Mexico’s Border Power Play: MORENA’s U.S. Organizing Strategy
Mexico’s MORENA party is expanding its political footprint in the U.S., raising questions about sovereignty and diplomatic boundaries.
4 min read
Mexico’s ruling party, MORENA, is increasingly asserting its political influence in the United States, raising concerns about the limits of diplomatic sovereignty. While the Mexican government frequently invokes the concept of sovereignty in its relationship with Washington, D.C., it has simultaneously developed a robust political infrastructure within the U.S., blurring the lines between state and party interests.
The Sovereignty Paradox
Sovereignty has become a recurring theme in Mexico’s diplomatic rhetoric, often used to deflect criticism from the United States. However, the concept is increasingly at odds with the realities of Mexican political strategy. In a recent speech, Spanish parliamentarian Cayetana Álvarez de Toledo challenged Mexico’s leadership by asking, What does national sovereignty mean when citizens cannot exercise sovereignty over their own lives? This question highlights the hypocrisy of a government that claims to defend its nation while allowing political institutions to serve as tools of power rather than mechanisms for public service.
MORENA’s U.S. Organizing Strategy
MORENA, the ruling party of Mexico, has been actively building a permanent political presence in the United States. This effort is detailed in the party’s 2024–2027 Plan de Trabajo, which outlines the creation of party committees abroad, political education programs, and regional organizing structures. The strategy also includes the establishment of a permanent assembly of Mexicans living outside Mexico, effectively creating a transnational political network.
More troublingly, the plan explicitly calls for sustained engagement with Mexican consulates and alliances with consular officials. This approach is already being implemented. A Latinus investigation documented meetings between Alejandro Robles Gómez, MORENA’s secretary for Mexicans abroad, and Mexican consular officials in major U.S. cities such as Los Angeles, Sacramento, Las Vegas, New York, Houston, and Austin. Robles praised the Mexican consul general in Los Angeles for possessing the “chip de la Cuarta Transformación”, the ideological outlook of MORENA’s governing movement.
Consulates as Political Assets
Separate reporting by Julieta Cruz detailed how Robles visited 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. These actions indicate that Mexican consulates are not merely diplomatic outposts but are being used as tools for political organizing.
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.
Warnings from Mexico’s Former Ambassador
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. Her concerns reflect a broader anxiety within Mexico’s diplomatic community about the potential for abuse of consular powers.
President Sheinbaum’s Stance
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. 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.
Transparency, Neutrality, and Reciprocity
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.
The Path Forward
Mexico is America’s neighbor, an indispensable partner, and a sovereign nation deserving of respect. The United States should remember the difference and insist that Mexico does, too. The challenge ahead is to ensure that Mexico’s diplomatic institutions remain independent and serve the public interest, not the partisan agenda of any ruling party.
Source: Daily Wire
