Connect with us

Politics

Mexico's president announces 'pause' in relationship with U.S. Embassy after criticism from ambassador

Published

on

Mexico's president announces 'pause' in relationship with U.S. Embassy after criticism from ambassador

Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador announced a “pause” in his nation’s relations with the United States and Canadian embassies after the ambassadors from those countries criticized his plan to dramatically overhaul the justice system.

“They have to learn to respect the sovereignty of Mexico,” López Obrador told journalists Tuesday morning at his daily news conference.

His comments came after U.S. Ambassador Ken Salazar and his Canadian counterpart expressed their concern about sweeping changes proposed by López Obrador to Mexico’s courts.

Under the plan, which the president hopes to push through Congress during his final month in office, federal judges, including members of the Supreme Court, would lose their jobs, and their replacements would be elected by popular vote.

Advertisement

López Obrador contends that the courts, which have ruled against several of his legislative efforts in recent years, are corrupt.

Federal court workers shout slogans during a protest in Mexico City on Monday against a proposal that would make all judges stand for election.

(Eduardo Verdugo / Associated Press)

His critics say there’s no evidence of that, and that putting judges up for election would politicize the judiciary and give even more power to López Obrador’s ruling Morena party. Last week, thousands of judges and other court employees walked off the job in protest. Over the weekend, marchers took to the streets in more than a dozen cities to oppose the changes.

Advertisement

Concern about the implications of López Obrador’s comments sent the peso tumbling. Several U.S. banks have warned in recent weeks that the proposed judicial overhaul poses serious financial risks for Mexico and could damage bilateral trade.

The U.S. and Canadian embassies did not immediately respond to requests for comment Tuesday.

Salazar came out publicly against the president’s plan last week, saying the overhaul would “threaten the historic trade relationship we have built, which relies on investors’ confidence in Mexico’s legal framework.”

“Direct elections would also make it easier for cartels and other bad actors to take advantage of politically motivated and inexperienced judges,” said Salazar, who before becoming ambassador served as a senator, Interior secretary and as Colorado’s attorney general.

“Based on my lifelong experience supporting the rule of law, I believe popular direct election of judges is a major risk to the functioning of Mexico’s democracy,” he said.

Advertisement

That outraged López Obrador, who called Salazar’s comments “disrespectful.” He said Mexico had sent a diplomatic letter to the U.S. complaining that the ambassador’s comments “represent an unacceptable interference, a violation of Mexico’s sovereignty.”

When López Obrador was asked on Tuesday whether he was in dialogue with Salazar, the president said that his relationship with the ambassador had been “on pause.”

“We are not going to tell him to leave the country,” the president said of Salazar. “But we do have to read him the Constitution — it is like reading him the riot act.”

He said his government was abstaining from communication with the U.S. and Canadian embassies. But the broader U.S.-Mexico bilateral relationship continued as normal, he said.

López Obrador, a left-leaning populist with high approval ratings, has long criticized the United States for intervening in Mexico’s domestic affairs.

Advertisement

His administration’s cooperation with U.S. law enforcement officials has deteriorated since he accused the U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration of fabricating a case against a former Mexican defense minister who was arrested by American authorities in 2020. López Obrador successfully pressured the U.S. to drop all charges against the general and return him to Mexico.

López Obrador first proposed the judicial reform in February, after several of his legislative initiatives, including controversial changes to the country’s elections institute, were hamstrung by Supreme Court rulings.

He has complained that judges on the nation’s highest court are part of a “power mafia” and says they and other members of the judiciary should be elected just like the president or senators.

Along with changing how judges are chosen, the proposal would also reduce their terms, tie their salaries to those of the executive branch and create a judicial disciplinary tribunal whose members are elected by popular vote for terms that coincide with the six-year presidential term.

Most sitting judges, including those on the Supreme Court, would have to conclude their term when newly elected judges were sworn in.

Advertisement

Few countries elect Supreme Court judges by popular vote.

An analysis of the proposed reform carried out by the Inter-American Dialogue, the Stanford Law School Rule of Law Impact Lab and the Mexican Bar Assn. found that the proposals, if approved, “would undermine the foundation of the rule of law in Mexico.”

“These proposals constitute a direct threat to judicial independence,” it said. “They violate international legal standards on the independence, impartiality, and competence of the judiciary.”

López Obrador’s proposal has also drawn criticism from the U.S. Senate, with several key members of the Foreign Relations Committee issuing a statement Tuesday warning that the proposed judicial reforms “would undermine the independence and transparency of the country’s judiciary, jeopardizing critical economic and security interests shared by our two nations.”

