Infrastructure dreams, fine print first
As Mexico’s new infrastructure investment law moves through Congress, analysts are looking past the launch rhetoric to scrutinize how the legislation would function in practical terms. Pitched by President Sheinbaum as a pragmatic route for mobilising private capital into strategic public infrastructure, the government’s ambitions now face a reality check: not because mixed investment is inherently unappealing, but because the legal framework still appears to leave too much to executive discretion and depends too much on the goodwill of the next administration, even if it’s an improvement on the status quo.
IMCO has identified three central risks. First, the proposed Strategic Planning Council would sit firmly under executive control, with no independent technical experts built into its structure. That matters because the Council would decide which projects qualify as strategic, how they are structured and who is given access to the available mechanisms. Secondly, budget certainty seems to extend only five years ahead, leaving no real visibility beyond 2030 for projects that often take longer simply to get off the drawing board. Thirdly, the bill remains vague on the commercial fundamentals that private investors care about: how operating costs are deducted, how returns are shared, how performance is measured, and whether the resulting cash flows will justify the risks involved. In both long-term contracts and mixed-investment schemes, those are not minor details.
Banco Base has raised a separate and indeed opposite concern on the fiscal side. The proposed budget changes could weaken government spending controls by removing constitutionally mandated social programmes and parts of education, health and security payrolls from the definition of structural current expenditure. This, it argues, could open the door to pushing up the deficit and public debt at precisely the moment the government says it wants to reign in the deficit back to 3% of GDP. The risk, in short, is that a law meant to unlock investment ends up raising questions about both governance and fiscal discipline — not the ideal backdrop for persuading cautious capital to come in.
At the same time, it would be too pessimistic to dismiss the bill outright. Even critics of the draft acknowledge that it represents a step forward from the status quo: it recognizes, more clearly than before, that Mexico cannot close its infrastructure gap without private capital, and it attempts to create formal vehicles for mixed investment and long-term contracting. IMCO itself notes that the plan aims to mobilize MXN 722 billion in additional projects in 2026 and MXN 5.6 trillion between 2026 and 2030, with energy, rail, roads, and ports absorbing the largest shares, a reminder that, whatever its flaws, the initiative is trying to address sectors where the country’s needs are obvious and the investment opportunity is real.
More broadly, if investors wait for a perfect law before engaging, they will end up doing nothing. Most understand that almost anywhere in the world legal perfection is often the enemy of the legal good, and that where there is strong underlying demand, in logistics, energy, water, and transport, there is usually opportunity – as long as risks are mitigated with an optimized structure. Indeed, some of the remaining legal and fiscal uncertainty may end up increasing expected returns for investors willing to assume development and governance risk. That is not an argument for vagueness; rather, it is a reminder that imperfect frameworks can still attract capital when the need is pressing, the asset base is strategic, and the upside for patient, risk-minded investors remains substantial.
More compliance, less room for improvisation
President Claudia Sheinbaum’s government has moved to tighten Mexico’s anti-money laundering framework with a regulatory reform published in the March 27 edition of the Official Gazette. The update gives the system a more formal structure, especially in the treatment of Politically Exposed Persons (PEPs), while leaving several operational details and implementation criteria still pending.
The regulatory reform confirms a 10-year information retention requirement, incorporates the SAT’s authority to request reports of internal or external audits mandated by the 2025 reform, as well as evidence that any findings have been corrected, and creates a specific chapter governing the List of Politically Exposed Persons, its confidentiality and the consultation mechanism for obligated parties. It also expressly expands the SAT’s powers of verification and sanction, including the use of electronic notifications and public force, regulates a procedure for the voluntary correction of infringements before verification powers are exercised, and provides that exceptions to the obligation to identify the beneficial owner will be established through pending general rules.
For businesses and professionals involved in vulnerable activities, the message is clear: compliance will be more demanding. That means greater traceability, less room for improvisation and a higher premium on getting procedures right the first time. The full impact will depend on how the secondary rules are updated.
