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.

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

Case 1:23-cr-00257-TSC Document 226 Filed 08/27/24 Page 14 of 36
34.
b.
c.
d.
e.
f.
Defendant responded, “I don’t care about a link, I don’t need it. I have a
much, [Georgia Secretary of State], I have a much better link.”
The Defendant asked about rumors that paper ballots cast in the election
were being destroyed, and the Georgia Secretary of State’s Counsel
explained to him that the claim had been investigated and was not true.
The Defendant claimed that 5,000 dead people voted in Georgia, causing
the Georgia Secretary of State to respond, “Well, Mr. President, the
challenge that you have is the data you have is wrong. . . . The actual
number were two. Two. Two people that were dead that voted. And so
[your information]’s wrong, that was two.”
The Defendant claimed that thousands of out-of-state voters had cast ballots
in Georgia’s election, which the Georgia Secretary of State’s Counsel
refuted, explaining, “We’ve been going through each of those as well, and
those numbers that we got, that [Defendant’s counsel] was just saying,
they’re not accurate. Every one we’ve been through are people that lived
in Georgia, moved to a different state, but then moved back to Georgia
legitimately… they moved back in years ago. This was not like something
just before the election.”
In response to multiple other of the Defendant’s allegations, the Georgia
Secretary of State’s Counsel told the Defendant that the Georgia Bureau of
Investigation was examining all such claims and finding no merit to them.
The Defendant said that he needed to “find” 11,780 votes, and insinuated
that the Georgia Secretary of State and his Counsel could be subject to
criminal prosecution if they failed to find election fraud as he demanded,
stating, “And you are going to find that they are-which is totally illegal—
it’s, it’s, it’s more illegal for you than it is for them because you know what
they did and you’re not reporting it. That’s a criminal, you know, that’s a
criminal offense. And you know, you can’t let that happen. That’s a big
risk to you and to [the Georgia Secretary of State’s Counsel], your lawyer.”
The next day, on January 3, the Defendant falsely claimed that the Georgia
Secretary of State had not addressed the Defendant’s allegations, publicly stating that the Georgia
Secretary of State “was unwilling, or unable, to answer questions such as the ‘ballots under table’
scam, ballot destruction, out of state ‘voters’, dead voters, and more. He has no clue!”
– 14 –

Massachusetts Republicans have submitted a formal request with the state’s government for information on the alleged “$1 billion in secret migrant crisis spending” as the Bay State grapples with the migrant crisis.

In a release from the state’s Republican Party, MassGOP, the group demanded that Gov. Maura Healey’s administration provides a detailed cost breakdown of the toll that the migrant crisis has caused for the state’s residents. 

“The Healey-Driscoll Administration has shrouded nearly $1 billion spent in secrecy, leaving Massachusetts residents in the dark,” MassGOP chair Amy Carnevale said in a statement. “They have withheld critical information on 600 incidents involving police, fire and EMT. Blocking journalists at every turn, the administration has obstructed the flow of information to the public.”

OVER 100 STUDENTS WITHOUT BUS SERVICE AS MASSACHUSETTS FUNDS BUSES FOR MIGRANTS

Gov. Maura Healey, D-Mass., looks at Army cots set up on the gym floor as state and local officials toured the Melnea A. Cass Recreational Complex in Roxbury in January. (Getty Images)

In a Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) request, Carnevale demanded the specifics of the state’s funding to provide housing for migrants.

MIGRANT CRISIS PROJECTED TO COST MASSACHUSETTS TAXPAYERS $1.8 BILLION OVER NEXT TWO YEARS

In the FOIA request, Carnevale called for the Healey administration to provide the names of government and private entities that are providing emergency housing for migrants, where the emergency housing is located, any correspondents relating to public safety concerns, and any incident reports or police reports.

Gov. Maura Healey, D-Mass., declared a state of emergency last year due to rapidly rising numbers of migrant families arriving in the state. (Adam Glanzman/Bloomberg via Getty Images)

Carnevale argued that the Democrats’ supermajority has created a “veil of secrecy” surrounding the migrant crisis.

“Today, the Massachusetts Republican Party is standing against the veil of secrecy and the obstructionist efforts of the Healey-Driscoll Administration and the Democratic supermajority,” she said. “We stand with the Massachusetts press corps in declaring: enough is enough. The public deserves transparency. Release the details on the vendors profiting from this crisis and the public safety issues affecting our communities.”

“On behalf of Massachusetts residents, we are demanding accountability,” Carnevale added.

The report noted Massachusetts has already spent more than $1 billion sheltering migrants. (iStock)

The MassGOP’s request comes after the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS) released a report on July 24, which predicted Massachusetts will struggle to manage the growing number of migrants coming to the state. 

MIGRANTS TO BE BOOTED FROM LOGAN AIRPORT AS GOVERNOR SAYS SANCTUARY STATE IS FULL

The report noted that the state has already spent more than $1 billion on the Emergency Assistance sheltering program that houses migrants.

“The cost to Massachusetts taxpayers of temporary housing and shelters is enormous, but it pales in comparison to the costs that will accumulate in the future if those in the temporary shelters today remain in the Commonwealth for the long term,” wrote Jessica Vaughan, CIS director of policy studies.

In addition to housing, some other costs taxpayers will have to cover include schooling, social services, medical care and public safety.

The report estimated that the number of “illegal and inadmissible” migrants living in Massachusetts is about 355,000 with 50,000 new arrivals since 2021. It also reported that 10,000 migrants were minors with 8,500 being unaccompanied.

Fox News Digital has reached out to the MassGOP and Healey’s office for comment.

Fox News Digital’s Joshua Nelson contributed to this report.