What Mexico Is Demanding In Its Border Crossing Power Grab

Sovereignty has become the Mexican government’s favorite word in its relationship with Washington, D.C. Mexico invokes it in response to American criticism, security cooperation, and almost any suggestion that its domestic affairs might invite scrutiny from its northern neighbor.

But sovereignty from what, exactly? And most importantly, for whom?

In a recent speech on Mexican sovereignty, Spanish parliamentarian Cayetana Álvarez de Toledo posed a question Mexico’s political leadership would rather avoid: What does national sovereignty mean when citizens cannot exercise sovereignty over their own lives? A government cannot credibly claim to defend the nation simply by denouncing foreign interference while allowing the institutions meant to serve its citizens to become instruments of political power.

So while Mexico’s ruling party, MORENA, denounces perceived American intervention, it is developing a permanent political organization inside the United States. You need not take my word for it: MORENA has been kind enough to put the plan in writing: MORENA’s 2024–2027 Plan de Trabajo calls for the creation of party committees abroad, political education, increased party affiliation, regional organizing structures, and a permanent assembly of Mexicans living outside Mexico.

More troublingly, the strategy expressly contemplates sustained engagement with Mexican consulates and alliances with consular officials.

Indeed, the execution is already visible. A Latinus investigation documented meetings between Alejandro Robles Gómez, MORENA’s secretary for Mexicans abroad, and Mexican consular officials in Los Angeles, Sacramento, Las Vegas, New York, Houston, and Austin. Robles even praised the Mexican consul general in Los Angeles for possessing what he called the “chip de la Cuarta Transformación” — the ideological outlook of MORENA’s governing movement.

Separate reporting by Julieta Cruz documented Robles visiting the Sacramento consulate before participating in party-organizing activities in Northern California, where MORENA committees were established in Stockton and Napa. Excélsior also reported that Robles met with the Mexican consul general in Los Angeles for public hearings on electoral reform.

The question is no longer whether MORENA is organizing in the United States. The question is where the state ends, and the party begins. A Mexican consulate must represent Mexico as a nation, not serve as an organizational asset of whichever party happens to occupy the presidency. Diplomatic privileges belong to states, not political movements.

Mexico’s former ambassador to Washington, Martha Bárcena, has warned against what she calls partidización (partisan politicization) of Mexican communities abroad and the danger of associating consular institutions with MORENA’s organizational apparatus.

Meanwhile, Mexico has been notably less accommodating of foreign government activity within its borders. President Claudia Sheinbaum has generally exercised greater diplomatic discipline than her predecessor in managing the bilateral relationship. She has also explicitly rejected allegations that Mexican consulates are engaging in partisan political activity in the United States, insisting that their responsibilities remain consular protection, legal assistance, and legitimate diplomatic work.

Yet presidential assurances do not eliminate the need for oversight, particularly when the governing party’s overseas organizational machinery continues to expand.

Contrary to popular belief, the United States is not interested in puppeteering Mexico from behind the curtain. The United States — as much as Mexico — is interested in a secure, prosperous, and institutionally stable neighbor with which it can maintain productive relations. But cooperation does not mean Washington can ignore potential abuses of diplomatic institutions within its own territory. Respect for Mexican sovereignty should not be mistaken for deference to MORENA.

Americans must insist on three things: transparency, institutional neutrality, and reciprocity.

None of this requires restricting legitimate political expression by Mexican Americans, limiting lawful participation in Mexican elections, or obstructing the essential work of Mexican consulates. Those rights and functions must be protected. But a foreign governing party’s effort to blur the line between its partisan ambitions and the institutional authority of the state it temporarily controls cannot be accepted without scrutiny.

Sovereignty is not a shield behind which a ruling party may consolidate power. It is a principle that must protect the integrity of institutions and the political independence of citizens.

If Mexico’s government wishes to invoke sovereignty as the organizing principle of its relationship with Washington, it should start by respecting the institutional boundaries that sovereignty demands.

Mexico is America’s neighbor, an indispensable partner, and a sovereign nation deserving of respect.

MORENA is its ruling party.

The United States should remember the difference and insist that Mexico does, too.

***

Alejandrina Elms serves as the U.S.–Mexico policy analyst for the Texas Public Policy Foundation.