The World Cup nears and the teachers won’t budge
After over a week of stoppages, road blockades, vandalism and encampments, a federal response spread across three offices (the Education Ministry, Interior Ministry and ISSSTE), and a World Cup inauguration just two days away, a deal between the CNTE teachers’ union and the government remains out of reach.
The latest government appeal for the CNTE to remove their encampment came after circulating a proposal via official social media accounts, which only reinforced that there is a communication problem. The CNTE claimed that the document had not reached it through formal channels and dismissed the move as media management rather than negotiation.
With this context and the leverage of the World Cup in play, the call to dismantle the encampment was unlikely to succeed. The movement is now discussing how to escalate further, and the government faces the threat of a broader manifestation on 11 June involving not only the teachers but others protesting government policy, including transport workers, pensioners, farmers and search collectives.
The government is stuck between a rock and a hard place. Publicly, Education Secretary Mario Delgado is presenting the relationship with teachers as one of respect, dialogue and historic gains, pointing to salary increases, regularisation of positions and mobility measures as proof that the 4T has put an end to the era of confrontation with the unions. However, the administration will not acquiesce to the demand that triggered the strike: the full repeal of the 2007 ISSSTE law. ISSSTE director Martí Batres acknowledged that the pension reform was historically unjust but said full abrogation is not viable, as reversing it would require resources equivalent to 20 points of GDP. Batres said the federal government is studying the creation of a public insurer to complement PensionISSSTE, which would give state workers a fully public option for managing their savings and receiving their pensions — framed as a response to concerns that the 2007 individual-accounts system has put retirement conditions at risk.
For his part, Delgado said at the president’s morning press conference on Monday that the government’s dialogue channel remains open and set out two concrete proposals for the union: continued tripartite negotiating tables in each state (bringing together federal education authorities, state governments and teacher representatives); and CNTE participation in drafting the legislation that would replace Usicamm (Teaching Career System Unit). The goal, he said, is a new relationship between the state and the teaching profession, guaranteeing labour rights, transparency and safeguards against the return of corruption, nepotism and favouritism.
Mexico City Mayor Clara Brugada struck a careful balance on Monday, insisting that the mobility, logistics and security conditions for holding the World Cup are fully guaranteed despite the ongoing protests. Brugada acknowledged the city’s role as a historic outlet for social demands from across the country, but called on demonstrators to protest peacefully and to consider the impact of marches, encampments and blockades on the public.
But this is becoming a more uncomfortable issue for Brugada than the federal government would like to admit. The traffic, the blockades, the encampments, the damage to public space and the sense of disorder all land politically on the local government, even when the underlying negotiation is federal. That matters because Brugada’s numbers were already weakening before this latest round of protests.
As Gerardo Esquivel points out in his recent Milenio column, Recent polling by Alejandro Moreno points to a sharp deterioration in perceptions of both the mayor and the city. In May 2025, Brugada’s approval balance was an impressive +51, with 75% approving and 24% disapproving. It is now around +13, with 56% approving and 43% disapproving — a 38-point swing in a year. Another poll on quality of life in Mexico City showed for the first time, a majority rated quality of life negatively, with 53% giving the city a failing grade. The balance has moved from +42 in May 2025 to -7 now, a swing of almost 50 points.
Some of this is clearly political, but it would be a mistake for Morena to dismiss the deterioration as simply a right-wing media campaign. There are objective grounds for arguing that mistakes have ben made in managing the city: World Cup works that were poorly planned, Metro station closures that dragged on too long or were badly communicated, superficial upgrades that irritated daily users, and concerns around contracts and public works. The CNTE crisis now adds another layer to that same story.
If the next year becomes defined by disruption, bad planning and a sense that the government is more focused on optics, tourists, the World Cup, symbolic projects, than on the daily experience of CDMX residents, Brugada’s decline could start to matter beyond her own approval ratings. It could become a problem for Morena in the 2027 mid-term elections in the capital (as CDMX was for Morena in the 2021 mid-terms).
Business groups have also started to chime in as well. Coparmex Oaxaca has called on the union and both levels of government to reach an agreement urgently, warning that the school closures and blockades are already affecting not only students and families, but the local economy in the state.
Coahuila tests Morena’s nerves
Under normal circumstances, a local congressional election in Coahuila would not attract much national attention. There was no governorship at stake, no mayoral map to redraw, and no immediate change to the national balance of power. But Sunday’s election (the only state-level contest in the country in 2026) is being read less as a local race and more as an early political stress test for the 2027 midterms: not only as a measure of whether Morena can be beaten in a competitive environment, but of how the party reacts to defeat.
