Marco Rubio’s visit to Mexico in September 2025 was a political success for both President Claudia Sheinbaum and the US Secretary of State and Security Advisor, projecting an image of security cooperation and mutual respect. However, Rubio’s sincerity is questionable, given his political opportunism and history of abruptly changing agreements with allied countries.
In a context of global tensions, marked by Trump’s tariffs and the attack on a Venezuelan boat that killed 11 people without any evidence, Mexico must be extremely cautious. The meeting, although welcomed by the vast majority of analysts, raises questions about the intentions of the US and Rubio himself.
The joint statement highlighted the creation of a high-level group to coordinate efforts against drug trafficking, but details regarding intelligence sharing are vague. Sheinbaum has emphasized that any cooperation must respect Mexican sovereignty, insisting that intelligence sharing be limited to information obtained in each territory, unless mutually agreed upon. Rubio’s lack of transparency regarding how this sharing will be implemented raises questions, especially after his defense of the attack in the Caribbean, which lacked transparency. Mexico must demand clarity to prevent shared intelligence from being used to justify unilateral actions.
The possible training of Mexican personnel by US military personnel, mentioned as a tool to detect cross-border tunnels, also lacks specificity. Sheinbaum made it clear that any training must take place in Mexico and under its control, rejecting any foreign military presence. However, Rubio’s willingness to normalize attacks like the one in Venezuela suggests that the United States could demand greater interference. Mexico should establish strict limits to prevent this training from leading to dependence on US instructors or a violation of its autonomy.
Global tensions, exacerbated by Trump, frame the issue of security within a context of economic coercion. Although Mexico achieved a 90-day pause on 30% tariffs on its exports in July, the threat persists. Rubio avoided committing to addressing these barriers, limiting himself to vague statements about bilateral prosperity. This ambiguity, coupled with his history of supporting harsh sanctions, poses the risk that security cooperation could become a bargaining chip for economic concessions. Mexico must negotiate firmly to protect its economy.
The attack on the Venezuelan vessel, ordered by Trump and championed by Rubio, reflects a military escalation that could extend to Mexico, especially given the designation of Mexican cartels as terrorist organizations. Rubio justified the action as a response to an “imminent threat,” but his lack of transparency fuels mistrust.
Sheinbaum has strengthened her position by intensifying the fight against the cartels, with operations such as Frontera, which has resulted in thousands of arrests and seizures of fentanyl. The meeting’s political success lies in Sheinbaum’s ability to project a relationship of equality and Rubio’s reinforcement of a “historic” cooperation. The creation of the high-level group is a good step, as long as it doesn’t become a mechanism of pressure rather than collaboration.
The distrust of Rubio is based on real facts, such as his support for sanctions against Venezuela, Cuba, and Iran, his shifts in position for personal benefit and that of his donors, as well as betrayals of agreements throughout his career. Sheinbaum and her cabinet must always be vigilant.