kenny Holston/The New York TimesLa idea ha cobrado vida propia en el Capitolio.Más de 20 republicanos de la Cámara de Representantes han firmado para copatrocinar la legislación propuesta por Dan Crenshaw, representante por Texas, para promulgar una amplia autorización para el empleo de fuerza militar contra nueve cárteles. También autorizaría la utilización de la fuerza contra cualquier organización extranjera que el presidente determine que cumple ciertos criterios, incluidas las organizaciones relacionadas con el tráfico de fentanilo.La autorización propuesta para la guerra terminaría al cabo de cinco años, a menos que el Congreso promulgara un nuevo proyecto de ley para prorrogala. Pero, por lo demás, su carácter laxo se asemeja a las amplias autorizaciones de guerra que el Congreso promulgó tras los atentados terroristas de 2001 y antes de la guerra de Irak de 2003, que se convirtieron en problemas más allá de los que los legisladores habían previsto en un principio.El senador Lindsey Graham, un republicano por Carolina del Sur que es un aliado cercano de Trump, dijo que pensaba que un presidente podría bombardear laboratorios de fentanilo y centros de distribución en su propia autoridad constitucional como comandante en jefe, sin autorización del Congreso. Pero también argumentó que si Trump volviera a ser presidente, la mera amenaza de que podría hacer algo así podría inducir al gobierno mexicano a tomar medidas más agresivas.El senador Lindsey Graham, un republicano por Carolina del Sur, dio una rueda de prensa en marzo sobre su propuesta de ley para designar a los cárteles mexicanos de la droga como organizaciones terroristas extranjeras.Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images“A medida que estos problemas no se gestionan y se hacen más grandes en alcance, las soluciones se vuelven más draconianas”, dijo. “Y una cosa sobre Trump, creo que si consigue un segundo mandato, creo que verán más cooperación por parte de México. No creo que tengamos que llegar a bombardear laboratorios, México ajustará sus políticas en función de Trump”.‘Una ofensa al pueblo de México’ El presidente de México, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, ha acusado a los republicanos de “utilizar a México por sus propósitos propagandísticos, electoreros, politiqueros”.Alejandro Cegarra para The New York TimesEl discurso republicano sobre atacar a los cárteles de la droga en México está rebotando por los pasillos de su gobierno. El presidente del país, el izquierdista Andrés Manuel López Obrador, ha respondido con molestia y ha hecho algo inusual para un líder mundial: atacar al Partido Republicano.“Esta iniciativa de los republicanos, además de irresponsable, es una ofensa al pueblo de México, una falta de respeto a nuestra independencia, a nuestra soberanía”, dijo López Obrador a los periodistas en marzo. “Si no cambian su actitud y piensan que van a utilizar a México por sus propósitos propagandísticos, electoreros, politiqueros, nosotros vamos a llamar a que no se vote por ese partido, por intervencionista, inhumano, hipócrita y corrupto”.Desde la perspectiva de México, Estados Unidos es el que alimenta la violencia de los cárteles, no solo porque la demanda del país crea el mercado para el narcotráfico, sino también porque Estados Unidos facilita la compra de las armas que terminan en México. Esas armas avivan la violencia armada en el país, a pesar de sus estrictas leyes de control de armas.Roberto Velasco Álvarez, máximo responsable para América del Norte de la Secretaría de Relaciones Exteriores de México, invocó concretamente la comparación con las armas de fuego y señaló a Ramaswamy por prometer una acción militar estadounidense dentro de México.“Si está tan preocupado el señor Ramaswamy por lo que está pasando en México, pues la mejor forma en que podría ayudarnos es quitando las escopetas que le están vendiendo literalmente a cárteles mexicanos”, dijo en una entrevista.Mientras México se encamina a unas históricas elecciones presidenciales el próximo año, en las que se espera que los electores elijan entre dos candidatas, con toda probabilidad, gane quien gane tendrá que manejar las tensiones creadas por el Partido Republicano.“Deberíamos, más que amenazas, trabajar de una manera inteligente”, dijo Xóchitl Gálvez, senadora mexicana que ha sido elegida la abanderada de la oposición y ha rechazado de manera abierta la estrategia de seguridad de López Obrador, y añadió que “los abrazos han sido para los delincuentes y los balazos para los ciudadanos mexicanos”.Pero Gálvez también criticó las propuestas republicanas de invadir México y pidió una cooperación compartida y responsable. “No podemos seguir echando la culpa”, dijo.Nicholas Nehamas colaboró en este reportaje. Kitty Bennett colaboró con investigación.Jonathan Swan es periodista de política especializado en campañas y el Congreso estadounidense. Como reportero de Axios, ganó un Emmy por su entrevista de 2020 al entonces presidente Donald Trump, así como el Premio Aldo Beckman de la Asociación de Corresponsales de la Casa Blanca por “excelencia en general en la cobertura de la Casa Blanca” en 2022. Más de Jonathan SwanMaggie Haberman es corresponsal sénior de política y autora de Confidence Man: The Making of Donald Trump and the Breaking of America. Formó parte de un equipo que ganó un Premio Pulitzer en 2018 por informar sobre los asesores del presidente Trump y sus conexiones con Rusia. Más información de Maggie HabermanCharlie Savage escribe sobre seguridad nacional y política legal. Es periodista desde hace más de dos décadas. Más de Charlie SavageEmiliano Rodríguez Mega es investigador-reportero del Times radicado en Ciudad de México. Cubre México, Centroamérica y el Caribe. Más de Emiliano Rodríguez Mega More