SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
- Although increasingly affected from afar by the fight against the cartels, Canada is curiously detached from the Mexican war on drugs
- Canada has numerous economic and political involvements in the Mexican status quo and multilateral and bilateral initiatives could be eyed for their implementation
- Canadian "me-tooism" towards the U.S. eliminates drug de-criminalization as a credible alternative for Ottawa even though 56 percent of Canadian respondents to a poll favor the legalization of marijuana.
Somewhat after the fact, Mexico's other northern neighbor, Canada, is also starting to suffer from the ramifications of the Mexican war on drugs. Vancouver, the city host to the 2010 Winter Olympics and once one of the safest places in Canada, has been dubbed the Canadian gang capital. So far in 2009, more than 30 shootings - which is unprecedented - have taken place in British Columbia's largest city, compared to 48 shootings in all of 2008.
There is, in fact, an increasingly ominous connection between the fight against the cartels in Mexico and the growing insecurity in a number of areas in Canada. Recent gang-related violence in British Columbia and elsewhere in the country is "directly related to this Mexican war," said Royal Canadian Mounted Police (RCMP) superintendent Pat Fogarty in a televised interview with the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation (CBC). The war on drugs in Mexico has only made things worse in Canada. "When the supply of cocaine is hampered by crackdowns in Mexico or in the United States and the price goes up", says Fogarty, "competition for the remaining kilos gets tense in Canada." As in any market, when the offer is lower than the demand, the prices go up. According to the RCMP, the price of cocaine on the Canadian market has doubled in the last six months, skyrocketing to $50 000 per kilo. Consequently, suppliers will go to great lengths to get their hands on the product. This in turn can lead to increased violence, with gangs currently competing amongst themselves to find scarce sources of cocaine and other illegal drugs.
Canada's Nonchalance
While the U.S. has designated Mexico as the venue of one of its top security threats, just behind Iran and Pakistan, and certainly among the top security priority in the hemisphere, the situation is not as grave in Canada. Presently, Canadian officials have been very discreet about expressing such concerns towards Mexico, unlike the United States, Canada has not put out an official travel warning its nationals traveling to Mexico and they certainly respect U.S. sensibilities by refraining from even any mention of the strategy of the decriminalization of drugs, which would take the violence and crime out of the drug trade. Ottawa's timorous is rather curious given the fact that a poll indicates that 56 percent of all Canadians support the legalization of marijuana. On its official website, Foreign Affairs and International Trade Canada, the Ottawa agency responsible for such determining, simply stated that "Canadians should be particularly vigilant in northern Mexico and all cities bordering the United States, particularly when traveling to the cities of Tijuana and Ciudad Juarez, as firefights between the military and drug cartels can occur without warning at any time."
Canada presently is facing similar problems as is the United States in its relation with Mexico. Although the two countries are not geographically as close, the Mexican plight, including the fight against the cartels, is becoming a Canadian problem, as well. Interrelated issues such as drug trafficking, gun smuggling, border security and illegal immigration all have had an impact on North America as a whole. For instance, although illegal immigration from Mexico is not a ranking issue in Canada, immigration still constitutes an important complication of the Mexican crisis. Mexico has been Canada's number one source for asylum seekers coming north during the past three years, some applicants now claim that they have to leave their country because their security is threatened by the drug cartels.
During the past year alone, a record 9,456 Mexican refugee claimants have arrived in Canada, a third of the total 36,895 for all of Canada's refugee claimants for 2008. According to Ottawa officials, it is clear that this number is somehow linked to the Mexican cartels' bloody war. This sharp rise in refugee claims from Mexico coincides with the intensification of the drug-related violence in that country. In 2008, 5,300 people were murdered as a result of the war on drugs in Mexico. So far, in 2009, more than a 1000 deaths related to drug violence occurred, which means that the flow of asylum seekers from Mexico is not about to soon dry up.
