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

Politics

AOC accuses Vance of believing ‘American people should be assassinated in the street’

Published

on

AOC accuses Vance of believing ‘American people should be assassinated in the street’

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

Democratic Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez is leveling a stunning accusation at Vice President JD Vance amid the national furor over this week’s fatal shooting in Minnesota involving an ICE agent.

“I understand that Vice President Vance believes that shooting a young mother of three in the face three times is an acceptable America that he wants to live in, and I do not,” the four-term federal lawmaker from New York and progressive champion argued as she answered questions on Friday on Capitol Hill from Fox News and other news organizations.

Ocasio-Cortez spoke in the wake of Wednesday’s shooting death of 37-year-old Renee Nicole Good after she confronted ICE agents from inside her car in Minneapolis.

RENEE NICOLE GOOD PART OF ‘ICE WATCH’ GROUP, DHS SOURCES SAY

Advertisement

Members of law enforcement work the scene following a suspected shooting by an ICE agent during federal operations on January 7, 2026, in Minneapolis, Minnesota. (Stephen Maturen/Getty Images)

Video of the incident instantly went viral, and while Democrats have heavily criticized the shooting, the Trump administration is vocally defending the actions of the ICE agent.

HEAD HERE FOR LIVE FOX NEWS UPDATES ON THE ICE SHOOTING IN MINNESOTA

Vance, at a White House briefing on Thursday, charged that “this was an attack on federal law enforcement. This was an attack on law and order.”

“That woman was there to interfere with a legitimate law enforcement operation,” the vice president added. “The president stands with ICE, I stand with ICE, we stand with all of our law enforcement officers.”

Advertisement

And Vance claimed Good was “brainwashed” and suggested she was connected to a “broader, left-wing network.”

Federal sources told Fox News on Friday that Good, who was a mother of three, worked as a Minneapolis-based immigration activist serving as a member of “ICE Watch.”

CLICK HERE TO DOWNLOAD THE FOX NEWS APP

Ocasio-Cortez, in responding to Vance’s comments, said, “That is a fundamental difference between Vice President Vance and I. I do not believe that the American people should be assassinated in the street.”

But a spokesperson for the vice president, responding to Ocasio-Cortez’s accusation, told Fox News Digital, “On National Law Enforcement Appreciation Day, AOC made it clear she thinks that radical leftists should be able to mow down ICE officials in broad daylight. She should be ashamed of herself. The Vice President stands with ICE and the brave men and women of law enforcement, and so do the American people.”

Advertisement

Continue Reading

Politics

Contributor: Don’t let the mobs rule

Published

on

Contributor: Don’t let the mobs rule

In Springfield, Ill., in 1838, a young Abraham Lincoln delivered a powerful speech decrying the “ravages of mob law” throughout the land. Lincoln warned, in eerily prescient fashion, that the spread of a then-ascendant “mobocratic spirit” threatened to sever the “attachment of the People” to their fellow countrymen and their nation. Lincoln’s opposition to anarchy of any kind was absolute and clarion: “There is no grievance that is a fit object of redress by mob law.”

Unfortunately, it seems that every few years, Americans must be reminded anew of Lincoln’s wisdom. This week’s lethal Immigration and Customs Enforcement standoff in the Twin Cities is but the latest instance of a years-long baleful trend.

On Wednesday, a 37-year-old stay-at-home mom, Renee Nicole Good, was fatally shot by an ICE agent in Minneapolis. Her ex-husband said she and her partner encountered ICE agents after dropping off Good’s 6-year-old at school. The federal government has called Good’s encounter “an act of domestic terrorism” and said the agent shot in self-defense.

Suffice it to say Minnesota’s Democratic establishment does not see it this way.

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey responded to the deployment of 2,000 immigration agents in the area and the deadly encounter by telling ICE to “get the f— out” of Minnesota, while Gov. Tim Walz called the shooting “totally predictable” and “totally avoidable.” Frey, who was also mayor during the mayhem after George Floyd’s murder by city police in 2020, has lent succor to the anti-ICE provocateurs, seemingly encouraging them to make Good a Floyd-like martyr. As for Walz, he’s right that this tragedy was eminently “avoidable” — but not only for the reasons he thinks. If the Biden-Harris administration hadn’t allowed unvetted immigrants to remain in the country without legal status and if Walz’s administration hadn’t moved too slowly in its investigations of hundreds of Minnesotans — of mixed immigration status — defrauding taxpayers to the tune of billions of dollars, ICE never would have embarked on this particular operation.

Advertisement

National Democrats took the rage even further. Following the fateful shooting, the Democratic Party’s official X feed promptly tweeted, without any morsel of nuance, that “ICE shot and killed a woman on camera.” This sort of irresponsible fear-mongering already may have prompted a crazed activist to shoot three detainees at an ICE facility in Dallas last September while targeting officers; similar dehumanizing rhetoric about the National Guard perhaps also played a role in November’s lethal shooting of a soldier in Washington, D.C.

Liberals and open-border activists play with fire when they so casually compare ICE, as Walz previously has, to a “modern-day Gestapo.” The fact is, ICE is not the Gestapo, Donald Trump is not Hitler, and Charlie Kirk was not a goose-stepping brownshirt. To pretend otherwise is to deprive words of meaning and to live in the theater of the absurd.

But as dangerous as this rhetoric is for officers and agents, it is the moral blackmail and “mobocratic spirit” of it all that is even more harmful to the rule of law.

The implicit threat of all “sanctuary” jurisdictions, whose resistance to aiding federal law enforcement smacks of John C. Calhoun-style antebellum “nullification,” is to tell the feds not to operate and enforce federal law in a certain area — or else. The result is crass lawlessness, Mafia-esque shakedown artistry and a fetid neo-confederate stench combined in one dystopian package.

