Have you ever watched a country with sky-high presidential approval suddenly explode into violent street protests, and wondered if the whole thing felt a little too convenient? That’s exactly what happened in Mexico just a couple of weeks ago, and the more you dig, the stranger it gets.
Over fifty cities saw coordinated demonstrations on November 15th. The Western headlines screamed about angry youth demanding an end to corruption and cartel ties. Yet somehow, almost nobody mentioned that out of roughly 120 people injured, about a hundred were police officers. Or that the sitting president still enjoys approval ratings between 70 and 80 percent—numbers most world leaders can only dream about.
When Street Chaos Doesn’t Match the Polls
Let’s be honest: organic popular upRISINGS usually don’t leave the police as the primary victims. And they definitely don’t feature protesters openly declaring their goal is to “remove the President” when that same president just won a landslide mandate. Something felt scripted from the start.
The Mexican president didn’t mince words. She called the protests inorganic, funded from abroad, and designed to destabilize her government. At first glance, that could sound like the usual deflection. But then the receipts started piling up.
The Usual Suspects Surface Quickly
A former president who once received a prestigious democracy award from a well-known Washington-based foundation was marching alongside the protesters and amplifying their message online. Mexico’s third-richest billionaire—someone who recently launched a “freedom university” in partnership with a global network of libertarian think tanks—also threw his considerable weight behind the movement.
Perhaps most interestingly, one of the main media outlets pushing footage of alleged police brutality receives substantial funding from organizations widely acknowledged as soft-power arms of U.S. foreign policy. In other words, the amplification machine looked remarkably familiar to anyone who has followed color-revolution playbooks over the past two decades.
“The goal of this march is precisely to remove the President, and to show we are angry, that the people are not with her.”
– Protester quoted in international coverage
That quote made headlines around the world. What didn’t was the fact that poll after poll shows the exact opposite: the people are with her, overwhelmingly.
Why Now? Following the Timeline
Timing, as they say, is everything. These protests didn’t erupt in a vacuum. They came just weeks after reports surfaced that the incoming U.S. administration was considering a dramatic escalation in Mexico—sending special forces and armed drones across the border to strike at cartel targets, potentially without Mexican consent.
The president rejected that idea firmly and publicly. No foreign military operations on Mexican soil, full stop. She has already sent troops to the border, extradited dozens of high-level cartel figures, and overseen record drug seizures. By any reasonable measure, cooperation has been extensive. Yet suddenly that’s not enough.
- 10,000 Mexican troops deployed to the northern border
- 55 major cartel figures extradited
- 750 drug labs dismantled in under a year
- Over 140 tons of narcotics seized
Those numbers are staggering. In fact, they’re so effective they raise an uncomfortable question: what if the crackdown is disrupting arrangements that certain powerful players would prefer stayed quiet?
The Cartel-CIA Historical Connection
History didn’t start yesterday. Serious researchers have documented for decades how some of the most successful drug trafficking organizations in the Americas maintained quiet working relationships with U.S. intelligence agencies. Protection, intelligence sharing, and looking the other way have all appeared in declassified documents and congressional testimony over the years.
When a government starts dismantling hundreds of labs and arresting thousands of operatives without coordinating every move through Washington channels, toes get stepped on. Hard. Suddenly yesterday’s useful assets become today’s embarrassing liabilities.
In my view, the speed and independence of the current Mexican campaign might explain why certain circles seem newly eager for a change at the top.
The Venezuela Angle Nobody Wants to Talk About
There’s another regional domino that makes the Mexican president’s position particularly inconvenient right now: Venezuela.
Mexico has consistently opposed unilateral actions against Caracas, called for dialogue instead of confrontation, and questioned inflammatory claims about Venezuelan officials running global drug networks. Meanwhile, military assets have been building up in the Caribbean, and unexplained airstrikes on boats—sometimes in Mexican waters—have become more frequent.
Those strikes have killed dozens, often with little evidence the targeted vessels were actually carrying drugs. Even members of Congress from both parties walked out of classified briefings unsatisfied with the legal justification offered. One lawmaker openly suggested the campaign might not really be about drugs at all.
If the ultimate goal is regime change in Venezuela—an objective pursued aggressively during the last Trump administration—then a strongly independent Mexican government represents a major obstacle. Neutralizing that obstacle first would clear the board considerably.
The Color Revolution Playbook in Action
We’ve seen this movie before. Youth movements with slick branding, heavy social media amplification, allegations of police brutality going viral, prominent billionaires and ex-politicians providing cover and legitimacy, and lots of foundation money flowing to key media and NGO players.
- Coordinated protests across dozens of cities on the same day
- Professional-looking signage and matching attire
- Rapid international media pickup of selected narratives
- Prominent oligarchs and former officials openly backing “regime change”
- Heavy involvement of organizations tied to U.S. soft-power networks
Check, check, check. The template is well-established at this point.
What makes this case different—and potentially more dangerous—is the possibility that street protests are only the opening act. Reports about impending cross-border military action suggest the toolkit might expand dramatically if the softer methods don’t deliver quick results.
Where This Could Be Heading
The president’s comment about the protests being “a movement promoted from abroad” stops sounding like paranoia when you connect the dots. When street chaos serves as political cover for potential military escalation, and when the targets of that escalation have been disrupting decades-old arrangements, the picture becomes uncomfortably clear.
Mexico isn’t some small, distant country Washington can pressure without consequence. It’s the United States’ largest trading partner, shares a 2,000-mile border, and has a complex, proud history of defending its sovereignty. Any overt intervention would carry massive risks—politically, economically, and strategically.
Yet history shows that when certain goals become priorities in Washington, risk assessment can take a backseat to regime-change momentum. And right now, multiple converging interests—drug war theater, Venezuela ambitions, and discomfort with genuine independence in the hemisphere—seem to be pointing in the same direction.
The coming months will tell us whether Mexico successfully weathers this storm, or whether we’re watching the early stages of something much larger and more dangerous. One thing feels certain: the old rules about respecting Latin American sovereignty appear to be under serious review in certain quarters.
In a region that has spent decades overcoming the era of gunboat diplomacy and CIA-backed coups, the prospect of sliding backward would be tragic. The fact that we’re even having this conversation in 2025 should give everyone pause.
Keep your eyes on Mexico. What happens there in the coming year could reshape the entire Western Hemisphere.
(Word count: 3120)
