Negative Outlook for the National Guard Reform

A constitutional reform is about to be approved in the Mexican Congress that assigns the control of the National Guard, currently in the Ministry of Citizens’ Security (SSPC), to the Ministry of National Defense (SEDENA). While the reform formalizes an organization that has already existed de facto, to varying degrees, for several decades, formalizing this situation has massive implications for security in Mexico.  

The outlook is negative regarding the reform's impact on security outcomes in Mexico. The core reason behind the reform seems to be the incapacity of civilian authorities to curb crime and violence. Yet, beyond strong public support for military organizations in Mexico, there is insufficient evidence to support the idea that the military is more effective and less corrupt than civilians in public security tasks.  

The legislative changes create a sort of state of exception, as the military members of the National Guard are partially subject to a different justice regime. This significantly reduces their accountability for human rights violations and corruption. It also seriously limits the transparency of their budget, as their spending could be classified as national security expenditures without sufficient justification. This circumstance is magnified if we couple it with the increasing economic and political power the military is taking in Mexico.  

The following section focuses on the reform’s effects on Mexico’s national security and the bilateral relationship between Mexico and the United States.

Effects on National Security Strategy  

The reform’s motives argue for the need for a force capable of confronting criminal organizations' growing and sophisticated power. The state’s response implicitly assumes that we are at war and that, therefore, the solution should fall to the military; this is very reminiscent of President Calderón's policy, but on steroids, a policy that López Obrador and his allies have so often condemned yet politically benefited from.

Creating such a powerful organization within a fiscally and politically centralized country introduces significant biases in the national security strategy. With the military effectively running the issue (as they already do under the outgoing López Obrador administration), there will be significantly less focus on non-coercive solutions, such as drug legalization or truly effective and targeted programs for populations vulnerable to joining criminal organizations (which are not the focus of current programs). 

In some ways, the reform further blurs the distinction between public and national security. This has significant implications for the definition of national security. This term has been conveniently (and possibly illegally) used for several years to evade transparency concerning government spending and actions. It moves in the wrong direction by reducing the specialization of police organizations. A more practical solution would have been to establish a specialized body to combat influential criminal organizations rather than a multitasking, oversized military police force that caters to the preferences of the executive in office, which may not align with the actual needs of the population.

This expansion of formal military power is mirrored by an informal process of militarizing state and municipal police forces, with many commanders coming from the Army and Navy. While this has led to greater alignment across various levels of government in combating organized crime, the substantive results do not suggest a reduction in crime rates. Moreover, this alignment has come with significant opportunity costs, including a relative decrease in attention and budget for addressing ordinary crimes that directly impact most citizens. The reform reinforces a narrative that equates public security primarily with drug cartel leaders and high-profile events such as massacres and street gunfights in many Mexican cities. This narrative creates misguided incentives, diverting focus and budgets from the ordinary crimes that affect citizens' daily lives.

Effects on Mexico-U.S. Relations  

Regarding the implications for Mexico-U.S. relations, a scenario of an ambiguous response from the United States is likely similar to its relationship with President Bukele of El Salvador. On the one hand, the U.S. recognizes the progress in reducing criminal activity and, as a result, the reduction of migration to the U.S. On the other hand, the U.S. expresses concern over human rights violations and the regime's authoritarian tendencies. 

If this is the case in the relationship with Mexico, the level of cooperation and support from the U.S. government for security tasks will depend on the security outcomes of the new Mexican government. Given past experiences, it is unlikely that the reform will lead to better security and probably result in human rights violations and abuses by authorities, so the forecasts are not positive for the Mexico-U.S. relationship in light of the changes to the security policy.

However, it is unlikely that the U.S. will exert significant pressure on Mexico over human rights violations. A more pressing concern for the U.S. would be the growing power of the military, particularly when coupled with corruption and alliances with criminal organizations. Therefore, the reform itself may not pose an immediate issue for bilateral relations, but its outcomes could determine whether conflict arises.

Unfortunately, the outlook for the outcomes of the National Guard reform is negative. It reveals a State incapable of generating evidence-based solutions and innovating beyond hardline policies, for which there is insufficient evidence of success and whose harmful and regressive effects on human rights are well known.