In partnership with

What’s New This Week

Good morning, this week we track Washington’s escalating campaign against Nicolás Maduro, from a record $50 million bounty to U.S. warships off Venezuela’s coast. At the same time, Mexico’s president is pushing back hard against DEA involvement, underscoring how sovereignty and security collide in the region. And while leaders debate strategy, Trump’s order to paint the border wall black proves that theater often overshadows substance. Add in Canada’s tariff rollback and Chávez Jr.’s cartel trial, and you see just how intertwined politics, trade, and security have become.

First time reading? Join thousands of intellectually curious readers. Sign up here.

Former Zillow exec targets $1.3T

The top companies target big markets. Like Nvidia growing ~200% in 2024 on AI’s $214B tailwind. That’s why the same VCs behind Uber and Venmo also backed Pacaso. Created by a former Zillow exec, Pacaso’s co-ownership tech transforms a $1.3 trillion market. With $110M+ in gross profit to date, Pacaso just reserved the Nasdaq ticker PCSO.

Invest for $2.90/Share

_{Paid advertisement for Pacaso’s Regulation A offering. Read the offering circular at invest.pacaso.com. Reserving a ticker symbol is not a guarantee that the company will go public. Listing on the NASDAQ is subject to approvals.}

Trade Winds

Partners, Not Pawns

Washington is turning up the pressure in Latin America. A $50 million bounty on Nicolás Maduro, U.S. Navy patrols in the Caribbean, and new terrorist designations against cartels all point to a strategy that treats organized crime as a national security threat. But these bold steps highlight a deeper challenge: how to balance security cooperation with sovereignty, while keeping vital trade relationships intact.

Cartels are no longer confined to drugs. They profit from fentanyl, weapons, migrants, and gold, creating regional instability that crosses borders. The U.S. can disrupt these networks with warships, sanctions, and indictments—but lasting results depend on partners. And that is where friction grows.

In Mexico, President Claudia Sheinbaum quickly rejected reports of a DEA partnership, reminding Washington that cooperation will not come at the expense of sovereignty. This tension matters because U.S.–Mexico trade is the lifeline of North American supply chains. If security efforts are seen as unilateral, they risk spilling into the economic realm.

The same dynamic plays out across South America and the Caribbean. Leaders want U.S. help to confront traffickers, yet fear being pulled into conflicts that disrupt ports, shipping lanes, or foreign investment. For countries betting on nearshoring, predictability matters as much as enforcement.

The United States is right to view criminal regimes as strategic threats. But history shows, from Panama onward, that stability only follows force when economic and political frameworks are rebuilt. Today, that means linking security to trade, investment, and cooperation, not just pressure.

The winds of trade and security are converging. The test is whether Washington can build a regional consensus—or whether unilateral muscle will scatter allies just when their support is most needed.

Power Move

Maduro’s $50 Million Price Tag

The Trump administration has moved Venezuela back to the center of U.S. hemispheric strategy, this time with sharper teeth. In early August, Washington doubled its bounty for information leading to Nicolás Maduro’s arrest to fifty million dollars, framing him as the political head of the so-called Cartel de los Soles. Days later, three U.S. destroyers were ordered to Caribbean waters near Venezuela, signaling a willingness to pair law enforcement tools with hard power.

Officials say the aim is to disrupt narco-terror networks and their enablers, not launch regime change. Still, the posture is unmistakably coercive. Warships are on station, surveillance assets are in the air, and terrorist designations are widening the toolkit for sanctions, interdictions, arrests, and partner operations. Earlier this year, the administration formally designated several cartels, including Venezuela’s Tren de Aragua, as terrorist organizations, an escalation that unlocks additional authorities and pressure points across the region.

Why now? Partly politics. President Trump and Secretary of State Marco Rubio have promised a more Americas-First focus, arguing that U.S. security begins in our near abroad. In speeches and official readouts, Rubio has tied migration, fentanyl, and organized crime into a single hemispheric agenda, pushing new compacts with South American partners.

The Venezuela push reaches beyond rhetoric because it layers multiple levers at once:

• Bounties and indictments. The fifty million dollar reward raises the personal stakes for Maduro’s inner circle and international facilitators. It complements long-standing U.S. criminal cases that make travel and financial movements riskier for alleged regime-linked traffickers.

• Maritime pressure. A sustained naval presence complicates trafficking routes, increases interdictions, and signals resolve to allies nervous about spillover instability.

• Terror designations and sanctions. Labeling cartels as foreign terrorist organizations and specially designated global terrorists broadens asset freezes, secondary sanctions exposure, and cooperation with partners who share terrorism statutes. The Treasury Department has already synchronized measures against Mexico-based cartels, underscoring a region-wide approach.

Panama’s Past, Venezuela’s Present

There is a historical echo here. The last time Washington paired criminal indictments with overt military presence against a sitting Latin American leader was Panama in 1989. Then President George H. W. Bush launched Operation Just Cause to oust Manuel Noriega, a military ruler wanted in the U.S. for drug crimes. The operation toppled the regime in weeks and Noriega was brought to Miami to face justice.