In Mexico, many questioned López Obrador’s decision to inflame tensions with the U.S. weeks before his successor, Claudia Sheinbaum, is sworn in to office Oct. 1. A member of López Obrador’s Morena party and his longtime political protege, Sheinbaum has said she supports the judicial overhaul.

Advertisement

On Tuesday, she said she also supported López Obrador’s decision to suspend relations with the U.S. Embassy “in the face of the insult levied by the ambassador.”

“There are issues that correspond exclusively to Mexicans and are for Mexicans to decide,” she said.

Cecilia Sánchez Vidal in The Times’ Mexico City bureau contributed to this report.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Politics

Video: Why the U.S. Brought Back Kilmar Abrego Garcia

Published

on

Video: Why the U.S. Brought Back Kilmar Abrego Garcia

new video loaded: Why the U.S. Brought Back Kilmar Abrego Garcia

Kilmar Abrego Garcia, who was mistakenly deported to El Salvador, was flown back to the United States on Friday to face federal criminal charges. Devlin Barrett, who covers the Justice Department, explains the charges and what may come next for Garcia.

Recent episodes in Politics

Continue Reading

Politics

National Guard to be deployed in Los Angeles County as anti-ICE protests rage: border czar Tom Homan

Published

on

National Guard to be deployed in Los Angeles County as anti-ICE protests rage: border czar Tom Homan

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

The National Guard will be deployed to Los Angeles County after anti-ICE protests continued to escalate Saturday afternoon, Trump administration border czar Tom Homan told Fox News Saturday.

On Saturday, tear gas was deployed near Home Depot in Paramount, California, where Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers were allegedly conducting a raid.

Following the raid, a violent protest broke out and several arrests were made for assault on a federal agent, according to U.S. Border Patrol Chief Michael W. Banks.

President Donald Trump took to Truth Social to call out state and local leadership’s inaction.

Advertisement

“If Governor Gavin Newscum, of California, and Mayor Karen Bass, of Los Angeles, can’t do their jobs, which everyone knows they can’t, then the Federal Government will step in and solve the problem, RIOTS & LOOTERS, the way it should be solved!!!” Trump wrote.

People block off the street and set a fire during protests against ICE and immigration raids on Saturday, June 7, 2025 in Paramount, CA. (Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images) (Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)

FEDERAL OFFICIALS SLAM DEMOCRATS FOR ‘DANGEROUS’ RHETORIC AS ICE AGENTS FACE VIOLENT MOBS IN LA, NYC

Newsom responded on X, claiming the federal government “is moving to take over the California National Guard” and deploy 2,000 soldiers.

“That move is purposefully inflammatory and will only escalate tensions,” Newsom wrote. “LA authorities are able to access law enforcement assistance at a moment’s notice. We are in close coordination with the city and county, and there is currently no unmet need. The Guard has been admirably serving LA throughout recovery. This is the wrong mission and will erode public trust.”

Advertisement
ICE riot LA

People hold Mexican flags and gesture next to a car in flames following multiple detentions by ICE, in the Los Angeles County city of Paramount, Calif., Saturday. (Reuters/Barbara Davidson)

Newsom noted California is deploying additional California Highway Patrol troopers to maintain safety on Los Angeles highways “to keep the peace.” 

“It’s not their job to assist in federal immigration enforcement,” Newsom wrote in another post. “The federal government is sowing chaos so they can have an excuse to escalate. That is not the way any civilized country behaves.”

Vice President JD Vance clarified the border crisis is an invasion.

“One of the main technical issues in the immigration judicial battles is whether Biden’s border crisis counted as an ‘invasion.’ So now we have foreign nationals with no legal right to be in the country waving foreign flags and assaulting law enforcement. If only we had a good word for that…”

Videos and photos provided to Fox News by a federal source showed Border Patrol agents’ perspective from inside their vehicle as they attempted to leave the protest area.

Advertisement

Footage shows their vehicle being pelted with rocks, stones, and concrete, as the windshield shatters.

Federal sources stressed the violence at the Paramount riot could have killed an agent or caused a crash.

Banks shared a photo of a Border Patrol agent’s bloody hand, which was injured by a rock flying through the windshield.

“ANY attack on our agents or officers will not be tolerated,” Banks wrote on X. “You will be arrested and federally prosecuted.”

A Border Patrol agent receives medical attention after being injured by a flying rock.

A Border Patrol agent receives medical attention after being injured by a flying rock. (Exclusive to FOX provided via Federal Source)

SOCIAL MEDIA, TRUMP ADMIN ERUPTS OVER LA MAYOR’S REACTION TO ICE RAIDS: ‘YOU’RE A CRIMINAL TOO’

Advertisement

While protesters reportedly targeted law enforcement vehicles, they also allegedly damaged and robbed nearby property.

