The fate of our Democracy is on the ballot this fall. Get the inside story on how a coalition of Democrats, independents and Liz Cheney Republicans can combine forces to stop the Trump faction from winning big offices in swing states and gaining control of future elections. The media treats the 2022 campaign like the rerun of a traditional mid-term election where the in-party takes a shellacking and loses control of Congress. But smart voters know the stakes are much higher than that this year.
Site Navigation
Search
Latest Stories
Join a growing community committed to civic renewal.
Subscribe to The Fulcrum and be part of the conversation.
Top Stories
Latest news
Read More

Red rock formations in the "Valley of the Gods" on April 22, 2026 in Bears Ears National Monument, Utah. Bears Ears has been a controversial Monument since it's creation in December of 2016.
George Frey / Getty Images
When Public Lands Become Real Estate
Jul 21, 2026
Last week, in his latest attempted liquidation of our shared heritage, President Trump signed two executive orders eviscerating protections for close to three million acres of our national monuments: Bears Ears and Grand Staircase-Escalante. From the Oval Office, a president who has never even seen these sacred sites reduced them by roughly 90%, dwarfing his 2017 attempt at a similar land grab by about a million acres, leaving only 300,000 acres of protected land. These cuts will directly threaten critical wildlife habitats, put nearly 100,000 irreplaceable archaeological sites at risk of destruction, and fracture an interconnected indigenous homeland that has been stewarded by Native tribes since time immemorial. To Trump, it’s just another real estate deal.
The Trump regime has tried to portray this set-up to sell off as an effort to restore public access. During the Oval Office photo op where the president signed the proclamations, he said of the monuments: “You can’t go hunting. You can’t go fishing. You can’t do anything. You can virtually not even walk on it.” That is, to put it mildly, a malicious lie. All your favorite forms of outdoor recreation—from hiking and camping to fishing and hunting—are allowed there, which Trump might know if he had ever visited the land he decided is not worth preserving. In fact, the Antiquities Act doesn’t limit ordinary public use but rather the extent to which an area can be subject to mining and drilling. So much for the land of the free. Trump wants to make it a whole lot easier for extractive industries and private development interests to privatize and pillage these sacred lands for financial gain. Home of the brave? Not an ounce of courage to refuse the fuel lobby when it comes to our public lands. At least the law is on our side. As the President of the National Parks Conservation Association put it, this is both “a betrayal to the American people and illegal.”
The Antiquities Act delegates to the president the power to create national monuments, but the power to diminish them belongs strictly to Congress. Trump’s attempt to slash these boundaries is an unlawful usurpation of legislative power that defies more than a century of legal precedent. But then, what else is new? Still, while Roosevelt explored the wild west and was inspired to designate lands worth protecting, Trump is stripping those protections, sight unseen, to harvest parts to sell to the highest bidder. He has already eliminated over 16 times more land than Teddy protected. It may be predictable, but it is despicable.
Perhaps Trump just has terrible taste when it comes to what is worth preserving for antiquity. His proclamations modifying the monuments, which condescendingly explain why 90% of the monuments were just not monument-worthy enough, are illuminating. He writes that the original designations as national monuments were “premised on the purported need to protect items that are not historic landmarks…or objects of historic or scientific interest.” He then mocks a list of what he calls “generic topographic and geologic features.” Of Grand Staircase-Escalante, they include: “‘vast and austere landscape[s],’ ‘sedimentary rock layers,’ and ‘bold plateaus and multihued cliffs.’” Of Bears Ears: “‘deep sandstone canyons, broad desert mesas, towering monoliths, forested mountaintops dotted with lush meadows’ and ‘low bluffs and high mesas.’” Trump concludes: “These generic features…do not become “landmarks,” “structures,” or “objects of historic or scientific interest” worthy of protection under the Antiquities Act simply because they are scenic.” It is the point of view one imagines ChatGPT, with its zero senses, might have.
To suggest that sedimentary rock layers are not objects of scientific interest is the mark of someone who has never cared for science. In reality, to quote the proclamation that Trump is reversing, the sedimentary rock layers are “unobscured by vegetation, offering a clear view to understanding the Earth’s geological development…[making it] one of the world’s great paleontological laboratories.” And to state there are no objects of historic interest is deeply dismissive, offensive, and inaccurate. These lands include a rich human history that begins with ancient indigenous people (documented even in petroglyphs and pictograph panels–another feature of these monuments). To imply otherwise is an erasure.