The state is historically a PRI stronghold, which makes the result easier to explain in local terms. The preliminary count shows the PRI-UDC coalition took 55 per cent of the vote (684,515 ballots) against Morena-PT’s 26 per cent (326,012), winning all 16 majority districts. Turnout reached 51 per cent of the nominal roll, well above the 39 per cent recorded in the 2020 local elections; district-level counts begin formally on 10 June and will also determine the allocation of nine proportional representation seats.
National PRI leader Alejandro Moreno presented the result as sweeping proof that Coahuila had rejected Morena and its “narco-politicians”, attributing the margin directly to the performance of Governor Manolo Jiménez Salinas on security and development in an interview with Milenio. He was also willing to let legal challenges run their course, saying that all parties have the right to flag inconsistencies and that any complaints would be resolved by the tribunals — while insisting the scale of the victory placed it beyond serious dispute.
Morena, for its part, responded in the register of procedural alarm rather than resigned disappointment. In a statement posted by Ricardo Monreal, the party did not merely complain of irregularities but alleged that federal deputies and Morena sympathisers had been illegally held against their will, suggesting the events could amount to an attempt to alter the electoral process itself. That is a notable rhetorical escalation over a local electoral defeat.
Morena’s party president Ariadna Montiel said the party had filed a complaint against the PRI for alleged vote-buying operations on election day. Taken together, the responses suggest that Morena is moving the conversation towards coercion, illegality and distortion of the vote — offering an early indication of how the governing party may respond to opposition victories in the run-up to 2027.
The Coahuila results do not translate easily into national predictions: the race is too small, and the state historically too priista. But the contest is a useful political signal — not only because it shows that Morena can be challenged under the right conditions, but because it offers a first look at the language the party may use when it faces the prospect of losing power somewhere that matters.
A tougher green State in the making
A presidential initiative published on 14 May on the Integrated Regulatory Governance Platform would repeal the current General Law of Ecological Balance and Environmental Protection (LGEEPA) — originally enacted in 1988 and amended roughly 52 times since — and replace it with a new statute. This is not a narrow amendment package; it is a structural redesign of the environmental legal system with new principles, broader regulatory concepts and a more expansive enforcement model. The proposal has not yet been formally sent to Congress, but its scope already gives companies, developers and compliance teams a fairly clear preview of more demanding federal regulation.
The draft is organised into six thematic titles. The substantive changes are broad and, in several areas, consequential. The first title updates foundational concepts, expressly incorporating definitions for terms such as ecosystem services, circular economy and nature-based solutions, alongside principles including the pro natura standard drawn from international environmental conventions. The proposal introduces strategic environmental assessment for plans, programmes and major infrastructure initiatives, moving environmental scrutiny further upstream in the planning process rather than limiting it to project-by-project review. Environmental impact assessments are also expanded to expressly cover significant, cumulative, synergistic and residual impacts, with new rules on mitigation, restoration, compensation, exemptions and ex post regularisation for works carried out without prior authorisation.
The biodiversity title strengthens legal structures around protected natural areas, adding new categories including geoparks, geo-volcanic zones, Ramsar wetland protection sites and areas on sacred sites — a provision with implications for consultation and land-use planning. It also formally recognises “other effective area-based conservation measures” and introduces a National Environmental Restoration Programme. A further title broadens the pollution-control framework beyond traditional components (air, water, soil) to encompass light pollution, noise, vibrations and other physical factors affecting public health and biodiversity.
On public participation, the draft aligns with Articles 5 and 6 of the Escazú Agreement, establishing formal rules for involvement in environmental decision-making, access to case files and public comment during EIA procedures.
Enforcement would also get beefed up: the initiative would create a Registry of Environmental Offenders, broaden investigative powers, allow preventive measures before damage has fully materialised, and introduce mechanisms for voluntary recognition of facts and alternative dispute resolution. It substantially raises the sanctioning ceiling, with fines ranging from 80 UMAs to a maximum of 7.5 million UMAs (approximately MXN $879.8 million). Administrative arrest of up to 36 hours and temporary or permanent closure remain available sanctions. The initiative also reinforces voluntary compliance instruments (self-regulation, voluntary audits and verification mechanisms) intended to push standards beyond the regulatory minimum.
If approved, the law would require a phased transition involving regulatory harmonisation, procedural adjustments and the issuance of implementing guidelines and Official Mexican Standards (NOMs). Transitional rules would allow current regulations and standards to remain in place where not inconsistent, while pending procedures would continue under the old regime unless applicants choose to opt into the new one. In practical terms, the proposal points towards a stricter, more structured and more interventionist environmental framework — one likely to affect permitting, project planning and risk allocation well before the first fine is issued.
