Op-Ed by Jorge Rodriguez

I wasn’t planning to write until next Tuesday, January 13th. But the military incursion in Venezuela on January 3rd, and the very dramatic removal of dictator Nicolás Maduro to face charges in the United States, made that pause impossible. What compelled me to write is not Venezuela alone, but what those events reveal closer to home: political and business actors in Mexico who appear to be playing with the same fire. I do not foresee a military incursion here, no military or outside law enforcement is coming to pick up a governor, congressman, or businessman, yet I would welcome our own authorities doing so when there is clear evidence of wrongdoing. Too often, those actors operate in plain sight while law enforcement looks the other way. What I do see is a warning, one that demands scrutiny, accountability, and a refusal to let uncomfortable questions fade into silence.

And that is why the events in Venezuela have now triggered a predictable question across Latin America:

Could this happen elsewhere?

Let’s be clear from the outset: Mexico is not Venezuela, and I do not see a U.S. military incursion into Mexico as a realistic scenario, even if President Trump has, at times, floated the idea in conversations with President Sheinbaum. That kind of action would be destabilizing, counterproductive, and fundamentally inconsistent with the bilateral relationship.

But dismissing the moment entirely would also be a mistake.

What we are witnessing is not a shift toward military intervention, it is a reaffirmation of pressure, and that pressure is already being felt by politicians and business figures alleged to have ties to organized crime.

On that point, I agree with the tools being used: visa revocations, Treasury sanctions, financial scrutiny, and expanded attention to family members and assets. These are lawful, targeted mechanisms. They don’t violate sovereignty. They impose consequences where institutions fail to act.

What I do not agree with is opacity.

If individuals are being flagged by the United States, then the evidence and the charges should be made public, not whispered through leaks, not implied through sanctions alone. Transparency matters, because pressure works best when it can be echoed domestically. Mexican society, journalists, investors, and voters should be able to ask the same questions and apply the same scrutiny.

For too long, it has been a quiet disgrace of our judicial system that we learn about serious allegations against politicians or businessmen from U.S. indictments or sanctions, while those same individuals continue to operate freely inside Mexico. That erodes trust, not in the U.S., but in our own institutions.

If there is credible evidence of wrongdoing, that is where U.S. pressure should be focused: pushing Mexico’s highest authorities to investigate, prosecute, and resolve these cases at home. Accountability imposed externally may be effective, but accountability exercised internally is what builds legitimacy.

Unless, of course, the reason action is not taken is more uncomfortable, that those who should act are themselves compromised.

That is the real tension beneath this moment.

The message from Washington is not “we will come get you.”

It is: your access to the world can be restricted if your actions cross certain lines.

For Mexico, this creates a defining choice. When institutions act credibly, pressure remains diplomatic and financial. When they don’t, pressure migrates, to banks, borders, markets, and reputations.

This matters far beyond politics.

Financial institutions respond quickly to U.S. signals. So do insurers, investors, and international partners. Reputational risk now travels faster than legal rulings. The cost of proximity to organized crime is no longer theoretical, it shows up in closed accounts, delayed transactions, frozen assets, and diminished credibility.

And yet, this moment also presents an opportunity.

A system under pressure can harden or correct. The outcome depends on transparency, rule of law, and institutional confidence. When accountability is internal, stability follows. When it isn’t, uncertainty fills the gap.

For investors, business owners, and property holders in Mexico, the takeaway is not fear, it’s discernment. Know who you work with. In periods of pressure, clarity is not a luxury; it’s protection.

This is not a turning point toward chaos.

It is a reminder that impunity has a shelf life, and that sovereignty is strongest when justice is exercised at home, not inferred from abroad.

Pressure doesn’t arrive with helicopters.

It arrives quietly, and it stays..

Happy New Year and….. Until next week!

Share your comments

.

.