This piece lays out the deadly March attack that killed Francisco Beltran, known as “El Payin,” near Mexico City and explores a broader, covert CIA campaign inside Mexico tied to the agency’s Ground Branch and backed by policy moves from President Donald Trump. It names key figures and places — from Omar Garcia Harfuch to Chihuahua and Sinaloa — and traces how U.S. counter-cartel efforts have shifted toward direct, sometimes lethal, engagement. The reporting examines legal risks, Mexican reactions from President Claudia Sheinbaum, and the broader security picture for both countries.
A car explosion on a major highway outside Mexico City on March 28 killed Francisco Beltran and his driver in seconds, leaving little doubt about the violence unfolding on Mexican soil. Beltran, nicknamed “El Payin,” has been tied by Mexican analysts to the Sinaloa Cartel, a syndicate the Biden years and now the Trump administration have labeled as ruthless and, in some cases, terrorist in nature. Mexican officials say an explosive device was hidden in the vehicle, and local authorities treated the blast like an assassination.
Multiple sources familiar with the operations tell us the incident was not merely cartel-on-cartel killing but a targeted strike facilitated by CIA operations officers. Those sources point to an expanded campaign by the agency’s Ground Branch to dismantle cartel networks, moving beyond classic intelligence sharing into direct action. The trend reflects a broader push from President Donald Trump, who designated several cartels as foreign terrorist organizations and authorized more aggressive tactics against them.
People briefed on the program described a mix of involvement: sometimes the CIA supplied intelligence and equipment, other times operatives were near or on the scene during raids and lethal strikes. “The lethality of their operations has been seriously ramped up,” one source said, noting the CIA’s posture has shifted to mirror counterterrorism playbooks used in other regions. John Ratcliffe’s move to expand the agency’s role, and policy adjustments under Trump, created the legal and operational breathing room for more assertive measures.
The playbook, according to U.S. and former U.S. officials, is familiar: identify weak links across a cartel’s structure, disrupt the network, and target both leaders and the mid-level managers who keep trafficking flowing. That method reduces reliance on high-profile takedowns and increases pressure across the organization, but it also raises thorny legal questions in Mexico. The Mexican Constitution bars foreign agents from participating in law enforcement without explicit federal approval, and some missions appear to have been carried out with limited coordination.
Mexican authorities have pushed back. Security Secretary Omar Garcia Harfuch said in a after publication Tuesday, “The Government of Mexico categorically rejects any version that seeks to normalize, justify, or suggest the existence of lethal, covert, or unilateral operations by foreign agencies on national territory.” That statement underscores the political tightrope Mexico walks while public pressure mounts to control cartels. At the same time, Mexican analysts worry the violence and secrecy could deepen distrust between the two countries.
On Mexican television, journalist Jose Cardenas warned that an attack like the March explosion, if confirmed, marked a new level of violence near the capital. “We have been living in anarchic war for many months in Sinaloa,” he said on his broadcast. Below is the related video of that broadcast for context.
The CIA presence in Mexico has not been large, but sources say it has grown and that its full set of Ground Branch assets has yet to be deployed. Two U.S. embassy officials who were also CIA operatives died in a car crash in Chihuahua after participating in a raid on a meth lab, and that incident exposed how murky coordination can be between U.S. operatives and Mexican authorities. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said she was not briefed in advance and reacted angrily, asserting that foreign agents cannot operate on Mexican soil without disclosure.
Trust is the central problem. Officials in the U.S. worry cartel retaliation could spill into American communities, and Mexican leaders worry about sovereignty and the political fallout of covert U.S. action. José Luis Valdés Ugalde, a senior researcher and professor at the Center for Research on North America, tied the Chihuahua episode to a deep distrust in U.S.-Mexican intelligence ties and warned that state-level coordination sidestepping the federal government can inflame tensions.
Trump and his team have signaled they prefer decisive action, with public statements praising a new “land force” and framing the neutralization of cartels as a top security priority. That posture appeals to voters who want results and to policymakers who view cartels as transnational threats. Ambassadors and ex-CIA paramilitary officers placed in key roles have smoothed legal and operational paths for this more muscular approach, but those choices carry risks for bilateral relations.
Operationally, U.S. and Mexican forces still cooperate when interests align, and the CIA continues to supply intelligence that helps Mexican law enforcement score arrests. But in a country where corruption and cartel infiltration are endemic, Washington has chosen to work selectively with regional or vetted units instead of relying solely on federal partners. That selective approach increases deniability, but it also complicates transparency and accountability.
The recent uptick in covert activity shows a clear policy shift: move from passive intel sharing to active disruption. It aims to break smuggling pipelines and remove both visible and hidden pillars of cartel power. Yet every operation raises legal, diplomatic, and security questions that neither Washington nor Mexico has fully answered, and both governments will feel the consequences as this campaign continues.
https://x.com/OHarfuch/status/2054325906945237339?s=20