FOX LA reporter Matthew Seedorff shared a video to X showing the station’s SUV with its windows smashed with bricks.

“F*** ICE” was spray painted in white on the passenger side of the car.

FOX LA's work SUV was damaged by anti-ICE protesters in Paramount, California.

FOX LA’s work SUV was damaged by anti-ICE protesters in Paramount, Calif., Saturday.  (@MattSeedorff via X)

“So this is what’s left of our work car,” Seedorff said in the video. “We had it parked near the scene. Obviously, we got here right at the beginning before we knew it was going to escalate to the situation that it got to. This is a brand-new news truck that we just got. Looks like the tires were slashed. They busted into the windows. Our personal bags were in the car [and] they stole all the stuff that was inside.”

In an interview with Fox News’ “The Big Weekend Show,” Homan said authorities are “stepping up” and “mobiliz[ing]” to address violence and destruction occurring near raid locations where demonstrators are gathering.

Advertisement

“American people, this is about enforcing the law, and again, we’re not going to apologize for doing it,” Homan said.

ICE operations in LA this week resulted in the arrest of 118 illegal immigrants, including five gang members and those with prior criminal histories of drug trafficking, assault, cruelty to children, domestic violence, robbery, and alien smuggling, according to the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). Nationwide, 2,000 illegal immigrants were arrested this week.

The Paramount protest comes less than 24 hours after more than 1,000 Los Angeles rioters surrounded a federal law enforcement building and assaulted ICE agents, slashed tires, and defaced buildings.

ICE and immigration raids

Police kick tear gas back toward a crowd as people block off the street and set a fire during protests against ICE and immigration raids on Saturday, in Paramount, Calif. (Myung J. Chun / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)

ICE SWEEPS THROUGH LA BUSINESSES AS LOCAL DEMOCRATS CRY FOUL OVER TRUMP ADMINISTRATION’S ENFORCEMENT ACTIONS

Though Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass did not immediately condemn the protests, she made a post on X late Saturday calling violence “unacceptable.”

Advertisement

“This is a difficult time for our city. As we recover from an unprecedented natural disaster, many in our community are feeling fear following recent federal immigration enforcement actions across Los Angeles County,” Bass wrote. “Reports of unrest outside the city, including in Paramount, are deeply concerning. We’ve been in direct contact with officials in Washington, D.C., and are working closely with law enforcement to find the best path forward. Everyone has the right to peacefully protest, but let me be clear: violence and destruction are unacceptable, and those responsible will be held accountable.”

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem took a stronger stance toward protesters.

“A message to the LA rioters: you will not stop us or slow us down,” Noem wrote in a post. “@ICEgov will continue to enforce the law. And if you lay a hand on a law enforcement officer, you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.”

FBI Deputy Director Dan Bongino said the agency is seeking information regarding the identity of those throwing rocks at vehicles conducting critical law enforcement operations. 

“One of the perpetrators in this video is wearing a helmet, and we’re going to use our investigative tools to locate the individual,” Bongino wrote in an X post. “I strongly suggest you turn yourself in, it’s only a matter of time.”

Advertisement

 

The Los Angeles Police Department (LAPD) and Los Angeles County Fire Department did not immediately respond to Fox News Digital’s requests for comment.

This is a developing story. Please check back for updates. 

Continue Reading

Politics

The legal issues raised by Trump sending the National Guard to L.A.

Published

on

The legal issues raised by Trump sending the National Guard to L.A.

The Trump administration announced Saturday that National Guard troops were being sent to Los Angeles — an action Gov. Gavin Newsom said he opposed. President Trump is activating the Guard by using powers that have been invoked only rarely.

Trump said in a memo to the Defense and Homeland Security departments that he was calling the National Guard into federal service under a provision called Title 10 to “temporarily protect ICE and other United States Government personnel who are performing Federal functions.”

What is Title 10?

Title 10 provides for activating National Guard troops for federal service. Such Title 10 orders can be used for deploying National Guard members in the United States or abroad.

Erwin Chemerinsky, one of the nation’s leading constitutional law scholars, said “for the federal government to take over the California National Guard, without the request of the governor, to put down protests is truly chilling.”

Advertisement

“It is using the military domestically to stop dissent,” said Chemerinsky, dean of the UC Berkeley School of Law. “It certainly sends a message as to how this administration is going to respond to protests. It is very frightening to see this done.”

Tom Homan, the Trump administration’s “border czar,” announced the plan to send the National Guard in an interview Saturday on Fox News as protesters continued confronting immigration agents during raids.