Canada, however, is reacting very slowly to the worsening situation in Mexico. Strangely enough, it seems to be apathetic, or at least complacent, when it comes to the problems Mexico is now facing. There is obviously a lack of involvement, even though the problem is there to be vividly seen. Those alert to the severity of the situation strongly feel that Canada needs to engage in President Felipe Calderon's struggle to win the war against drugs. Not only because the precarious conditions in Mexico could be about to have a dire spillover effects on certain areas in Canada but, perhaps more importantly, because Canada should also be willing to put its words into action. Since Stephen Harper, Canada's Prime Minister, was elected in 2006, he has vowed to make the Americas a foreign policy priority within a framework of strengthened multilateralism and cooperation. One of the three key objectives of the Harper government's "Americas strategy" is to meet new security challenges in the hemisphere. Despite this allegedly concrete strategy for engagement, little has been done by Ottawa to alleviate the migrant situation in Mexico.
Why Canada Should Care
Canada has to come to understand that relations with Mexico are very important to the country, and thus that the nation has a real and tangible interest in any solution to Mexico's present crisis of recurring crime, violence, poverty and corruption. For instance, economic ties are growing stronger between the two countries, not only within the NAFTA framework, but also increasingly so, bilaterally. Trade between Canada and Mexico has increased steadily during the past decade, amounting to $21 billion in 2007. This figure is admittedly small in comparison to the $166 billion of trade between Canada and the U.S., but it is not insignificant by any means. Furthermore, over 2,000 Canadian companies are operating in Mexico. Bombardier opened an aerospace factory in Queretaro in 2007, while Scotiabank is Mexico's seventh-biggest bank, employing almost 10,000 of its nationals.
Moreover, Canada is seen throughout the Americas, and particularly in the United States and Mexico, as a reliable friend and ally. Failure to get involved in Mexico's current concerns would undermine Canada's credibility as a hemispheric actor. Those persuaded by the argument maintain that Canada should stay true to the spirit of multilateralism and to its honest-broker's tradition and get involved with its North American neighbors to tackle Mexico's extremely delicate present situation.
In an interview with the Toronto newspaper, The National Post, Canadian Public Safety Minister Peter Van Loan, underlined the importance for Canada to get involved in the fight against the cartels: "I think we all share that concern within North America. We are quite familiar with the fact that Mexico is a transshipment spot to Canada. There is a direct impact from the level of organized crime there to the level of organized crime here."
Multilateral and Bilateral Cooperation Possibilities
So far, little, if anything, has been undertaken by Canada to put into force existing resources that could be described as representing a serious act of North-American cooperation regarding the Mexican drug issue. One important tool at Canada's disposal would be a decision by Ottawa to play a meaningful role in aiding Mexico's fight against the cartels. This would be by means of the Inter-American Drug Abuse Control Commission (CICAD), an agency of the Organization of American States (OAS), responsible for strengthening the human and institutional capabilities of the hemisphere in order to reduce the production, trafficking and abuse of drugs in the Americas. Oddly enough, the Commission has not been addressing the Mexican war on drugs, with some calling on Canada to add this issue to CICAD's agenda in order to deal, on an emergency basis, with the worsening Mexican situation.
A Bilateral Approach
Also, bilateral initiatives cannot be ignored. One of the first steps would be to enhance collaboration among all of the police forces of North America. On March 23, the Attorney General of British Columbia, Wally Oppal, and his Mexican counterpart from Baja California, signed a statement of intent concerning an information-sharing agreement regarding transnational organized crime groups. Critics suggest that this approach should have been taken years ago and that it is far from being sufficient to unilaterally tackle the growing drug-related problems faced by British Columbia. However, technical assistance programs coming from local Canadian police forces and the RCMP, should be implemented shortly.
According to the U.S. State Department, Canada has strong anti-corruption controls in place and holds its officials and law enforcement personnel to a high standard of conduct. This valuable expertise could well be put to good use in the training of Mexican police forces and in the reforming of Mexican institutions. At the moment, paradoxically, Canadian security and intelligence agencies are not involved in Mexico at all. Canadian officers are beginning to argue that the time has now arrived for Canada to provide financial assistance and training expertise to Mexico's struggle against organized crime. Compared to the U.S. and its admittedly meager Merida Initiative ($400 million), Canada looks like an indifferent neighbor, unable or unwilling to help.