The truth is that swaths of the activist left now engage in these sorts of threats as a matter of course. In 2020, the left’s months-long rioting following the death of Floyd led to upward of $2 billion in insurance claims. In 2021, they threatened the same rioting unless Derek Chauvin, the officer who infamously kneeled on Floyd’s neck, was found guilty of murder (which he was, twice). In 2022, following the unprecedented (and still unsolved) leak of the draft majority opinion in the Dobbs vs. Jackson Women’s Health Organization Supreme Court case, abortion-rights activists protested outside many of the right-leaning justices’ homes, perhaps hoping to induce them to change their minds and flip their votes. And now, ICE agents throughout the country face threats of violence — egged on by local Democratic leaders — simply for enforcing federal law.

Advertisement

In “The Godfather,” Luca Brasi referred to this sort of thuggery as making someone an offer that he can’t refuse. We might also think of it as Lincoln’s dreaded “ravages of mob law.”

Regardless, a free republic cannot long endure like this. The rule of law cannot be held hostage to the histrionic temper tantrums of a radical ideological flank. The law must be enforced solemnly, without fear or favor. There can be no overarching blackmail lurking in the background — no Sword of Damocles hovering over the heads of a free people, ready to crash down on us all if a certain select few do not get their way.

The proper recourse for changing immigration law — or any federal law — is to lobby Congress to do so, or to make a case in federal court. The ginned-up martyrdom complex that leads some to take matters into their own hands is a recipe for personal and national ruination. There is nothing good down that road — only death, despair and mobocracy.

Josh Hammer’s latest book is “Israel and Civilization: The Fate of the Jewish Nation and the Destiny of the West.” This article was produced in collaboration with Creators Syndicate. X: @josh_hammer

Advertisement

Insights

L.A. Times Insights delivers AI-generated analysis on Voices content to offer all points of view. Insights does not appear on any news articles.

Viewpoint
This article generally aligns with a Right point of view. Learn more about this AI-generated analysis
Perspectives

The following AI-generated content is powered by Perplexity. The Los Angeles Times editorial staff does not create or edit the content.

Ideas expressed in the piece

  • Democrats and activist left are perpetuating a dangerous “mobocratic spirit” similar to the mob law that Lincoln warned against in 1838, which threatens the rule of law and national unity[1]
  • The federal government’s characterization of the incident as self-defense by an ICE agent is appropriate, while local Democratic leaders are irresponsibly encouraging anti-ICE protesters to view Good as a martyr figure like George Floyd[1]
  • Dehumanizing rhetoric comparing ICE to the Gestapo is reckless fear-mongering that has inspired actual violence, including a shooting at an ICE facility in Dallas and the fatal shooting of a National Guard soldier[1]
  • The shooting was “avoidable” not because of ICE’s presence, but because the Biden-Harris administration allowed undocumented immigrants to remain in the country without legal status and state authorities moved too slowly investigating immigrant fraud[1]
  • Sanctuary jurisdictions that resist federal law enforcement represent neo-confederate “nullification” and constitute crass lawlessness and Mafia-style extortion, effectively telling federal agents they cannot enforce the law or face consequences[1]
  • The activist left employs threats of violence as systematic blackmail, evidenced by 2020 riots following Floyd’s death, threats surrounding the Chauvin trial, protests at justices’ homes during the abortion debate, and now threats against ICE agents[1]
  • Changing immigration policy must occur through Congress or federal courts, not through mob rule and “ginned-up martyrdom complexes” that lead to personal and national ruination[1]

Different views on the topic

  • Community members who knew Good rejected characterizations of her as a domestic terrorist, with her mother describing her as “one of the kindest people I’ve ever known,” “extremely compassionate,” and someone “who has taken care of people all her life”[1]
  • Vigil speakers and attendees portrayed Good as peacefully present to watch the situation and protect her neighbors, with an organizer stating “She was peaceful; she did the right thing” and “She died because she loved her neighbors”[1]
  • A speaker identified only as Noah explicitly rejected the federal government’s domestic terrorism characterization, saying Good was present “to watch the terrorists,” not participate in terrorism[1]
  • Neighbors described Good as a loving mother and warm family member who was an award-winning poet and positive community presence, suggesting her presence during the incident reflected civic concern rather than radicalism[1]
Continue Reading

Politics

Trump plans to meet with Venezuela opposition leader Maria Corina Machado next week

Published

on

Trump plans to meet with Venezuela opposition leader Maria Corina Machado next week

NEWYou can now listen to Fox News articles!

President Donald Trump said on Thursday that he plans to meet with Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado in Washington next week.

During an appearance on Fox News’ “Hannity,” Trump was asked if he intends to meet with Machado after the U.S. struck Venezuela and captured its president, Nicolás Maduro.

“Well, I understand she’s coming in next week sometime, and I look forward to saying hello to her,” Trump said.

Venezuelan opposition leader Maria Corina Machado waves a national flag during a protest called by the opposition on the eve of the presidential inauguration, in Caracas on January 9, 2025. (JUAN BARRETO/AFP via Getty Images)

Advertisement

This will be Trump’s first meeting with Machado, who the U.S. president stated “doesn’t have the support within or the respect within the country” to lead.

According to reports, Trump’s refusal to support Machado was linked to her accepting the 2025 Nobel Peace Prize, which Trump believed he deserved.

But Trump later told NBC News that while he believed Machado should not have won the award, her acceptance of the prize had “nothing to do with my decision” about the prospect of her leading Venezuela.

Advertisement
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Trending