Editor’s note: An uncomfortable week for Sheinbaum’s vision of Mexican sovereignty
by Andrew Law, editor and founder.
This week a video circulated on social media of former Mexican president Felipe Calderón decrying the country’s freshly implemented judicial reform at Georgetown University in Washington, DC.
In it, Calderón called MORENA’s reform a “demolition project” that had likely rendered free elections a thing of the past. What seemed to irritate President Claudia Sheinbaum most, however, was Calderón’s suggestion that former US ambassador Ken Salazar should have intervened. Sheinbaum did not hold back at her morning press conference: “It's outrageous, there's no other word for it. He goes to the United States to say that the American ambassador should have intervened to prevent the judicial reform from passing. Aside from being spurious, he's a traitor.”
Sheinbaum rarely misses a chance to stress Mexico’s sovereignty in her dealings with Washington. When Secretary of State Marco Rubio visited last week to highlight security cooperation, the first line of the joint statement stressed respect for sovereignty, echoing…
Mexico’s electoral reform will close the door on pluralism
by Luis Rubio, political analyst and Chair of México Evalúa.
President Claudia Sheinbaum has announced an electoral reform. Its details have not yet been made public, but its spirit has been clear since the beginning of the year, laid out through a series of official statements. What motivates this initiative is radically different from the logic that inspired every electoral (or political) reform since 1962, when Mexico introduced the figure of “party deputies” — in other words, opposition representatives — as a way to open space for diverse voices, oxygenate the system, and preserve political stability.
The central question is not what the reform will contain — its intent is already known — but how the two minor allies, the Green Party (PVEM) and the Labor Party (PT), will act. Without their support, passage is impossible.
From 1962 onward, every electoral reform pursued the same purpose: injecting oxygen into the political system. That was the rationale behind the 1978 reform engineered by Jesús Reyes Heroles, which gave legitimacy to left-wing parties such as the Communist Party and the Mexican Workers’ Party. Their numbers were negligible, but…
Editor’s note: Claudia Sheinbaum is not Donald Trump’s foil. She is his parallel.
by Andrew Law, editor and founder.
It’s been impossible to miss during Trump’s second term how, in corners of US media and the anti-Trump internet, President Claudia Sheinbaum is cast as his foil: a foreign leader ready to puncture his distortions about Mexico; a “Trump whisperer,” as The Washington Post called her.
The appeal is obvious. On paper she looks like the perfect counterweight: a technocratic climate scientist who governed Mexico City just as US tourists, digital nomads, and urban creatives were discovering it. But her record of exaggerations, denials, and narrative spin shows she can be every bit as casual with the truth as Trump. And this is what her foreign progressive fan club needs to understand: Claudia Sheinbaum has more in common with Trump than they think.
Take Project Portero. The US Department of Justice billed it as a bold new initiative with Mexico’s security apparatus. Almost immediately Sheinbaum denied it existed. Progressives on Bluesky (and what remains of them on X) seized on her denial as proof of another Trump lie. Yet her clarification — those police officers were traveling to Texas for a law enforcement conference — barely differed from the DEA’s announcement, just stripped of American hyperbole.
That reaction also ignored her track record. She has met virtually every Trump demand on immigration and law enforcement, militarizing Mexico’s border much as Trump has militarized the US’s. Sheinbaum insists such cooperation respects Mexico’s sovereignty, but sidesteps how it is enforced. NGOs have documented mass detentions and forced transfers of migrants to Mexico’s far south, where opportunity is scarce and insecurity high. In practice Sheinbaum has turned the whole of Mexico into Trump’s border wall.
Spin and denial extend beyond…
A new US - Mexico security agreement in the making
by Gerónimo Gutiérrez. Ambassador Gutiérrez served as Mexico’s Ambassador to the United States and as Mexico’s Deputy Secretary for Governance and Homeland Security.
—
Last week tensions between the US and Mexico governments surfaced again. President Sheinbaum denied the existence of an agreement between the Drug Enforcement Agency and the Mexican government. Her comments were directed towards a press release from the DEA announcing the launch of a “bold bilateral initiative to dismantle cartel gatekeepers and combat synthetic drug trafficking”. In my view, the rebuttal appears to be more the result of miscommunication than of the lack of willingness on both sides to strengthen cooperation. In fact, Sheinbaum confirmed that some form of security agreement is in the making and could be formalized in the next few weeks during a visit to Mexico of Secretary of State Marco Rubio. This was overlooked and could potentially be good news. Here are four takeaways of last week’s episode…
Spoiler alert: this gets complicated
In response to statements emanating from the Mexican presidential bully pulpit that with the United States “we are doing better than any other country,” that “we dialogue with respect and on equal terms,” and that “we coordinate, we collaborate, but we do not subordinate ourselves,”— and also in response to narratives about how Mexico and its president deal with Donald Trump — a steady dose of realism and a reality check - in Mexico’s Congress and across the media, business organizations, and society at large- are urgently required, and we need to carefully weigh where things stand.