Two other very important aspects of bilateral cooperation on the drug issue are to slash the demand for drugs and to halt arms trafficking. Canada has to work with the U.S. on reducing domestic drug demand, because although the U.S. is by far the largest market for drugs transiting through Mexico, Canada is not exactly a negligible actor. Canadian officials say that more than 90% of all the drugs consumed in Canada originates from, or are transported through Mexico. Additionally, Canada has a serious stake in working with the U.S. to reduce illegal arms traffic. Toronto police reported that over half of the guns involved in homicides in Canada's largest city come from the U.S.
Canada is sure to come to play a bigger role in the Mexican war on drugs. As an ally and trade partner to Mexico, Canada has to realize the gravity of the situation now being faced by Mexico City and that it cannot content itself by merely watching from the sidelines while the rest of North America faces a serious crisis. Some would argue that it is not only a question of Canada's own security, which is increasingly being jeopardized by the events going on in the south, but also of being able to retain its credibility as a major hemispheric factor, which perhaps is bilaterally prepared to do its part to advance the well-being of its own region.
This analysis was prepared by COHA Research Associate Mylene Bruneau
Founded in 1975, the Council on Hemispheric Affairs (COHA), a nonprofit, tax-exempt independent research and information organization, was established to promote the common interests of the hemisphere, raise the visibility of regional affairs and increase the importance of the inter-American relationship, as well as encourage the formulation of rational and constructive U.S. policies towards Latin America.
"Today’s news isn’t an anomaly," said leaders of the Democratic Women's Caucus and Congressional Black Caucus, "it is a part of a coordinated and sustained strategy to undermine and erase women and people of color."
In what's being called an "exceedingly rare" move, US Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth is blocking the promotion of two Black and two female colonels to one-star generals,
The New York Times reported Friday that some senior US military officials are questioning whether Hegseth acted out of animus toward Black people and women after the defense secretary blocked the promotion of the four officers despite the repeated objections of Army Secretary Daniel Driscoll, who touted what the Times called the colonels' "decadeslong records of exemplary service."
Military officials told the Times that Hegseth's chief of staff, Lt. Col. Ricky Buria, got into a heated exchange with Driscoll last summer over the promotion of another officer, Maj. Gen. Antoinette Gant—a combat veteran of the US invasions and occupations of Afghanistan and Iraq—to command the Military District of Washington, DC.
Such a promotion would have placed Gant in charge of numerous events at which she would likely be seen publicly with President Donald Trump. According to multiple military officials, Buria told Driscoll that Trump would not want to stand next to a Black female officer.
Pete Hegseth looked at a list of qualified officers and decided Black leaders and women had to go.That’s not leadership. It’s discrimination in plain sight.And every Republican who stays silent is complicit.
[image or embed]
— Rep. Norma Torres (@normajtorres.bsky.social) March 27, 2026 at 10:10 AM
A shocked Driscoll reportedly replied that "the president is not racist or sexist," an assessment that flies in the face of countless racist and sexist statements by the president, both before and during both of his White House terms.
Buria called the officials' account of his exchange with Driscoll "completely false."
White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt declined to discuss the matter beyond saying that Hegseth is “doing a tremendous job restoring meritocracy throughout the ranks at the Pentagon, as President Trump directed him to do.”
Military officials told the Times that one of the Black colonels whose promotion was blocked by Hegseth wrote a paper nearly 15 years ago historically analyzing differences between Black and white soldiers' roles in the Army. One of the female colonels, a logistics officer, was held back because she was deployed in Afghanistan during the US withdrawal whose foundation was laid by Trump during his first term. It is unclear why the two other colonels were denied promotions.
Although more than 40% of current active duty US troops are people of color, military leadership remains overwhelmingly comprised of white men. Hegseth, who declared a "frontal assault" on the "whores to wokesters" who he said rose up through the ranks during the Biden administration, told an audience during a 250th anniversary ceremony for the US Navy that "your diversity is not your strength."
Hegseth has argued that women should not serve in combat roles, although he later walked back his assertion amid pushback from senators during his confirmation process. Still, since Trump returned to office, every service branch chief and 9 of the military’s 10 combat commanders are white men.
Leaders of the Democratic Women's Caucus and Congressional Black Caucus issued a joint statement Friday calling Hegseth's blocking of the four colonels' promotions "outrageous and wrong."
