Militarisation in Mexico: The continued and expanding use of the Armed Forces

Far from representing the agenda of a single party or ideological constellation, Mexico’s militarisation over the last few years is part of a phenomenon that has constantly developed over decades, unimpeded by the succession of governments of different political shades and orientations. It was greatly consolidated by the previous government, under the leadership of former president Manuel López Obrador. Despite having promised to send the army back to the barracks, he increased its participation in public safety tasks as well as in sectors previously considered beyond its remit and in which it has continued to act during the presidential mandate of Claudia Sheinbaum, such as health, infrastructure and the airline industry.

The expansion of military control

Militarisation is not a recent phenomenon in Mexico but a continuously unfolding process of the last decades, regardless of the party in power. Although the democratic transition at the end of the twentieth century enabled greater political pluralism, the army’s involvement in civil and public safety issues never disappeared completely. In fact, during Felipe Calderón’s presidency (2006-2012), the ‘war on drugs’ entailed the active participation of the armed forces in public safety tasks, which led to the significant growth of criminal cells and of violence at the national level.  

The government of Enrique Peña Nieto (2012-2018) subsequently promised to tackle the crisis with different strategies, yet these promises proved hollow. Instead of strategy changes, the president strengthened militarisation, creating the breeding ground for very severe human rights violations. He even supported the reformulation of laws enabling the armed forces to act in various roles that had previously been the exclusive prerogative of civil security. Under Peña Nieto, the army’s role in public safety was expanded.

The previous government of López Obrador maintained and deepened this tendency and implemented measures that further amplified the presence of the military in Mexicans’ daily lives. The creation of the National Guard, for example, was promoted as a public safety strategy, yet with a clear military component. Albeit presented as a civil security force, the National Guard has in practice always been under the control and command of the armed forces, as finally confirmed by the reform of September 2024, which formally incorporated it into the army, thus illustrating the continued militarisation of the country.

Beyond security proper, the armed forces have extended their influence into other areas of Mexican social and economic life. At the level of infrastructure, the army has been in charge of the construction of important projects like the airport of Santa Lucía and the Tren Maya railway, two flagship initiatives of the current governing party. In the health sector, the army has played a dominant role in the distribution of vaccines during the COVID-19 pandemic and the running of hospitals and medical services. This expansion of military labour into civil sectors has generated a debate on the effectiveness of these policies and on the risk of consolidating military control over key aspects of Mexican society.

A decades-long project

Mexico’s militarisation is neither an isolated phenomenon nor restricted to a single administration but a long-term project that has gained more relevance and visibility over the last two decades. Transcending changes of government, it has been driven by right-wing as well as left-wing administrations. In this sense, militarisation has become a transversal theme corresponding to a model of security and social control which has been supported by different political actors and whose implications go beyond a specific political agenda.

It is important to realise that the militarisation process is not limited to public safety policies. Over the years, the armed forces have become involved in a rising number of tasks, which include the management of natural resources, the distribution of humanitarian aid and the implementation of social control policies. This has led to a growing sense of the strengthening of military values in different areas of the social and community life of Mexico, such as nationalism and sexism among others. Thus, what started as the military’s intervention in public safety has evolved into expanded control over various social areas, even while the security strategy has proved ineffective in the fight against organised crime and even more so in achieving pacification.  

Human Rights impact

One of the most concerning aspects of the militarisation process has been its impact on human rights. The army’s involvement in public security tasks has been followed by numerous denunciations of human rights violations, ranging from abuses of power to crimes against humanity. An alarming number of cases of violence, torture, forced displacement, violence against human rights defenders and journalists, forced disappearances and gender-based violence, perpetrated by members of the army and of the National Guard, have been documented over the last few years, with many of these affecting indigenous peoples and communities.

The actions of the armed forces have been particularly controversial, for example, in the migration context. The border security policies implemented by the government of Peña Nieto as well as of López Obrador and now of Claudia Sheinbaum, under pressure from the United States, have led to greater military deployment and control of migratory flows, resulting in serious violations of migrants’ rights encompassing arbitrary detention, physical violence and sexual abuse. As recently as 5 February 2025, Sheinbaum and Trump agreed on the deployment of 10 000 National Guard troops at the northern border. The presence of the military at the borders has contributed to an atmosphere of hostility against migrants, who have been subjected to various forms of abuse and discrimination.

Furthermore, the involvement of the armed forces in social control tasks has had a direct impact on civil society, in particular in the context of protests and social mobilising. The army, together with other security forces, has been involved in the suppression of student, trade union and social protests, with emblematic instances of violence like those of Tlatelolco (1968), Acteal (1997), Atenco (2006), Ayotzinapa (2014) and Nochixtlán (2016). The military response to the protests and the lack of accountability for these abuses is one of the main factors behind the erosion of trust in the institutions responsible for the protection of human rights.

The case of Ayotzinapa in 2014 in particular continues to be one of the most representative of the militarisation of Mexico since the participation of military personnel in the disappearance of 43 students is a clear example of the impunity that surrounds human rights violations commited by the armed forces. This 10-year old case and other instances of violence and repression remain unpunished, highlighting the absence of effective mechanisms of civilian control and accountability of military personnel.

The executive order recently issued by the US president, which designates drug cartels as terrorist organisations, has opened up the debate on the effects of these measures and on how any ensuing actions could lead to a frontal attack, with greater expenditure and military investment in addressing them. This leaves room for reflection on the impact that this kind of measures has had for decades in the area of human rights as well as on the risk of amplifying a bellicose logic instead of genuinely seeking solutions that tackle poverty and the related issues of arms trafficking and drug use.

Impunity and oblivion

Despite the peace and justice rhetoric adopted by the current government, militarisation has been constantly accompanied by impunity, especially with regard to the abuses committed by the military. Accountability mechanisms for the armed forces continue to be inadequate and opaque while the victims of violations rarely receive justice. Instead of advancing towards reparations and the sanctioning of those responsible, the government has adopted a pact of silence and an attitude that prioritises forgetting the acts of violence, thereby minimising the gravity of the violations.

Instead of focusing on justice and on guaranteeing the rights of victims, governmental policies have favoured an emphasis on pardons and oblivion, without acknowledging the suffering of those affected. This oblivion and denial of the acts of violence as well as the lack of political will for repairs of damages perpetuate impunity and undermine the efforts of building a more just and equitable society.

Conclusion

Mexico’s militarisation process has gone on regardless of the different parties and ideologies in power and has developed in a context of failed social and security policies, which have not managed to reduce organised crime nor to deal with its increase. Thus, militarisation has been a long-term project that has enabled the army’s increased presence in different areas of the country’s social, economic and political life. While security is one of the central aspects of this strategy, the impact on human rights has been devastating, with growing violence, impunity and repression of civil society.

The consolidation of military control, the lack of effective accountability mechanisms and the government’s focus on the oblivion of abuses are all aspects that need to be urgently tackled. Militarisation must not be the answer that guarantees peace and security in Mexico; on the contrary, it is necessary to strengthen civil institutions, uphold the respect for human rights and guarantee justice for the victims of violations committed by the armed forces. Only through a profound change in security policies and greater transparency and accountability will it be possible to advance towards more effective actions that support justice and the reinstatement of civil control over the military.

This text was written on 7 February 2025 in Mexico City