{{Firstname|Good morning}}, this week we look at the risks that come when governments stretch their authority—whether through tariffs, visa suspensions, or unauthorized military strikes—and what that means for investors, institutions, and the rule of law. From Arizona’s new role in critical minerals to the blurred boundaries of military action in Latin America, the story is the same: how power is used will decide who prospers next.

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

Cobalt. Lithium. Nickel. Graphite. These aren’t just elements on the periodic table — they’re the backbone of modern power. From electric vehicles to fighter jets and data centers, these minerals decide who leads the 21st-century economy.

That’s why I’m proud that Arizona is stepping onto the global stage through Intermestic Capital’s partnership with EVelution Energy, developing the nation’s first solar-powered cobalt processing facility in Yuma, Arizona. Last week, we hosted a team from Mitsui & Co., one of Japan’s largest trading and industrial conglomerates, for site visits and technical meetings with the engineering team.

Mitsui represents some of the world’s most advanced manufacturing clients — including leaders in aerospace and defense — and is set to purchase the entire 7,000 tons of cobalt sulfate/metal the plant will produce each year. Their visit marked a critical step in finalizing a long-term offtake agreement that will anchor the project’s global supply chain footprint.

For decades, America has depended on foreign refining, mostly from China, for the materials that make modern life possible. Today, Washington has designated critical minerals as a national security priority, and Arizona is answering that call.

With sunshine powering clean processing, a logistics network linked directly to Mexico, and proximity to U.S. innovation hubs, our state is becoming a cornerstone of North America’s energy-to-manufacturing corridor. Through Intermestic Capital, I’m proud to help bring this strategic industry to Arizona — not just producing cobalt, but producing confidence.

This is more than an Arizona success story. It’s a blueprint for how the United States can rebuild secure, sustainable, and sovereign supply chains for the next generation of growth.

In recent months, hundreds of Mexican entrepreneurs, executives, and professionals have seen their U.S. visas revoked — not because of proven wrongdoing, but because of suspicion. A system designed to facilitate commerce, education, and family connection is instead being used to send a message: you are guilty until proven innocent.

This is more than an immigration issue. It’s a signal to investors, partners, and allies that rules can shift overnight. When access to the United States — for business or opportunity — becomes subject to rumor or political pressure, it undermines the same trust that drives trade, investment, and collaboration.

In my recent column for El Universal, I warned about this trend. The danger is not just the individual cases, but the precedent they create. When laws or processes are applied unevenly, they stop being instruments of justice and start becoming instruments of power.

For international investors evaluating cross-border projects, from clean energy to critical minerals, certainty matters. Contracts and capital rely on predictability. Yet when visas, regulations, or investigations are weaponized, that predictability vanishes, and with it goes confidence in the rule of law.

We must protect the principle that rules are meant to serve justice, not politics. Because once suspicion replaces fairness, it’s not just travelers who lose — it’s the entire economic relationship between our nations.

In recent weeks the Donald Trump administration has taken a sharp turn. First there were naval strikes against alleged drug-smuggling boats off Venezuela. Then came a public acknowledgment that the Central Intelligence Agency is now authorised to operate covertly in Venezuela. Now the president is talking about land-based strikes—in Venezuela, Colombia, even Mexico—targeting cartels labelled “terrorist organisations.”

Here’s the key risk for the commissioned officer who receives an order: If the action lacks valid legal basis, such as congressional authorisation, treaty agreement, or national-self-defense justification, the individual could become liable. That means investigations, potential war-crimes charges, or dismissal for acting outside the law.

When military force is used abroad without treaty or congressional approval it shifts from defense to intervention. Even if the chain of command issues an order it carries no automatic shield for the junior commander if the mission violates the law. For investors, border-region developers or binational supply-chain planners this matters. Because when force enters the picture uncertainty rises.

Our border region is already dealing with immigration, trade, logistics, and security. Now add the possibility of military action spilling over. If the U.S. assumes land‐based strikes in Mexico are permissible without Mexican consent it risks destabilising not just politics but the operational bedrock for cross-border commerce. The horizon of nearshoring, binational industrial parks and critical-mineral projects lies not just in roads and ports but in clarity of sovereignty and rule of law.

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!

Let's keep the conversation going!