Own goal by Santander? – Culture moves to contain Gelman row
The Gelman Collection of art, which includes renowned 20th-century works by Rivera, Kahlo, Siquieros and others, is currently on temporary exhibit at the Museo de Arte Moderno (on display in Mexico for the first time in two decades). The collection has turned into a headache for Mexico’s Culture Secretary, Claudia Curiel de Icaza, by forcing a tricky legal question into the open: how far a declaration of artistic protection can reach when the works remain firmly in private hands. At Monday’s presidential press briefing, the government tried to contain controversy over the collection’s destiny by clarifying it has not been sold to Santander and remains the property of its Mexican owners, the Zambrano family, (who itself bought it controversially from the previous ‘’owner’’, Robert Littman) subject only to temporary export authorisation under heritage law. Curiel said the bank is only handling management tasks — insurance, conservation support and international exhibitions — rather than acquiring the works. That distinction is doing a good deal of the legal work.
The normative issue, however, is not simply ownership on paper but the scope of the protection regime triggered when a private collection is declared Monumento Artístico. In Mexico, such a declaration does not strip owners of title; the works remain private property, but the State recognises them as having exceptional value for the country’s history and cultural identity and places them under a special legal regime. In practice, that means registration, official supervision, restrictions on conservation and handling, and, crucially, a prohibition on indefinite export abroad. The works may leave the country only temporarily, with the relevant permits; through INBAL and the Culture Ministry, the government may monitor their condition, authorise temporary movement, impose safeguarding requirements and demand their return. The purpose is to prevent culturally significant works from quietly vanishing abroad, being irreversibly commercialised or suffering damage.
The legal question is no longer whether the collection is privately owned — it plainly is — but whether a long-term overseas management arrangement remains compatible with both the letter and the spirit of the Federal Law on Archaeological, Artistic and Historic Monuments and Zones. Curiel suggested that the law allows authorisations for up to five years, or two years followed by return, but the actual legislation is less tidy. Neither the regulations, the artistic-monument declarations nor the procedural manual fixes year-based limits for temporary export.
A final irony is that this looks like a bit of a PR own goal for the Spanish headquarters of Santander and the bank more broadly. The bank likely hoped the “multi-year exhibition’’ in Spain would burnish its cultural brand and underscore its ties to Mexico, and perhaps cement further its relationship with the influential Monterrey-based Zambrano family. Instead, it risks coming across as insufficiently sensitive to the symbolism of sending such an important Mexican collection with uncertain provenance to Spain (no less) for what appears to be a very long and undetermined time.
Cultural promotion or appropriation?
The Supreme Court’s decision to revoke the injunction shielding Grupo Xcaret’s commercial use of Maya cultural elements sharpens the legal position on whether indigenous heritage can be lawfully used as a commercial asset simply because it carries promotional value. Justice María Estela Ríos González, who authored the opinion, made the point clearly: private investment may be welcomed, but it cannot extend to the improper appropriation of the cultural patrimony of indigenous peoples. Her opinion carried by seven votes, with Yasmín Esquivel and Arístides Guerrero dissenting on the basis that Xcaret had authorisation from the Gran Consejo Maya de Quintana Roo.
The Court’s broader reasoning is more consequential still. It held that indigenous cultural heritage is not merely symbolic; it is a core element of identity and social cohesion, protected by the Constitution and by international standards. On that basis, any use of such elements must be backed by the free, prior and informed consent of the communities concerned. That raises the compliance bar rather significantly for tourism, advertising and heritage-based branding.
For its part, Xcaret insists its relationship with the Gran Consejo Maya has been built on respect, dialogue and collaboration, and says a prior conciliatory agreement showed that workable solutions were possible within the existing regulatory framework. It also points to more than 30 years of work with Maya communities and tradition bearers.
The Consejo Nacional Empresarial Turístico (CNET) said the Court’s ruling reaches well beyond a single case, arguing that legal certainty in tourism is essential to preserving investment flows and regional economic development. The business group maintained that the real task is to balance the protection of indigenous traditions with forms of responsible promotion that allow large-scale tourism projects to remain viable and internationally competitive. In its view, excessive restrictions on the use of identity-based cultural elements could ultimately undermine one of Mexico’s more effective draws in the global market, with knock-on effects for employment, services and local economies. At the same time, CNET stressed its respect for the rule of law and called for clearer, more transparent regulatory criteria and closer coordination with cultural authorities — on the familiar, if slightly self-serving, argument that national identity ought to be protected without becoming so tightly guarded that it can no longer be meaningfully shared.