On that note, Trump’s desire to privatize these lands is merely the latest chapter in a legacy of American colonialism. Historically, treaties between the U.S. and sovereign Indian nations were routinely coercive, misleading, and signed under duress, and in several landmark cases, the Supreme Court invented loopholes in property law to diminish Native American land claims. Now, Trump tries once more to illegally claim land that is not his, turning to a tired trope. To add insult to injury, Bears Ears happens to be the very first national monument established at the request of a historic coalition of Tribal Nations. If we are not going to actively return this land through the “Land Back” movement, the absolute minimum we can do is treasure it and ensure it remains for future generations. Trump’s actions are unforgivable.
Fortunately, guess who supports protection for public lands: the public. Polling shows that 91% of Western voters support existing monument designations. Three in four Americans actively oppose expanded drilling and mining on our public lands (it’s bipartisan!). The fact is, nobody wants this except the beneficiaries of deals like these, who apparently can look upon “forested mountaintops dotted with lush meadows” and not see past the dollar signs. One of my favorite things about public lands is the spirit of equality in a place where everyone is sleeping in a tent and the campsites are first-come, first-served. Perhaps it is that exact spirit—or the distinct lack of thread count—which generates such contempt for the land among oligarchs.
It turns out, Trump may have only ever visited three national parks or monuments: Everglades, Mount Rushmore, and Gettysburg. He’s a billionaire and the leader of the free world, but with all that money and power, he’s never seen the sun rise at the Grand Canyon or a night sky peppered with stars in Joshua Tree. If he only looked into the bold plateaus and multihued cliffs of our planet, perhaps he would no longer find them generic and rather see the value in protecting them. Or not. In the meantime, he felt compelled to plaster his face on this year’s park passes, in violation of a federal requirement that the pass bear the winning wildlife scene from a national parks photo contest.
Still, this ongoing effort to loot the American commons begs the question: has anyone at the White House ever had a meaningful experience in nature? Been mesmerized watching a condor soar above a canyon? Or simply curious about the natural world? Pity for those people notwithstanding, given the evidence that they consider breathtaking natural wonders generic, at what point do they sell off the Grand Canyon, Yosemite, and Yellowstone for being mere scenery, too?
It should go without saying, but our grandest marvels are so much more than scenery. They are essential to our collective identity as a nation and to the health of our planet. They are also the backdrop for the history and culture of so many people in this country, from ancient tribes to college besties on a road trip. And they need our help. If we don’t want to see their destruction, we must sign petitions, support organizations like Veterans for Public Lands, and show up. It is exactly this kind of people-led advocacy that helped restore protections to these lands after 2017. We can do it again. We can also visit these vistas ourselves and share stories about the cactus wren and the Saguaro, or the wonder of watching a desert tortoise cross the road. We can spread the gospel: nature is worth protecting.
Julie Roland was a Naval Officer for ten years, deploying to both the South China Sea and the Persian Gulf as a helicopter pilot before separating in June 2025 as a Lieutenant Commander. She has a law degree from the University of San Diego, a Master of Laws from Columbia University, and is a member of the Truman National Security Project.
Keep ReadingShow less
Recommended

The 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence is a call to defend public education, strengthen democracy, and reject school privatization in New Hampshire.
Maskot / Getty Images
Looking to Celebrate America’s 250th? Uplift Public Schools!
Jul 21, 2026
July 4th, 2026, will be the 250th anniversary of the Declaration. One of the foundational documents of the United States, the Declaration has been taught in many ways: as America’s breakup letter, as a rallying cry for freedom, and as an example of the legal assertion of a right to rebellion—derived from common law and biblical teaching. Influenced by the Protestant reformation, the Great Awakening and enlightenment thinking, the Declaration is an example of the complexity of our founding and a reminder of the important work of educating for democracy.
Yet, many teachers feel like it’s getting more difficult to teach today, on the eve of the 250th. Just like in the era that gave us the “Spirit of ‘76”, teachers, who are striving to keep the spirit alive, must both stay rooted in local life and draw inspiration from Europe.
In 1776, local life in the rebellious colonies was much more defined by geographic dispersion. It took time for word to travel between the population hubs. Reading was essential to revolutionary activity and democratic participation as the written word could travel with greater reliability to all corners of the colonies, including the backwoods of the likes of New Hampshire, my home state.