While navel gazing in the current juncture of the relationship with the US may feed egos and polls, it’s also dangerous. It can make us short-sighted and cause us to lose sight of the reality looming beyond the horizon. This is especially true since 2018, when Mexico irresponsibly turned its back on the world and on its closest diplomatic and trading partner. But - with Trump having once again kicked the can down the road - Mexico now faces 90 days of uncertainty on tariffs. That’s on top of the looming threat of the unilateral US force against transnational criminal organizations, and a steady stream of pressure points from Washington on a wide-ranging number of issues across our shared bilateral agenda. At no time since her swearing in and — more importantly — during the six months that Sheinbaum’s government has coexisted with the new US administration, has such a national discussion been so urgent in Mexico.
What Mexican governments — both this one and the previous — have failed to grasp is…
Sheinbaum’s monologue diplomacy is meeting Washington’s deaf ear
by David Agren, writer-at-large.
Shortly after rumours started that Ovidio Guzmán – son of imprisoned Sinaloa cartel boss Joaquín “El Chapo” Guzmán – might plead guilty on drug trafficking charges and accept a deal with US prosecutors to turn state’s witness, influencers for Mexico’s ruling party settled on a narrative for denouncing the US government’s actions: It was negotiating with terrorists.
President Claudia Sheinbaum repeated that narrative, too. From the podium of her mañanera press conference, she objected to the deal with the younger Guzmán, while noting the lack of cross-border coordination in the plea bargaining process and reiterating her opposition to the Trump administration’s designation of six drug cartels as foreign terror organizations. "They have a policy of not negotiating with terrorists,” she said. “They decided to designate certain criminal organizations as terrorists. So let them report whether there's an agreement or not."
Sheinbaum’s comments didn’t go unnoticed. Jeffrey Lichtman, Ovidio’s lawyer, plainly stated why the Mexican government wouldn’t be a party to any plea agreement: a lack of trust dating back to 2020 and the decision to send former defence secretary Gen. Salvador Cienfuegos back to Mexico after he was indicted on drug charges in the United States.
The war of words heated up as Sheinbaum, who doesn’t let any slight go unanswered, called Lichtman’s comments “disrespectful” and promised to…
The roots and costs of Mexico’s vast informal economy
by Macario Schettino.
For some time now, there has been a belief that previous generations lived better than today's. Many young people, for example, complain that they cannot afford to buy a home in a central location, as their parents or grandparents did. In the United States, there is nostalgia for the 1950s — a nostalgia that, as always, erases the negative parts, such as racism and discrimination against women, among other things.
In Mexico’s case, this nostalgia was fed in classrooms when emphasis was placed on something called the “Mexican economic miracle,” or by its local name: desarrollo estabilizador (stabilizing development). The story goes that from 1946 to 1971, Mexico achieved very high growth rates (6% annually, 3% in per capita GDP), and nostalgia paints a picture of orderly, clean cities with abundant jobs.
As with all legends, there’s some truth — but not too much. In Mexico, during the time being referred to, the country was still essentially rural. It wasn’t until 1960 that half the population lived in cities, and it was precisely that process of urbanization that began to complicate everything. Cities could not expand their infrastructure at the same rate as the population was growing, and even less so when the demographic growth rate exceeded 3% annually. By the 1970s, medium and large cities in Mexico already had belts of poverty and “lost cities”: towns swallowed up by urban expansion.
If in the 1960s it seemed like there were jobs for everyone, it was because only half the population lived in urban areas. As that urban population grew, the myth of full employment began to fade. To prevent this urban growth from spinning out of control, Mexico took on excessive external debt in the 1970s — just as all Latin American countries did — taking advantage of abundant petrodollars and the end of restrictions on international capital flows. In 1981, with anti-inflationary programs in the US and UK, everything collapsed.
Since then…
There’s a lot more driving Mexico City’s gentrification than bad gringos
by David Agren.
The acerbic signs and graffiti criticizing gentrification in Mexico City’s fashionable neighbourhoods were certain to capture international attention.
“Spanish is spoken here,” “Mexico for Mexicans,” and, “Go home,” read three of the screeds.
Social media couldn’t get enough of the disorderly protests – with the familiar masked vandals infiltrating yet another march and smashing up storefronts. The Mexico City police were curiously absent. An easy narrative of Americans abroad wearing out their welcome, while ICE cruelly rounded up Mexican migrants in cities such as Los Angeles.
The Department of Homeland Security jumped in with its own snark, posting, “Oh,” above an X Post with protester graffitiing the words, “Not your home,” and a protester waving a sign in English admonishing, “Pay taxes, learn Spanish, respect my culture.
Much of the international media, meanwhile, focused on the core matter of gentrification, which has spread through leafy neighbourhoods such as Roma, Condesa and Juárez – among others – over the past 15 years, driving up rents and forcing some long-term residents to move as their homes became short-term rentals.
The easy hook for any story on gentrification are…