COLUMN: Mexico Caught Between the Cartels and Pressure from Trump

A Delicate Diplomatic Balance

Mayor Claudia Sheinbaum has had to navigate these revelations with calculated caution, refusing to directly confirm or deny the existence of this secret cooperation, while publicly reaffirming Mexico’s commitment to the fight against drug trafficking—without, however, admitting to any subordination to U.S. interests.

This balancing act reflects the complex political reality in which Sheinbaum operates: she must maintain a functional relationship with Washington—which is essential for the Mexican economy—while avoiding the appearance of capitulating to pressure from the Trump administration.

A Mayorship Under Constant Pressure

Since taking office, Sheinbaum has faced repeated trade pressure from Trump, particularly on tariff and immigration issues, making the public handling of this informant case all the more delicate—as it could be perceived by some Mexicans as a new form of subordination to Washington.

Sheinbaum has been walking a diplomatic tightrope since taking office. Every apparent concession to Trump—even one justified by public safety—carries a domestic political cost that she cannot afford to ignore.

Regional Political Figures in the Spotlight

Several Mexican governors, including Alfonso Durazo and Rubén Rocha Moya, have been named in the revelations regarding this cooperation with U.S. authorities—a public exposure that complicates their local political standing, particularly in states where the cartels’ influence remains deeply entrenched in the economic and social fabric.

The governor of Baja California, Marina del Pilar, is also among the regional figures mentioned in this report, illustrating the geographic scope of this secret cooperation, which appears to extend far beyond a single state or region of the country.

The Political Risk for These Regional Elected Officials

For these governors, being publicly associated with cooperation with Washington against the cartels poses a double-edged political risk: it can strengthen their image of firmness in the face of organized crime, but it can also expose them to violent reprisals from the criminal organizations targeted by this cooperation.

These governors are literally risking their lives by accepting—even implicitly—this role of cooperation with Washington. One cannot judge their choice without acknowledging the extent of the real physical danger to which they personally expose themselves.

A criminal legacy that still shapes the country

The shadow of historic criminal figures such as Joaquín Guzmán, known as El Chapo, and Nemesio Oseguera, known as El Mencho, continues to loom large over Mexico’s security landscape, even after the former’s incarceration in the United States and the ongoing manhunt for the latter by authorities in both countries.

Over the decades, these criminal organizations have demonstrated remarkable resilience, systematically reorganizing themselves after every blow dealt by the authorities—a pattern that fuels persistent skepticism about the true effectiveness of traditional anti-drug strategies.

Infiltration That Extends Beyond the Political System

Beyond government officials alone, cartel infiltration also affects local police forces, the judicial system, and even certain legitimate economic sectors, creating an ecosystem of corruption that makes any long-term, effective anti-drug strategy all the more complex.

The real problem is not just the cartels themselves, but the ecosystem of corruption that allows them to thrive. Until this structural corruption is dismantled, every tactical victory against a specific cartel will remain temporary.

Trump Uses Tariffs as Leverage

The Trump administration has regularly used the threat of tariffs as leverage against Mexico to secure greater cooperation on border security and the fight against drugs—a strategy that puts Sheinbaum in a particularly uncomfortable negotiating position.

This use of trade as a tool of diplomatic pressure illustrates an approach characteristic of the current administration, which does not hesitate to link economic and security issues to maximize its influence over foreign governments, including those considered strategic trading partners.

An Economic Partnership Under Constant Strain

Mexico remains one of the United States’ main trading partners, which makes this relationship all the more complex: Washington needs Mexican cooperation on immigration and security issues, while simultaneously maintaining constant economic pressure that undermines Sheinbaum’s domestic political position.

This strategy of constant tariff pressure, while effective in the short term for securing one-off concessions, risks permanently undermining the mutual trust necessary for truly effective long-term anti-drug cooperation.

Violence That Continues to Affect Civilians

According to Human Rights Watch’s annual report, cartel-related violence continues to claim numerous civilian victims in Mexico, with enforced disappearances, extrajudicial killings, and persistent impunity fueling a cycle of violence that is difficult to break, regardless of announced efforts at bilateral security cooperation.