But the similarities can mislead. Panama offered unique enabling conditions: a small force structure, a compact battlespace, U.S. basing rights, and limited external backing for Noriega. Venezuela is more populous, has a politicized military, enjoys external support from Russia and Iran, and sits atop a humanitarian crisis with millions of refugees. Any miscalculation could trigger wider instability. The continuities are real—criminalized governance, narcotics ties, and U.S. domestic pressure to act—but the differences in scale and geopolitics are even more significant.

Has Panama improved since Noriega? Measured by democracy and services, yes. After 1989, Panama ended military rule, consolidated a service-driven economy anchored by the Canal, and strengthened civilian institutions. Today it is a competitive logistics and finance hub, even as it still wrestles with governance and inequality challenges. The lesson is that post-strongman stabilization can work if institutions and markets are rebuilt with regional buy-in.

The Venezuela play is also inseparable from U.S. pressure on Mexico. Washington’s new terrorism designations and sanctions campaign explicitly target Mexican cartels such as CJNG and Sinaloa, raising the cost for Mexico City of a light-touch approach. The message to partners is blunt: align on enforcement and extraditions, or face U.S. unilateral measures that ripple through trade, finance, and security cooperation.

What is at stake in Venezuela is not just whether Maduro stays or goes. It is whether the United States can credibly integrate law enforcement, military presence, economic statecraft, and diplomacy to reset a criminalized state without stumbling into open conflict. Success would reduce a major narcotics corridor, ease pressure on migrant routes, and reassure partners that Washington can solve problems close to home. Failure risks entrenching anti-U.S. narratives, fragmenting regional coalitions, and widening a humanitarian disaster.

The bottom line is that Rubio’s State Department is betting that layered pressure—bounties, ships, terror labels, and tighter South American compacts—can change behavior in Caracas and accelerate a post-Maduro transition. For Mexico, the collateral message is clear. The era of half measures against cartels is ending. Cooperation is the expectation. That strategy can work—Panama shows a pathway—but only with a real coalition, a credible transition plan, and guardrails that keep a hard-edged pressure campaign from becoming a war the region does not want.

The Border Buzz

A Fresh Coat of Nonsense

Only in American politics could painting a wall become headline news. Former President Trump has ordered sections of the border wall painted black, arguing it will make the steel too hot to climb. On paper it sounds tough. In practice, it is little more than a coat of nonsense.

Here’s why:

1. Smugglers wear gloves. Always have, always will. A little heat on the bars won’t stop them.

2. The sun does not shine 24 hours. Night crossings and early mornings are when most smuggling happens. Black paint does nothing in the dark.

3. Paint fades. Steel left in the desert sun quickly rusts and peels. The upkeep alone would cost millions.

4. The desert is already hot. Migrants cross in 110-degree heat. A few extra degrees on a steel bar is not a deterrent.

5. It ignores tunnels. Smugglers dig under walls, not just over them. Black paint won’t stop shovels.

6. It ignores ladders. Ladders, ropes, pulleys — centuries of technology make climbing possible, no matter the color.

7. Thermal advantage. At night, a black wall radiates heat, making it easier for smugglers to spot where to cut through or scale.

8. Paint costs money. Taxpayer money. Every gallon of paint is money not spent on technology, intelligence, or patrols that actually work.

9. It creates mirages. From a distance, a glossy black wall can reflect the sun, confusing border patrol cameras instead of helping them.

10. Maintenance contracts. A painted wall needs repainting. That means contracts and costs that benefit suppliers more than border security.

11. It’s cosmetic theater. The real threats — fentanyl, organized crime, smuggling networks — move through ports of entry, trucks, and tunnels, not across a freshly painted fence.

12. Heat cuts both ways. A scorching hot wall also endangers Border Patrol agents who must work near it, increasing risk of burns and heat illness.

13. It doesn’t fool drones. Smugglers use drones and scouts. Color doesn’t change surveillance tactics.

14. Wildlife pays the price. Black paint in desert sun intensifies heat islands, further disrupting fragile ecosystems along the border.

15. Symbolism over substance. A black wall is not strategy. It’s a talking point that sells rallies and photo ops but leaves security unchanged.

This is what passes for border innovation: cosmetic changes that do nothing to solve real problems. Smugglers adapt faster than politicians can paint. Migrants still cross, drugs still move through ports, and communities along the border remain on the frontlines of a complex reality that cannot be solved with a bucket of paint.

The sad part is how many people believe this is a solution. It is easy to sell, easy to repeat, and easy to misunderstand. But those of us who live and work along the border know better. The wall’s color won’t stop smuggling any more than a coat of black paint can stop the desert sun.

Power Poll

Join the Conversation

Thanks for reading this edition of my newsletter! I'd love to hear from you. Share your thoughts about what you think are the most critical issues that need to be addressed. Email me at [email protected] or connect with me on social media using the hashtag #Intermestic.

Stay Informed, Stay Connected!

• Subscribe to my blog at www.marcolopez.com.

• Follow me on X, LinkedIn, and Facebook for the latest news and updates.

• Share this newsletter with your network and help spread the word!

Let's keep the conversation going!