Amid the unfolding chaos in Mexico following the death of cartel leader Nemesio Oseguera, the Mexican government has worked to hit the cartels where it hurts, including seizing weapons.
In a recent press conference, Mexican Defense Secretary Ricardo Trevilla announced that some 18,000 weapons have been seized since President Claudia Sheinbaum took office in October 2024. Of those weapons, nearly 78 percent originated in the United States. In a separate talk, Sheinbaum addressed an even more shocking datapoint—much of the ammunition recovered in Mexico was designed for use by the U.S. military.
As highlighted in a recent New York Times article, this is not a new phenomenon. Private U.S. companies maintain agreements that allow commercial weapons suppliers to sell excess inventory in domestic civilian markets. Once there, the ammunition is smuggled south across the U.S. border and makes its way to the weapons of the cartels. Indeed, many have pointed out how U.S. weapons manufacturers dominate Latin American markets and that the demand in the region is expected to grow. Many take this data as an opportunity to criticize the United States’ liberal gun policies.
While private gun manufacturers bear a share of responsibility for the perpetuation of gun violence in Mexico and elsewhere in Latin America, it’s important we understand another critical purveyor of arms to our southern neighbors—the United States government.
Although data on foreign military sales (FMS) are incomplete (secrecy prevents a full accounting), government-to-government weapons transfers from the United States to Mexico alone topped more than $3.5 billion over the last decade. This is a “drop in the bucket” by military standards. During fiscal year 2024, the total value of transferred weapons and other services (like training foreign militaries) topped $117 billion.
Selling or otherwise providing arms to foreign governments is not a recent U.S. policy development. During the Cold War, for example, the U.S. government not only engaged in direct interventions (for example, the invasion of Grenada in 1983) but engaged in indirect intervention through providing weapons and training to military and paramilitary forces throughout the region.
By providing weapons and training to foreign militaries and governments, both now and in the past, the U.S. government can theoretically enable recipient countries to better protect and serve their civilian populations. A better trained and armed military, for instance, may be better able to protect human rights, defend private property, and uphold the rule of law. Moreover, proponents claim, these transfers can help or maintain U.S. foreign policy objectives. The logic is simple: if a foreign government receives weapons from the U.S. government, the threat of losing access to these armaments provides a strong incentive to be aligned with the United States.
While this is a possibility, there is a major problem—the same weapons and training that can be used to protect citizens can also be used to coerce and prey upon them.
If history is any indicator, more contemporary transfers of weapons and training from the United States to Latin American countries will have disastrous consequences for the people who live in those countries.
One could look at Honduras’ Battalion 3-16—a clandestine military death squad trained and armed by the CIA. Or the U.S. government’s recent approval to sell sniper rifles to Brazil’s BOPE, a controversial police outfit in Rio known for a high number of civilian deaths and use of excessive force.
We could also consider El Salvador’s Atlacatl Battalion. This group, who utilized their ample training from the United States to murder some 800 men, women, and children—all with U.S.-made ammunition, of course. Every shell casing at the scene, without exception, came from the U.S. government.
Though these costs are undoubtedly significant, there is more to consider. U.S. policymakers claim one of their key goals is promoting regional stability throughout Latin America. Doing so, they suggest, is necessary for U.S. national security and will lessen illicit immigration flows.
But militarizing nations abroad has a long history of doing precisely the opposite. Research is clear that military aid frequently fuels political instability, fosters corruption, and fuels repression. These are precisely the types of conditions that push individuals to migrate. Taken together, this not only fails to achieve stated policy goals, but is counterproductive.
So, what can be done instead?
Related Articles
Not a moment too soon, California moves to embrace nuclear energy Mass incarceration won’t make California safer — but the next governor can Walter Block: On birthright citizenship, Trump is simply wrong David Hadley: Trump 2.0 one year in – successes amid the drama Excessive litigation is a hidden tax on California households First, more transparency is needed. It is exceptionally difficult—in many cases impossible—to know the full scale and scope of U.S. military transfers abroad. The lack of available data is supposedly necessary for security, but it has the convenient side effect of preventing the public, watchdog groups, and even other elected officials from learning what resources are being provided and how they’re being used.Second, we should look inward. Instead of sending arms to “fix” our neighbors, we should look at domestic policies. Instead of slapping our trading partners with tariffs, we should enhance trade relationships with our Latin American partners. The data is clear: more trade—not less—makes us wealthier and safer.
For decades, Washington has tried to paint weapons as an instrument of stability. History tells a different story. If policymakers want more peace and stability at home and abroad, it will come through market engagement, transparency, and accountability—not from the barrel of a U.S.-supplied gun
Abigail R. Hall is a senior fellow at the Independent Institute in Oakland, Calif., and an associate professor in economics at the University of Tampa. She is the coauthor of the book How to Run Wars: A Confidential Playbook for the National Security Elite
Hence then, the article about made in america fired abroad washington s bullets fuel chaos and blowback was published today ( ) and is available on Los Angeles Daily News ( Middle East ) The editorial team at PressBee has edited and verified it, and it may have been modified, fully republished, or quoted. You can read and follow the updates of this news or article from its original source.
Read More Details
Finally We wish PressBee provided you with enough information of ( Made in America, fired abroad — Washington’s bullets fuel chaos and blowback )
Also on site :