Chatter box
- Mexico’s election overhaul races the calendar: Mexico’s Senate has approved the constitutional core of President Claudia Sheinbaum’s electoral “plan B”, dropping only the proposed change to the presidential recall referendum while preserving the more marketable parts of the package: budget cuts, pay caps and a trimming of local political structures. The reform now heads to the Chamber of Deputies, and the expectation in the ruling party is that its passage through the state legislatures will be brisk enough for promulgation by April 14. All very efficient, at least at the constitutional level. The more awkward part comes afterwards: once lawmakers return from the Easter recess, the Senate will need to move rather quickly to amend the secondary legislation needed to make the reform functional. That means harmonising, by May 30, the General Law of Electoral Institutions and Procedures (Legipe), the Federal Law on the Remuneration of Public Servants and related statutes, in line with the reform’s second transitory article. The timetable matters not least because the updated Legipe must be published in the Official Gazette at least 90 days before the start of the 2027 midterm elections. In practical terms, the follow-up legislation must define the new cap on council seats in municipalities, extend vertical and horizontal gender parity in local government, and impose the new constitutional limits on the salaries and benefits of electoral officials. The states will be expected to fall into line by the same May 30 deadline.
- Protecting artists, regulating everyone else: The reform under discussion in Mexico’s Chamber of Deputies would amend the Federal Copyright Law and the Federal Labour Law to strengthen protections for artists, authors and performers whose image, voice or creative output may be replicated, cloned or otherwise exploited by artificial intelligence. In broad terms, it is meant to address a hot button issue: technology can now imitate voices, styles and performances with alarming ease, while the law is still trying to decide whether that counts as innovation, appropriation or just business as usual. However, the Labour Party (PT), has argued that the latest draft, set for debate on April 7, has regressed on key points already agreed with the artistic sector. They say they will table amendments to restore those elements, framing the issue less as a quarrel with technology than as a dispute over whether artists are to be protected from being exploited by large international companies without proper consent or fair compensation. Their argument is that a voice is not an industrial input. The Asociación Mexicana de Internet (AIMX), meanwhile, has taken a more guarded view of the bill’s goals, arguing that while stronger safeguards for artists are entirely legitimate, the draft could create regulatory uncertainty across the digital, creative and technology sectors by imposing cumbersome consent requirements, relying on vague legal concepts and failing to distinguish clearly between abusive uses of AI and the development of the technology itself. It has also warned that, without proper exceptions for parody, satire, journalism, education and non-commercial content, the reform could end up hampering creative expression.
- Cold remedies restricted: Mexico’s Health Ministry has tightened its restrictions on pseudoephedrine and ephedrine, expanding the ban so that the substances — along with their salts, precursors and derivatives — may no longer be used at any stage in the manufacture of medicines or other health inputs, whether as raw material, active ingredient, chemical precursor or in any similar role. The updated order, published in the Official Gazette, also prohibits the production, distribution, sale and import of products made using those substances, with only narrow exceptions for research, surveillance and toxicological analysis, subject to authorisation by Cofepris or the Health Authorisation Commission. Any shipment already too far along in the import process to be stopped is to be destroyed and immediately reported to the regulator. The government is plainly opting for maximal restriction in the name of public health — where ephedrine-related risks are concerned, administrative flexibility will be a thing of the past.
- Cheaper rails, pricier permissions: Effective March 26, Mexico has removed import tariffs on railway rails to secure supply of what the government describes as a strategic input for the construction of passenger trains and for wider rail-linked logistics. According to the Official Gazette, the measure is tied to the long-term goals of Plan México, which envisages a major expansion of the national rail network, including 3,000 kilometres of new track under President Claudia Sheinbaum’s plans — roughly double the length built under the previous administration. The routes highlighted include AIFA-Pachuca, Mexico-Pachuca, Mexico-Nogales and Mexico-Nuevo Laredo, with a mix of intercity and regional passenger services, built on dedicated passenger lines that will in many cases follow existing freight corridors, with projected top speeds of 360 and 200 km/h.
Contacto:
Laura Camacho
Directora Ejecutiva de Asuntos Públicos de Miranda
laura.camacho@miranda-partners.com
Descargar PDF: MI Public Affairs Chatter 260331 – ESP