US-Mexico patching up?
US Ambassador to Mexico Ronald Johnson seems to be trying to make up with the Mexican government after the recent deterioration in relations. On his X account, he quoted positively a Mexican Foreign Ministry post following a constructive call between Mexico’s Foreign Minister Roberto Velasco and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
“Cooperation between the United States and Mexico is not only good policy—it is common sense that our two nations cooperate on security, migration, trade issues, and more. We are neighbors and partners. When one is threatened, the other feels the impact. When one prospers, we prosper together.” — Ambassador Ronald Johnson, in response to the SRE’s readout of a cordial call between Mexico’s Foreign Minister Roberto Velasco and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio.
This warming in tone perhaps suggests tensions are being patched up for now after major friction over U.S. demands for extradition of the ten Sinaloa politicians, including the Governor linked to cartel investigations. In recent days, U.S. officials have praised Mexican border security efforts, joint naval operations, and shared anti-cartel actions. Sheinbaum, facing domestic pressure to defend sovereignty ahead of future elections, has continued to criticize perceived intervention, including negative comments on a recent polemical dinner hosted in CDMX by the Americas Society, which Ambassador Johnson adroitly dropped out of, but she has carefully avoided direct attacks on President Trump, Marco Rubio and his inner circle.
Sheinbaum’s comments on the Americas Society dinner were revealing. She pushed back on the suggestion that it had been organized or sponsored by the U.S. embassy, saying instead that it was an event promoted by the Americas Society and funded by private actors, including Grupo Salinas. She noted that members of her government had also been invited but chose not to attend, while opposition figures from the PAN and PRI did. In her telling, this was evidence of “sectors” in Mexico and the U.S. coming together with the aim of damaging both her government and the bilateral relationship.
Sheinbaum is trying to separate two things. On one hand, she is keeping up the nationalist framing: accusing Mexican opposition figures of going to the U.S. to speak badly not just of her government, but of Mexico, and warning against any form of intervention. On the other hand, she is still leaving space for cooperation with Washington, repeatedly defining her position as “collaboration and cooperation, with respect for our sovereignty.” This lets her defend herself politically at home without forcing a direct clash with the Trump administration.
By amplifying messages of cooperation, and by apparently avoiding a politically loaded dinner that Sheinbaum later attacked, the US Ambassador to Mexico looks to be trying to lower the temperature. For now, both sides appear to be drawing the same line: Sheinbaum will continue to denounce what she sees as interventionist pressure from the U.S. right and its Mexican allies, while Washington will demand practical day-today cooperation on security, migration and trade. That does not mean the relationship is suddenly stable. The key question remains unanswered for now: how will Washington react if as seems likely Sheinbaum refuses to respect the US/Mexico extradition treaty and hand over the ten indicted Sinaloa politicians, including the Governor Ruben Rocha Moya.
The World Cup labour limbo
President Sheinbaum confirmed this week that there will be no federally mandated work holiday for the World Cup. The argument is legal as much as practical; a formal day off work would trigger the Federal Labour Law and the payment obligations that come with it. The result is a hodgepodge on a national level: each state government will decide whether to suspend school, and private employers will be left to make their own arrangements.
For Mexico City, however, the federal government has decreed instructing federal public administration bodies in the capital to implement remote working or flexible arrangements for civil servants on 11 June, with exceptions for health and sanitary emergencies, national and public security, migration, customs and public order, strategic services and critical infrastructure (transport, telecommunications, energy, water and logistics), activities directly related to the organisation and security of the tournament, priority social programmes requiring in-person attendance, and functions that by their nature require physical presence. The private and social sectors in Mexico City are urged — though not required — to apply remote working or flexible arrangements to non-essential administrative activities in accordance with the Federal Labour Law. The decree also suspends classes on 11 June at all educational levels — from preschool through to higher education — in all SEP-dependent institutions in Mexico City, both public and private.
The Federal Judiciary has declared there will be no public-facing court activity on several match days in Mexico City, Guadalajara and Monterrey, including 11 June in the capital and Guadalajara. Courts and tribunals in those cities will close to the public, staff will work remotely, and legal deadlines will be suspended except in urgent matters.