“This is about enforcing the law,” Homan said. “We’re not going to apologize for doing it. We’re stepping up.”

“We’re already ahead of the game. We were already mobilizing,” he added. “We’re gonna bring the National Guard in tonight. We’re gonna continue doing our job. We’re gonna push back on these people.”

In his memo, Trump cited “numerous incidents of violence and disorder,” and said federal immigration detention facilities are threatened.

Advertisement

“To the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States,” the president’s memo says.

Trump called into federal service at least 2,000 National Guard troops for 60 days — or “at the discretion of the Secretary of Defense.”

Newsom criticized the federal action, saying that local law enforcement was already mobilized and that sending in troops was a move that was “purposefully inflammatory” and would “only escalate tensions.”

The governor called the president and they spoke for about 40 minutes, according to the governor’s office.

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth warned in a post on X that “if violence continues, active-duty Marines at Camp Pendleton will also be mobilized — they are on high alert.”

Advertisement

Newsom condemned that as a threat to deploy Marines against U.S. citizens and said: “This is deranged behavior.”

Other rarely used powers

Critics have raised concerns that Trump also might try to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 to activate troops as part of his campaign to deport large numbers of undocumented immigrants.

The president has the authority under the Insurrection Act to federalize the National Guard units of states to suppress “any insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy” that “so hinders the execution of the laws” that any portion of the state’s inhabitants are deprived of a constitutional right and state authorities are unable or unwilling to protect that right.

The American Civil Liberties Union said Trump’s use of the military domestically is misguided and dangerous.

“President Trump’s deployment of federalized National Guard troops in response to protests is unnecessary, inflammatory, and an abuse of power,” said Hina Shamsi, director of the ACLU’s National Security Project. “By taking this action, the Trump administration is putting Angelenos in danger, creating legal and ethical jeopardy for troops, and recklessly undermining our foundational democratic principle that the military should not police civilians.”

Advertisement

According to the ACLU, Title 10 activation of National Guard troops has historically been rare and Congress has prohibited troops deployed under the law from providing “direct assistance” to civilian law enforcement — under both a separate provision of Title 10 as well as the Posse Comitatus Act.

The Insurrection Act, however, is viewed as an exception to the prohibitions under the Posse Comitatus Act.

In 1958, President Eisenhower invoked the Insurrection Act to deploy troops to Arkansas to enforce the Supreme Court’s decision ending racial segregation in schools, and to defend Black students against a violent mob.

Chemerinsky said invoking the Insurrection Act and nationalizing a state’s National Guard has been reserved for extreme circumstances in which there are no other alternatives to maintain the peace. Chemerinsky said he feared the Trump administration is seeking “to send a message to protesters of the willingness of the federal government to use federal troops to quell protests.”

Sen. Adam Schiff said in a social media post that “there is nothing President Trump would like more than a violent confrontation with protestors to justify the unjustifiable — invocation of the Insurrection Act or some form of martial law.”

Advertisement

In 1992, California Gov. Pete Wilson requested that President George H.W. Bush use the National Guard to quell the unrest in Los Angeles after police officers were acquitted in the beating of Rodney King. That was under a different provision of federal law that allows the president to use military force in the United States. That provision applies if a state governor or legislature requests it.

Jessica Levinson, a law professor at Loyola Marymount University Law School, said the president “is embracing a very broad view of executive power.”

“If the president does use the Insurrection Act,” Levinson said, “we’re going to see big legal battles in the next hours, days and weeks about whether or not those broad grants of authority can be used given these circumstances.”

She noted that while Newsom and Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass have described the incidents as protests, the president has described it as a violent uprising.

“Everyone should pause when the president is using emergency powers and the governor and the mayor are saying, please don’t, we don’t need this,” Levinson said.

Advertisement

The Los Angeles Police Department said in a statement that demonstrations on Saturday “remained peaceful … and we commend all those who exercised their First Amendment rights responsibly.”

Chemerinsky wrote in an opinion article that the use of the military to quell protests “is something associated with dictators in foreign countries,” and that any military deployments in domestic situations “should be regarded as a last resort in the United States.”

“Unfortunately, President Trump likely has the legal authority to do this,” Chemerinsky wrote.

“This is not to deny that some of the anti-ICE protests turned violent. But they were limited in size and there is no reason to believe that law enforcement could not control them,” Chemerinsky said. “In the context of everything that we have seen from the Trump administration’s authoritarian actions, this recent action should make us even more afraid.”

California politics editor Phil Willon contributed to this report.

Advertisement
Continue Reading

Trending