"The claim that Hegseth’s chief of staff told the army secretary Trump would not want to stand next to a Black female officer at military events is racist, sexist, and extremely concerning," wrote the lawmakers, Reps. Yvette Clarke (NY), Teresa Leger Fernández (NM), Emilia Sykes (Ohio), Hillary Scholten (Mich.), and Chrissy Houlahan (Pa.).
"Time and time again, Trump and his administration have shown us exactly who they are—attacking and undermining Black people and women in the military, public servants, and women in power," the congressional leaders asserted. "It is clear they are trying to erase Black and women’s leadership and history."
"Today’s news isn’t an anomaly, it is a part of a coordinated and sustained strategy to undermine and erase women and people of color," their statement said.
"We've long known that Pete Hegseth is an unfit and unqualified secretary of defense appointed by Trump," the lawmakers added. "So it is absurd, ironic, and beyond inappropriate that he of all people would deny these promotions to officers with records of exemplary service. America's servicemembers deserve so much better.”
Sen. Jack Reed (D-RI), ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee, also issued a statement reading, "If these reports are accurate, Secretary Hegseth's decision to remove four decorated officers from a promotion list after having been selected by their peers for their merit and performance is not only outrageous, it would be illegal."
"Denying the promotions of individual officers based on their race or gender would betray every principle of merit-based service military officers uphold throughout their careers," Reed added.
Several congressional colleagues weighed in, like Sen. Tammy Duckworth (D-Ill.), a decorated combat veteran who lost her legs when an Iraqi defending his homeland from US invasion shot down the Blackhawk helicopter she was piloting. Duckworth said on Bluesky: "He says he wants to bring meritocracy back to our military. He says he has our warfighters' backs. But here he is, the most unqualified SecDef in history, denying troops a promotion that their fellow warfighters decided they've earned. Hegseth is a disgrace to our heroes."
Other observers also condemned Hegseth's move, with historian Virginia Scharff accusing him of "undermining national security with his racism and misogyny," and City University of New York English Chair Jonathan Gray decrying the "gutter racist" who "should be hounded from public life for the damage he’s caused."
More than 7 million borrowers booted from a Biden-era loan forgiveness program will have to quickly switch to a new plan using a system that's been backed up for months.
After axing a Biden-era student loan repayment program, the Trump administration is threatening to kick its millions of mostly low-income beneficiaries onto the government's most expensive plan unless they switch to a new one quickly.
The Washington Post reported on Friday that the Department of Education was beginning to email the more than 7 million people enrolled in the Saving on a Valuable Education (SAVE) program, telling them they needed to change their plan within the next 90 days.
Around 4.5 million of those borrowers earn incomes between 150% and 225%, allowing them to qualify for zero-dollar monthly payments under SAVE, which the Trump administration effectively killed in December after settling with Republican states who'd brought lawsuits against the program under former President Joe Biden.
Anonymous officials told The Post that those who do not switch plans within three months of receiving the email will automatically be re-enrolled in the Standard Plan. Unlike SAVE, which is income-based, the Standard plan has borrowers pay a fixed rate over 10 years.
Standard typically carries the highest monthly payments, and those transitioning to it from SAVE could pay more than $300 extra per month in some cases, with the poorest borrowers seeing the sharpest increases.
While 90 days may seem like plenty of time to switch to a less expensive repayment plan, it's not nearly that simple.
Due to the large exodus of borrowers, the Department of Education has struggled to process all the forms, processing only about 250,000 per month. Many borrowers who have tried to transition have found themselves waiting months for a reply.
To make matters more confusing, many of these borrowers will have to switch programs again soon, since all but one repayment program will be dissolved on July 1, 2028 as a result of last year's Republican budget law. The remaining plan will also be income-driven, though it is still expected to cost borrowers more each month.
According to a report released last month by the Century Foundation and Protect Borrowers, two groups that support loan forgiveness, nearly 9 million student loan borrowers are in default. During Trump's first year back in office, the student loan delinquency rate jumped from roughly zero to 25%, which it called "precedent-shattering."
"Much of the rise in delinquencies can be linked to the Trump administration’s actions aimed at increasing student loan payments," the report said. “The US Department of Education blocked borrowers from accessing more affordable payments through income-driven plans, having ordered a stoppage in application processing for three months and mass-denying 328,000 applications in August 2025. As of December 31, 2025, a warehouse’s worth of 734,000 applications sat unprocessed.”