Chatter Box
Rained In. Mexico City’s Congress has approved a proposal to amend the Federal Labour Law so that workers could temporarily work from home during periods of severe rain and would also enshrine their right to disconnect once the workday ends. The measure, passed unanimously, now moves to the Chamber of Deputies — the capital can propose changes to federal labour legislation but cannot enact them unilaterally. The practical trigger is increasingly familiar: heavy rainfall in the capital is no longer treated as an occasional inconvenience but as a recurring disruption that can shut down roads, interrupt public transport and make commuting either unsafe or simply unworkable. The initiative therefore tries to frame weather-related remote work not as a perk but as a contingency mechanism tied to worker safety and operational reality.
The second part of the proposal is broader and, in some ways, more consequential. It would extend the right to disconnect digitally at the end of the workday, regardless of where the employee works. The reform is clearly responding to a labour market in which remote connectivity has outlived the pandemic emergency that normalised it. Supporters argue that work communication has increasingly spilled over into non-working hours, turning the home into an extension of the office. By making disconnection a general labour right rather than one linked only to remote work, the proposal tries to place boundaries around availability across sectors, whether the employee works in an office, factory, shop, field or from home.
Trade Rules in Transition. Mexico’s Tax Administration Service has published an advance version of the Second Amendment Resolution to the 2026 General Foreign Trade Rules. The key change is an extension of the transition period for the electronic Value Declaration, moving the deadline to 31 July and allowing importers to continue using both the paper-based and electronic formats until then. From 1 August, the electronic format will become mandatory.
The measure was accompanied by a joint statement from the SAT and the National Customs Agency (ANAM), which said the extension is intended to give foreign trade operators more time to prepare for the new filing requirement. In practical terms, the change delays the full operational shift by one month and preserves the current coexistence of both systems while importers complete the adjustment.
ASF: Less Scrutiny or a New Audit Model? A dispute has opened around the Federal Superior Audit Office (ASF) after Reforma reported that the new auditor had scaled back the 2025 audit programme by eliminating dozens of targeted reviews of specific projects, works and spending items and replacing them with broader entity-wide audits. The newspaper’s central example was Pemex, where what had previously been 33 separate audits on defined issues would now be reduced to a single comprehensive review — supporting the argument that the ASF is loosening oversight just as fiscal pressure would suggest the opposite. The ASF says the new scheme does not reduce scrutiny but changes its methodology, moving from fragmented sample-based reviews to a comprehensive audit model that examines the full legal, financial and operational universe of each entity. In its telling, one integral review of Pemex would cover all income, spending, contracts, investments, subsidiaries and performance, rather than isolated slices of activity — and the same logic would apply across the federal government. The real disagreement, then, is not about optics but about what constitutes stronger oversight: more audits on paper, or fewer audits with a wider stated scope.
The Court Removes a Formal Barrier to Survivor Benefits. The Supreme Court has struck down the rule in Article 130 of the Social Security Law that required couples to prove five years of cohabitation in order to qualify for a survivor’s pension under the IMSS regime. The Court held that the requirement imposed an additional burden based on marital status, treating unmarried partners less favourably than married spouses and therefore violating the constitutional principles of equality and free personal development. The key point is that the judgment does not eliminate the need to prove the existence of the relationship — only the rigid notion that family protection can be conditioned on a fixed period of cohabitation and a narrow evidentiary formula.
In practical terms, the ruling broadens access to survivor benefits for people who formed a family outside marriage, while giving the IMSS less room to reject claims on formalistic grounds alone. The Court said concubinage remains a factual relationship that must be proven through evidence of shared life, mutual support, solidarity and consent, rather than through one mandatory timeline. That is a meaningful adjustment to the social security system because it confirms that constitutional protection of family life does not depend on a single legal model. For the IMSS, the message is that eligibility rules cannot be written in a way that makes one family structure administratively easier to protect than another.
An Important Nomination Moves Ahead. The Senate Permanent Commission is now moving the ratification of Roberto Lazzeri as Mexico’s next ambassador to the United States into its final procedural phase, with Laura Itzel Castillo saying the relevant working group will hear him on 10 June alongside Pedro Blanco Pérez, the nominee for ambassador to India, and Alicia Buenrostro Massieu, nominated to serve in the Netherlands. In formal terms this is a routine congressional step; in practical terms, Lazzeri’s posting is the one that matters most, given the current complexity of the Mexico–US agenda across trade, migration, security and regional coordination. Castillo also indicated that, if the hearings go smoothly, the Commission could move quickly to issue favourable opinions and ratify the appointments — the Commission has the constitutional authority to do so.
Contact:
Laura Camacho
Executive Director Miranda Public Affairs
laura.camacho@miranda-partners.com
Download PDF: MI Public Affairs Chatter 260609 – ENG MI Public Affairs Chatter 260609 – ESP