It was a sign of the times when far off places like New Hampshire joined the struggle for independence, just as it is a sign today that teachers in the Granite State feel the string of modern issues that for so long have been more acutely felt closer to urban population centers. Consequently, it bears reporting that New Hampshire was recently hit by a series of newly proposed legislation aimed at destroying the bedrock of our democracy, our public school system. These new developments trace their way back to 2021 when the state saw the start of a transfer of public resources to private and religious schools with the enactment of a voucher program. That program then expanded over several years, quickly eliminating a cap that limited participation based on income, becoming a universal and unregulated giveaway.
Those celebrating the special anniversary year of our state and country would be remiss to not also honor the legacy that binds education to our experiment in self-governance. This can be found in the written text of New Hampshire’s constitution as a call to provide for the general diffusion of knowledge among the citizenry (the link above from the Education Law Center identifies similar constitutional clauses in states across the country).
It is this constitutional text that the state Supreme Court relied on as it issued important rulings clarifying the state's obligation to provide adequate funding to all public school students—something the state had historically resisted. New Hampshire is consistently at the bottom of the list in terms of state contribution to public schools, forcing an overreliance on local property tax.
Determined to subvert the court's ruling, the legislature has opted instead to launch a full-on assault on the public school system. One proposed bill would push a rapid consolidation of local school districts—something that would cut against the very local control that New Hampshire has lauded since it created its own state government in 1776.
Another bill tried to replace the power of locally elected school boards by shifting decision-making away to publicly unaccountable boards by converting local public schools to charter schools. Diminishing local democratic decision-making through conversions also opens the door to Charter Management Organizations (CMOs), which are privately held, profit-motivated companies that have been notorious actors in other places, including New Orleans. The fast pace of the potential law has many concerned that the measure is truly meant to seed confusion and destabilize the existing school system.
Here, I should note that according to most measures, New Hampshire's schools rank in the top quintile in the nation despite the destructive policies of several extreme legislatures.
Yet, the pressure has been especially palpable on schools that historically are already stretched thin. Administrators in these districts have tried to navigate rushed new regulations and the ensuing confusion, as well as changes to the already limited state funding formula. One district was forced to take out a $4 million private loan to cover its operating budget rather than face mass staff layoffs. The state has offered what some call predatory lending to financially distressed districts—all while threatening state takeovers of the very places that they have refused to provide adequate funding, despite the ruling of multiple courts over decades.
Most of this will sound familiar to those who have followed the broader privatization movement. Efforts to privatize the schools of New Hampshire are a collection of ideas recycled from failed “experiments” in defunding educational opportunities for students across the country from Chicago to Los Angeles (and many in between). Similar policies have been pursued nationwide, sadly. These policies, based on a neoliberal theory, propose to slash taxes and reduce services, commodifying education to a good, another product to be bought and sold.
The thing is, education is more than a good; it's for the common good. By this, I mean, we all benefit when young people become better learners, and it is fundamental to our continued self-governance to have the next generation experienced in the arts of democratic life. We need students to develop discernment, practice reasoning and decision-making, and learn to collaborate with peers from a wide variety of backgrounds and experiences.
Communities want quality public schools—and it’s time to rally around our community schools. Just as the founders of the country drew inspiration from European enlightenment thinkers, we too must now renew our own democracy by demanding our students and schools be supported.
To do so, we should redouble our investment in early childhood education, resource all schools to provide early interventions (a proven way to help students and a wise use of public funds over the long term, as studies have shown the students who receive personalized support early in life are less likely to require intensive needs later in their educational lives). We must raise the status of the teaching profession; a career as a kindergarten teacher should be seen as equally important as a doctor or lawyer. The professional status of teachers can vest us with classroom autonomy and respect for professional judgement. This contributes to school cultures of collective respect and responsibility and wellbeing.
Celebrating the 250th is about uplifting our democratic institutions—especially schools. While the private interests of a few have used dark money to fuel campaigns to defund our shared schools and shrink schools as common gathering places, too many well-meaning folks have missed the point that the big money backers of school privatization grasp: providing proven policy examples at a small scale initially can be enough to grow the momentum needed to scale up and grow policy.