This report also highlights the risks that increased security cooperation with the United States poses to human rights in Mexico, particularly if it is accompanied by an excessive militarization of the security response rather than a strengthening of civilian judicial institutions.

The Fragile Balance Between Security and Fundamental Rights

Human rights organizations are calling for a more rigorous balance between the security imperatives of the war on drugs and respect for the fundamental rights of Mexican citizens—a balance that the secret cooperation revealed by The New York Times does not necessarily guarantee.

The war against the cartels cannot be won in the long term by sacrificing the fundamental rights of ordinary citizens. Mexico’s recent history is replete with examples where this approach has failed in the long run, despite occasional tactical successes.

A Country Caught Between Two Fires

This informant scandal illustrates a fundamental geopolitical reality: Mexico finds itself caught between the need to cooperate with its American neighbor to effectively combat transnational criminal organizations and the preservation of national sovereignty, which its citizens are fiercely determined to protect against any perceived interference from Washington.

This structural tension is not new in the history of U.S.-Mexican relations, but it has taken on particular intensity under the Trump administration, whose rhetoric on Mexico has often been perceived as dismissive by a large segment of the Mexican public.

A Test for Sheinbaum’s Diplomacy

How this matter is handled will be a major test for Sheinbaum’s diplomacy, as she must demonstrate her ability to protect Mexico’s sovereign interests while maintaining a functional relationship with a trade and security partner as indispensable as the United States.

I believe that the way Sheinbaum handles this crisis will largely determine how her presidency is perceived—both within Mexico and internationally—in terms of her actual ability to defend national sovereignty in the face of U.S. pressure.

Chemical precursors from China

It is important to remember that the fentanyl crisis driving this anti-drug cooperation has its roots in part in China, the world’s leading supplier of chemical precursors used by Mexican cartels to manufacture this synthetic drug, which is responsible for tens of thousands of deaths in the United States each year.

This Chinese dimension of the problem illustrates the global geopolitical complexity of the fentanyl crisis, which extends far beyond the bilateral U.S.-Mexico framework to become part of a global supply chain involving state and criminal actors across several continents.

China’s Responsibility Is Too Often Downplayed

Chinese authorities have regularly been accused of turning a blind eye to—or even implicitly tolerating—the export of chemical precursors to Mexico, a passivity that fuels Western suspicions of a deliberate strategy to indirectly destabilize Western societies.

China bears a responsibility that it systematically downplays in this fentanyl crisis. Until Beijing takes serious measures against the export of chemical precursors, U.S.-Mexican cooperation will remain a band-aid on a much larger wound.

A Long History of Ambivalent Cooperation

Security cooperation between Mexico and the United States in the fight against drugs dates back several decades, marked by episodes of fruitful collaboration but also by high-profile scandals involving infiltration and corruption that have periodically undermined mutual trust between the two countries’ national security apparatuses.

This ambivalent history partly explains Sheinbaum’s current caution; she has likely learned from the political mistakes of her predecessors in the public handling of similar security issues involving close cooperation with Washington.

Lessons from the Past That Weigh on the Present

Past scandals involving Mexican officials corrupted by the cartels—sometimes uncovered after years of secret collaboration with U.S. agencies—continue to fuel mutual mistrust, which complicates the transparent management of this type of bilateral security cooperation.

History teaches us that U.S.-Mexico anti-drug cooperation rarely proceeds in a straightforward manner. Every step forward is generally accompanied by new scandals that highlight the structural fragility of this complex bilateral relationship.

A Population Divided on Cooperation

Mexican public opinion remains deeply divided on the issue of security cooperation with the United States: one segment of the population supports any measure likely to reduce cartel violence, regardless of its source, while another segment views this cooperation as an unacceptable infringement on Mexico’s national sovereignty.

This division reflects broader political and regional divides within Mexican society, where the populations most directly affected by cartel violence tend to be more supportive of enhanced security cooperation with Washington.

An Election Issue to Watch

This issue could become a significant electoral issue in the upcoming Mexican elections, as opposition parties will not hesitate to exploit any perception of the Sheinbaum administration’s excessive subservience to U.S. pressure—a political theme that has traditionally resonated in the Mexican electoral landscape.

