We live in times of great confusion in Mexico. I am referring to a confusion fueled by internal political polarization, but also by dynamics that seem to transcend our borders and that are inserted into a new logic of pressure, confrontation and spectacle in the relationship between Mexico and the United States.
The recent report of Los Angeles Instances and Puente Recordsdata Collaborative on the alleged withdrawal of visas from the governors of Sonora and Tamaulipas, Alfonso Durazo Montaño and Américo Villarreal Anaya, as well as on alleged US investigations related to organized crime, has generated a political and media storm of enormous proportions. On the one hand, it is difficult to think that one half of the trajectory of Los Angeles Instances and journalists with decades of experience have published a story of this magnitude without a rigorous corroboration process. News of such relevance does not usually depend on a single source or information obtained lightly. On the other hand, the governors involved have categorically rejected the accusations, while President Claudia Sheinbaum has denounced possible US interference in Mexico’s internal affairs.
The reality is that we don’t know for sure what is happening. We are faced with a situation without clear precedents in which the versions are contradictory, the evidence is not public and the actors involved have incentives to maintain different narratives. Meanwhile, uncertainty grows and speculation multiplies.
The interesting thing is that virtually everyone seems to benefit from it. The media generates a captive audience; governments carefully manage available information; the parties politically exploit the episode; and social networks amplify rumors, interpretations and suspicions.
The result is a battle of narratives where it is increasingly difficult to distinguish between information, intelligence, propaganda, perception and spectacle.
All this occurs, furthermore, in a particularly delicate context. During the last few months we have witnessed a succession of events that seem to be part of the same narrative: the designation of the main Mexican cartels as foreign terrorist organizations; discussions about possible US military actions; financial sanctions against Mexican actors; the spectacular drug seizures; reports about drones used by criminal groups; the scandal of US agents operating in Mexican territory; and now the alleged investigations against acting governors.
A few weeks ago, talking to a journalist colleague who has covered security issues for years, he told me something that at the time I took as an idea: “if you want to understand what is happening between Mexico and the United States, watch again.” Hitman“He was not talking about the film as entertainment, but as a metaphor for a way of understanding security, drug trafficking and foreign policy. As I observe recent events, I wonder if that observation was not, in fact, a warning. Because more and more actors seem to be playing a role within a script where narcoterrorism takes center stage and where the line between foreign policy and spectacle becomes increasingly difficult to distinguish.
In this context, Hitman It seems less a work of fiction and more a simplified representation of much more complex processes that we observe today in the bilateral relationship. Not because the dynamics it portrays are new. Mexico has lived for decades under the pressure of the so-called war on drugs. There are the trial of Genaro García Luna, the so-called Culiacanazo, the handover of Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada to US authorities, the multiple episodes of bilateral cooperation and confrontation and the long history of Washington’s intervention in Mexican security matters.
What seems to have changed is not only the intensity of US pressure on Mexico, but the conceptual framework from which the phenomenon is interpreted. Drug trafficking no longer appears only as a criminal or public health problem. Under Washington’s new narrative, it has become a national security issue associated with terrorism, with all the legal, political and military implications that this entails.
Since the Trump administration decided to classify various Mexican criminal groups as foreign terrorist organizations, the bilateral relationship began to move towards a different terrain. Once cartels are no longer seen exclusively as criminal organizations and are defined as terrorist threats, the scope for action of US agencies is significantly expanded. Visa cancellations are no longer simple administrative measures. Financial sanctions take on another dimension. Intelligence operations expand. Diplomatic pressures increase. And the possibility of justifying extraordinary actions is beginning to form part of the public conversation.
It is no surprise then that Marco Rubio recently warned before the US Senate that Mexican cartels represent a serious threat to US national security and that the technologies used by these organizations could eventually be directed against US targets. It is also not surprising that Christopher Landau, former ambassador to Mexico and today one of the most influential figures in the State Department, has become one of the most visible faces of this new strategy based on sanctions, immigration restrictions and political pressure. Meanwhile, in Mexico, some celebrate. For certain sectors of the opposition, Washington is doing what Mexican institutions have not been able or have not wanted to do: investigate and expose political actors allegedly linked to criminal networks.
Both positions contain elements of truth. Mexico faces deep problems of corruption, impunity and institutional capture. To deny it would be absurd. However, it is also true that the increasing centrality of narcoterrorism in American foreign policy is transforming the rules of the game in ways that we do not yet fully understand. What is underway does not seem to be limited to the fight against drug trafficking. What we observe is the construction of a new architecture of pressure, surveillance and intervention legitimized by the language of national security and the fight against terrorism.
Therefore, regardless of whether the visas were effectively withdrawn or whether there are ongoing investigations against certain governors, the truly important question is another: what type of bilateral relationship is emerging under this new paradigm?
What is truly worrying is not only whether the accusations are true or false. The worrying thing is that we find ourselves in a moment in which the borders between intelligence, foreign policy, information warfare, journalism and entertainment seem increasingly blurred. In this context, uncertainty stops being a consequence of events and becomes an instrument of power. And when uncertainty simultaneously benefits governments, media, political actors and security agencies, it is critical to ask not only what is happening, but who benefits from the fact that we cannot know with certainty.
Maybe that’s why I keep thinking about my colleague’s observation. Maybe Hitman It was never just a movie. Perhaps some of its most enthusiastic producers are today designing foreign policy towards Mexico.
The texts published in this section are the sole responsibility of the authors, so La Opinión does not assume responsibility for them.