That’s why we need to be in touch with local educators, to support them, and to find ways to share what’s working at scale. It is that kind of resolve that makes democracy actionable and not just a wish. Don’t close your eyes to make a wish on the 250th anniversary of the Declaration, recommit to protecting our schools, the cradles of our democracy, with policies inspired to help all flourish.
Jacob Goodwin is a 6th grade teacher and the author of the book Teach Like a Community Organizer: Practical Tools for Community-Building, Civic Engagement, and Progressive Change (Routledge, 2026).
Keep ReadingShow less

solar panels on green field
Photo by American Public Power Association on Unsplash
America Is Paying China a Premium to Avoid Depending on China
Jul 21, 2026
In late June, the Solar Energy Industries Association confirmed that the United States now has enough module manufacturing capacity, nearly 65 gigawatts annually, to meet its entire domestic demand on paper. It was a genuine milestone. But cell production, the more technically demanding upstream step that determines whether those modules are truly American-made, still stands at barely 3.2 gigawatts. The gap between assembly capacity and genuine supply chain independence is where trade policy currently lives, and where it is doing the most damage.
A May 2026 report from Columbia University's Center on Global Energy Policy documented in detail what clean energy project developers have known for two years: US-China trade tensions have not reduced American reliance on Chinese-made solar, battery, and electric vehicle components. They have lengthened the supply chains, added cost, increased lead times, and shifted production nominally to Southeast Asian countries where Chinese firms own much of the manufacturing infrastructure. The net effect on US energy independence is close to zero. The effect on the cost of clean energy deployment is measurable and negative.
China's position in clean energy manufacturing is not a policy choice that tariffs can alter in the near term. It is the accumulated result of two decades of investment. Chinese renewable energy products now reach over 200 countries and meet more than 80 percent of global demand for photovoltaic modules and 70 percent of global demand for wind power equipment. In batteries and electric vehicles, the position is similar.
When the US raises tariffs on Chinese-made solar panels, Chinese manufacturers do not stop producing them. It is to route them through Malaysia, Vietnam, and Cambodia, sometimes with additional value-added steps to satisfy rules of origin. The Columbia analysis found that this transshipment pattern accelerated significantly after the 2025 tariff escalations. The result is that American solar projects import the same Chinese components, pay more for them, and wait longer for delivery.
The Busan trade deal included a notable concession on this front: China agreed to suspend its export controls on rare earths, gallium, germanium, antimony, and graphite, and to issue general licenses for US end users. Those materials are not optional for clean energy manufacturing. They go into everything from battery cathodes to inverters to EV motors. When China restricted them in late 2025, US energy project timelines came under immediate pressure. The suspension bought time. It did not solve the underlying dependency.
US electricity consumers and grid operators absorb the downstream cost of supply chain friction. Solar project developers facing higher panel costs and longer lead times either delay projects, accept higher financing costs, or both. Utilities pass those costs into rate structures. The households that stand to benefit most from affordable clean energy, lower-income renters and homeowners in sun-belt states with high cooling costs, are precisely those least able to absorb higher electricity rates.
Meanwhile, China's position is strengthening regardless of the US tariff policy. China's 15th Five-Year Plan targets 3,600 gigawatts of wind and solar capacity by 2035, six times 2020 levels. The technology, the manufacturing scale, and the cost curves all point in one direction. American tariff policy cannot reverse that, but it can determine whether the US benefits from Chinese manufacturing capacity or pays a premium to partially avoid it.
The case for domestic clean energy manufacturing is not frivolous. Brookings Institution analysts have argued that grid-connected hardware with Chinese software or remote access capabilities raises legitimate cybersecurity concerns. A solar inverter that can be disabled remotely is a different category of risk from a pair of shoes. Those concerns warrant specific, technology-focused policy responses.
What they do not warrant is blanket tariffs on solar panels and battery cells that delay grid buildout without addressing the security concern. A Chinese-made panel with no connectivity hardware is not a cybersecurity threat. A Chinese-made inverter with embedded firmware and remote access capability may be. Policy should reflect that distinction. It currently does not.