I expect this issue to become a key line of attack by the Mexican opposition against Sheinbaum, regardless of the actual effectiveness of this cooperation in reducing cartel violence on the ground.

An issue that goes beyond Mexico alone

Mexico’s security instability linked to the cartels represents a regional security issue that concerns all Western partners, who are aware that the porous U.S.-Mexico border and the financial power of Mexican criminal organizations can have repercussions far beyond North American territory alone.

This regional dimension explains the sustained interest of several Western countries in developments in Mexico’s security situation, particularly with regard to international judicial cooperation and the fight against money laundering linked to transnational drug trafficking.

Stability in Mexico Is in the Collective Interest of the West

A lasting stabilization of Mexico’s security situation would serve the interests of the entire Western bloc by reducing the flow of deadly synthetic drugs into North America and strengthening the democratic resilience of a major strategic trading partner for the continental economy.

I firmly believe that the West has every interest in supporting lasting security stabilization in Mexico, not only for obvious humanitarian reasons, but also because a stable Mexico strengthens the collective security of the entire North American continent.

A Bilateral Meeting to Watch

Several observers anticipate an upcoming bilateral meeting between high-level representatives of the U.S. and Mexican governments to clarify the terms of this security cooperation, in the hope of easing the diplomatic tensions sparked by the New York Times’ revelations.

This meeting, if it takes place, could determine the future course of the bilateral relationship on security issues, particularly regarding the sensitive matter of transparency surrounding cooperation between Mexican officials and U.S. anti-drug agencies.

A story to watch closely in the coming weeks

How this situation unfolds in the coming weeks will determine whether this informant scandal escalates into a major diplomatic crisis or whether it eventually fades away, as other similar controversies have done in the past amid the complex history of U.S.-Mexico relations.

I will continue to monitor developments in this case closely, as it perfectly illustrates the structural dilemmas faced by all countries that must cooperate with a powerful neighbor while preserving their national sovereignty in the face of constant external pressures.

Two Fronts, the Same Logic of Security Dependence

There is an instructive, albeit partial, parallel between Mexico’s security dependence on the United States in its fight against the cartels and Ukraine’s dependence on its Western allies in its war against Russia: in both cases, a sovereign country must accept close cooperation with a more powerful partner to survive an existential threat it cannot face alone.

This comparison has obvious limitations, but it illustrates a broader geopolitical truth: in a world dominated by unequal power dynamics, absolute sovereignty often remains a theoretical ideal rather than a practical reality for countries facing threats that exceed their own capabilities.

The West Facing Its Multiple Responsibilities

This dual responsibility of the West—toward Mexico in its war on drugs and toward Ukraine in its resistance to Russian aggression—illustrates the scope of the strategic commitments the Western bloc must simultaneously shoulder in the face of multiple and geographically dispersed threats.

I find this comparison revealing: whether the threat comes from criminal cartels or an invading army, the lesson for the West remains the same. Strategic solidarity with vulnerable partners is not a luxury; it is a necessity for long-term collective security.

A Structural Dilemma with No Simple Solution

The case of the Mexican informants revealed by The New York Times illustrates a structural dilemma that extends far beyond Mexico alone: How can a country effectively cooperate with a powerful partner against a transnational criminal threat without giving the impression that it is sacrificing its own national sovereignty on the altar of that cooperation?

Sheinbaum’s Mexico will have to continue navigating this delicate balance in the coming months, under the watchful eye of a wary Mexican public and a U.S. administration that is not inclined toward diplomatic patience on this high-priority security issue.

A Test for the Entire North American Region

Beyond Mexico alone, this issue serves as a test for the entire North American security architecture, in a context where transnational threats—whether from cartels or rival state actors such as China—require ever-closer regional coordination among Western allies.

I conclude with a firm conviction: national sovereignty and security cooperation are not opposing concepts, but complementary ones, when negotiated with transparency and mutual respect among partners. Mexico and the West have everything to gain by understanding this quickly.

Signed, Maxime Marquette, columnist