Being in default has major ramifications for borrowers' finances. Those with delinquent loans saw their credit scores decrease by an average of 57 points during the first three quarters of 2025, dragging around 2 million of them into "subprime" territory, which forces them to pay thousands of dollars more for auto and personal loans and makes them more likely to have difficulty finding housing and employment.
The report estimated that if those booted from SAVE defaulted at the same rate as other borrowers, the number of student loan borrowers in distress could rise as high as 17 million.
According to Protect Borrowers, the typical family will pay more than $3,000 per year in additional costs as a result of the end of SAVE.
The end of SAVE comes as oil shocks caused by Trump's war in Iran have spiked gas prices and threaten to raise them throughout the economy, adding to the already elevated costs of food, housing, and transportation resulting from the president's aggressive tariff regime.
"In the middle of an affordability crisis driven by Donald Trump," said Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.), "Trump is killing a plan that lowers student loan costs. It's shameful."
"The United States and Iran are trapped in a conflict in which each new escalation only deepens a shared, losing predicament... Sooner rather than later, both will confront the urgency of finding an off-ramp."
Multiple reports published in the last two days have indicated that President Donald Trump is seeking to wrap up his illegal war in Iran, which has significantly hurt his domestic political standing—partially by raising gas prices at a time when polls show US voters are primarily concerned about the cost of living.
While ending the Iran war will not be simple, some foreign policy experts believe that it can be done if both the US and Iran truly understand that deescalation is in both nations' best interests.
George Beebe, director of grand strategy at the Quincy Institute for Responsible Statecraft and former director of the CIA’s Russia analysis, and Trita Parsi, executive vice president of the Quincy Institute, have written an essay published on Thursday by Foreign Policy outlining what an achievable Iran "exit plan" would look like.
The authors acknowledged the immense challenges in getting both sides to meet one another halfway, but said this option is preferable to a drawn-out war that will leave both nations poorer and bloodied.
On Iran's side, argued Beebe and Parsi, a deal would involve renewing "its stated commitment to never pursue nuclear weapons," re-opening the Strait of Hormuz to all shipping vessels, and making a commitment "to denominating at least half of its oil sales in US dollars rather than the Chinese yuan."
The US, meanwhile, would "grant sanctions exemptions to countries prepared to finance Iran’s reconstruction" and "would also permit a specified group of states—such as China, India, South Korea, Japan, Turkey, Iraq, and others in the Gulf—to resume trade with Tehran and the purchase of Iranian oil, thereby easing global energy prices."
Beebe and Parsi emphasized that this deal would only be a first step, and they said the next step would be restarting negotiations to establish a nuclear weapons agreement similar to the one previously negotiated by the Obama administration that Trump tore up during his first term.
"The United States and Iran are trapped in a conflict in which each new escalation only deepens a shared, losing predicament," they wrote. "Neither can compel the other’s surrender. Sooner rather than later, both will confront the urgency of finding an off-ramp—one that does not hinge on the other’s humiliation."
Even if Trump takes this course of action, however, there is no guarantee it will succeed, in part because of how much he has already damaged US alliances across the world.
In an analysis published Thursday, Sarah Yerkes, senior fellow at the Carnegie International Endowment for Peace's Middle East Program, argued that even nations in the Middle East that stand to benefit from a weakened Iran are now thinking twice about their dependence on the US for their security needs, given that Trump's war has resulted in Iran launching retaliatory strikes throughout the region.
Yerkes also highlighted how Trump's handling of European allies is making it less likely that they will play a significant part in helping him end the conflict.
"Europe, which is not eager to enter what it sees as a war of choice, has refrained from proactively joining US and Israeli strikes," Yerkes explained. "One of the clearest examples of the transatlantic rift was over the initial reaction to closures in the Strait of Hormuz, the shipping channel for approximately 20% of the world’s seaborne oil and LNG traffic. Multiple European countries refused to cow to Trump’s demand that they send warships to help keep the strait open, inviting public ire from Trump."
The bottom line, warned Yerkes, is that "each day the war continues, without explicit goals or a clear exit strategy, opposition to the United States—from friends and foes, inside and outside—is also likely to grow, making America less safe and less secure."