There is also a competitive cost that rarely enters this debate. The IRA's 45X manufacturing tax credit has been the single most effective tool in building genuine domestic solar capacity, far more so than tariffs. Canary Media's analysis of the 2026 solar manufacturing landscape found that companies such as First Solar, Qcells, and Heliene have made real upstream progress, not because of import barriers, but because of investment incentives. Tariffs on Chinese panels have instead led to a perverse outcome: raising costs for the same domestic manufacturers they are meant to protect, since those manufacturers still depend on Chinese-origin cells and wafers with no adequate domestic substitutes at scale. Industrial policy that builds capacity and trade policy that raises costs for that capacity are working against each other. Washington has not resolved that contradiction.
The US has set energy independence and carbon reduction as simultaneous goals. Achieving both requires large-scale deployment of solar, wind, and battery storage in a compressed timeframe. The supply chain for that deployment runs, in most critical components, through Chinese manufacturing. A policy framework that acknowledges this reality and manages it through targeted security requirements, rather than blanket tariffs that raise costs without producing domestic capacity, is the only approach that serves both goals. The alternative is slower deployment, higher consumer energy costs, and continued dependence on the same Chinese supply chains, just routed through more countries and at greater expense.
Hugo Balta is the executive editor of The Fulcrum and the publisher of the Latino News Network.
Keep ReadingShow less

Rubén Rocha Moya, governor of Mexico’s Sinaloa state, left, with then-President-elect Claudia Sheinbaum, center, and then-President Andrés Manuel López Obrador in 2024. The U.S. has charged Rocha with drug corruption, but Sheinbaum has refused to arrest him.
Rashide Frias/AFP via Getty Images
A U.S.-Mexico Impasse Will Test How Far the Trump Administration Will Go to Fight Drug Trade
Jul 21, 2026
After months of U.S.-Mexico tensions sparked by the Trump administration’s threats to strike unilaterally at Mexican drug traffickers, the two governments are heading for a potentially more serious confrontation over President Claudia Sheinbaum’s refusal to arrest Mexican officials charged in the United States with drug corruption.
U.S. Justice Department officials have yet to present a full picture of their evidence against 10 current and former Mexican officials, whose indictments were announced on April 29. They include the governor of Sinaloa state, Rubén Rocha Moya, an ally of the president and a prominent figure in her leftist political party.
But as the Trump administration steps up its efforts to target Mexican government figures who are accused of protecting the drug trade, Sheinbaum is taking a hard-line stand against extraditing Rocha and the others charged in a New York federal court, Mexican officials said.
“She is very clear about this,” a senior Mexican official said of the U.S. request for Rocha’s extradition. “She has decided no.”
The impasse presents the Trump administration with a potentially critical test of its aims in Mexico, raising questions about how far it will go to challenge the corruption that has long sustained Mexico’s trade in illegal drugs.
By elevating the importance of the drug issue and threatening harsh economic penalties if Sheinbaum did not join forces to combat it, the administration has pushed Mexico to dramatically escalate its fight against organized crime.
After years in which Sheinbaum’s political mentor, former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, withdrew from confrontation with the drug mafias, her security forces have worked with U.S. intelligence and law enforcement agencies to destroy clandestine drug labs, seize large caches of drugs, and kill or capture ranking crime bosses.
Sheinbaum also circumvented the two countries’ extradition treaty to hand over at least 92 accused traffickers sought by the United States — voicing none of the concerns about U.S. evidence that she has cited in refusing to arrest the Sinaloa officials.
Still, U.S. officials acknowledge privately, the two countries’ intensified counter-drug campaign has emphasized tactical strikes and short-term gains rather than a coherent, longer-term strategy to undermine organized crime groups, confront endemic corruption or strengthen Mexico’s criminal justice system.
To many senior Trump administration officials, particularly in the Justice Department and the White House, attacking the high-level corruption that sustains the drug trade represents a crucial next step. They have argued it is a step that U.S. prosecutors should take aggressively if Mexico will not do so, according to U.S. officials who spoke on condition of anonymity to discuss internal deliberations.
Some diplomatic and intelligence officials, however, are wary of pushing Sheinbaum too hard, seeing her position as precarious. They fear that demanding she take on her own party’s old guard might prompt her to pull back on Mexico’s cooperation with U.S. drug enforcement and immigration policies, the officials said.
The U.S. policy debate also turns on a question that continues to obsess Mexico’s political class nearly two years into her presidency: How much independence does Sheinbaum really have from her political patron López Obrador, who remains a commanding figure within their National Regeneration Movement?
After keeping largely silent on Mexico’s changing relationship with Washington, López Obrador thrust himself back into the public debate on June 3 with a blistering attack on the New York indictments. U.S. officials were simply using drug corruption as a pretext, he claimed, to undermine Morena, as the leftist party he founded is known.
“To be clear,” the former president wrote, “some U.S. officials are plotting to weaken Morena and strengthen the rightist opposition in Mexico with the idea of once again having a submissive, corrupt, mafioso and cruel government.” Such a regime, he added, would be more amenable to Washington’s “interventionist designs.”
Sheinbaum did her best to respectfully downplay the significance of the former president’s screed. But current and former Mexican officials noted that López Obrador’s missive, while supportive of her, did nothing to dispel suspicions that he continues to pull strings in her administration.
To many analysts of Mexican politics, the source of Sheinbaum’s unyielding response to the Rocha indictment seems plain: her fear that if some accused officials cooperate with the U.S. authorities in the Sinaloa case and possibly other investigations, the Trump administration could target other Morena leaders, including key allies of López Obrador.
“I think the message from Andrés Manuel was, ‘Claudia, you have to stop this or they are going to destroy us,’” a Mexican security expert, Eduardo Guerrero, said in an interview. “But the longer she waits to turn Rocha over, the tougher the punishment from the United States is going to be.”
Trump administration officials have done little to assuage such concerns.
Asked two weeks after the Sinaloa indictment about the administration’s plans for dealing with Mexican corruption, the head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, Terrance C. Cole, told the Senate Appropriations Committee, “I can assure you this is just the start about what’s to come in Mexico.”

Terrance C. Cole, head of the Drug Enforcement Administration, testifying to the Senate in May. He said the Sinaloa indictments were “just the start” of such actions on Mexico. Michael Brochstein/Sipa via AP
Turning Themselves In
When Rocha was elected in 2021 as governor of Sinaloa, a stronghold of Mexico’s drug trade for almost a century, the former teachers’ union organizer was known as a skilled political operator and a close friend of then-President López Obrador. But his campaign was assailed for what opposition parties and civic groups called the blatant role that criminal gangs played on Rocha’s behalf — intimidating voters, stuffing ballot boxes, and kidnapping and threatening numerous opposition candidates.
Despite detailed complaints to Mexico’s elections authorities, López Obrador and Sheinbaum strongly defended Rocha. Rocha insisted he had nothing to do with the mafias but suggested that it would be impossible to govern the state without somehow coordinating with them. “You have to find a way to do it,” he said in a television interview during the campaign.
Questions about Rocha’s links to the traffickers exploded again in July 2024, after a son of Joaquín Guzmán Loera, the imprisoned drug boss known as El Chapo, kidnapped his father’s longtime partner in the Sinaloa cartel, Ismael Zambada García. The son, Joaquín Guzmán López, then flew Zambada across the U.S. border, delivering him to U.S. agents on an airstrip in New Mexico and surrendering himself.
In a statement released by his lawyer, Zambada said he was kidnapped outside Culiacán, the state capital, when he went to meet Rocha and a Sinaloa congressman, Héctor Cuén, who supposedly wanted the drug boss to mediate a dispute between them. Instead, Zambada claimed, he was betrayed by Guzmán while Cuén, whom he described as “a longtime friend,” was murdered.

Ismael Zambada García, left, and his godson, Joaquín Guzmán López, who kidnapped him in Mexico and delivered him to the U.S. authorities in July 2024. U.S. Department of State via AP
Rocha at the time denied any involvement in the episode, saying he was traveling in Los Angeles. A spokesperson for the state government, from which Rocha has taken a leave of absence, said it would not comment on the accusations against him. Rocha could not be reached for comment.
Both Guzmán and his brother Ovidio, who was extradited to the United States in 2023, have since provided federal prosecutors with extensive accounts of their relationships with Mexican government figures, as has at least one of their former lieutenants, law enforcement officials said. Investigators in New York also obtained detailed ledgers of the gang’s bribe payments, which were referenced extensively in the Rocha indictment.
After Zambada’s kidnapping, three U.S. officials said López Obrador’s government made repeated requests for information on what Zambada and the Chapitos, as Guzmán’s sons are known, might have been telling U.S. investigators. But the prosecutors answered those queries only when they finally laid out their case: “As he had promised, since he was elected governor, and in exchange for the Chapitos’ support in his election, Rocha Moya has allowed the Chapitos to operate with impunity in Sinaloa,” the indictment stated.

A truck on fire in Culiacán, Sinaloa State, Mexico, in September 2024 Ivan Medina/AFP via Getty Images
Mexican national guardsmen cover a body found on the road in Culiacán in September 2024. After Sinaloa cartel leader Zambada was captured, the region underwent a wave of violence, killings and disappearances. AP Photo/Eduardo Verdugo
It also said Rocha had met personally with the Chapitos’ leaders and allowed them to name corrupt law enforcement officials to his government. Rocha’s aides took the traffickers’ bribes, allowed them to operate with impunity, arrested their rivals, freed them from jail when they were arrested themselves and warned them of law enforcement operations supported by the United States, the prosecutors said. Rocha has denied the allegations.
Barely a day after a federal court in New York unsealed the indictment of the 10 men, Sheinbaum dismissed that evidence as insufficient. She said the suspects could be investigated in Mexico but that she would not act without “overwhelming and irrefutable proof” of their guilt.
Such provisional arrest requests are often granted as a matter of course; by treaty, the country asking for extradition has 60 days to present more detailed evidence after the initial arrest is made. But Sheinbaum has argued that the indictment and various other Justice Department documents given to Mexico did not come close to justifying the U.S. request.
Some U.S. diplomats were initially skeptical of the New York prosecutors’ apparent reliance on imprisoned traffickers as primary witnesses in such a politically sensitive case, officials familiar with the matter said.
More recently, though, at least one of the accused Mexicans has changed that calculus. The former Sinaloa secretary of public safety, Gerardo Mérida, turned himself in to U.S. marshals at the Arizona border on May 11. Mérida — a retired army general accused of taking more than $100,000 a month from the cartel while in office — pleaded not guilty in New York. But he later indicated to the prosecutors that he might be willing to cooperate with their investigation in return for leniency, one official familiar with the matter said. Mérida’s court-appointed attorney, Sarah Krissoff, did not respond to calls and emails asking for comment on his status.
A second suspect in the case, former Sinaloa finance secretary Enrique Díaz Vega, is also believed to have turned himself in to the U.S. authorities, but the Justice Department has not confirmed that. Nicholas Biase, a spokesperson for the U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York, declined to comment on the status of either suspect, and Vega could not be reached for comment.
Months ago, current and former U.S. officials said, Sheinbaum’s powerful security chief, Omar García Harfuch, told American diplomats privately that the Mexican president was determined to take on the country’s corruption problem and would prove her bona fides by prosecuting officials of her own party. Since the Rocha indictment, however, she has taken a very different tone, accusing Washington of egregious meddling in Mexico’s affairs.
“An action of this magnitude has no precedent in the history of our bilateral relationship,” Sheinbaum said at a political rally in late May. “When they dictate from abroad who is guilty and who is not, that is no longer cooperation. We are talking about interference!”
Aides to Sheinbaum have begun to suggest that she could indeed scale back anti-narcotics cooperation if Washington pushes too hard on the Rocha case, two U.S. officials said.
Whether she has the wherewithal to follow through remains to be seen. But such threats have worked for Mexico in the past. When U.S. agents arrested Mexico’s former defense minister, Gen. Salvador Cienfuegos Zepeda, in Los Angeles in late 2020, former Attorney General William Barr abruptly dropped the case after López Obrador threatened to limit Mexico’s counter-drug cooperation.
Despite the American concession, López Obrador still seized on the arrest to shut down several joint counter-drug programs and push through a new national security law curtailing the work of U.S. agents in Mexico. With the Biden administration focused on preserving Mexico’s cooperation on immigration, López Obrador later abandoned the so-called Mérida Plan, the two countries’ 14-year campaign to jointly fight drug trafficking and strengthen the Mexican criminal justice system.
“But these guys are not Biden,” a former Mexican foreign minister, Jorge G. Castañeda, said of the Trump administration in an interview. While Sheinbaum’s predecessors could almost always rely on U.S. leaders to prioritize Mexico’s stability above other interests, he added, “Trump just doesn’t care.”
A U.S.-Mexico Impasse Will Test How Far the Trump Administration Will Go to Fight Drug Trade was originally published by ProPublica and is republished with permission.
Keep ReadingShow less
Load More
















