By Juan Larrosa, May 18, 2026
Generally speaking, people tend to believe that the sole function of the media is to inform; from this perspective, their work focuses on the production of journalistic information about matters of public relevance. However, the media also fulfill other functions. One of them, which we call political communication arenas, refers to a mediated space of contestation and dispute that enables interaction between governments and political elites, while citizens observe as spectators, much like in a boxing or wrestling arena. The relationship between the governments of Mexico and the United States, which has become increasingly tense in recent weeks, illustrates this mode of media operation.
Since the beginning of 2026, the illegal extraction of Nicolás Maduro from Venezuela sent ominous signals to several Latin American countries. At that moment, I argued that the very act of intervening in Venezuela became an act of propaganda aimed at aligning U.S. interests with the rest of the region. Since then, mounting pressure has been directed at Colombia, Cuba, and Mexico—three countries that certainly face serious problems related to security and drug trafficking, but which also have governments that run counter to the MAGA movement and its conservative agenda.
This is where the role of the media becomes central. Presidents Trump and Sheinbaum diplomatically claim that relations between their countries are excellent. Yet both construct a communication system in which they use public interventions to send messages to one another. Trump, standing at the steps of his presidential aircraft, delivers a harsh or aggressive comment against Mexico and, hours later, the Mexican president responds during a public tour somewhere in the country. The following day, during her morning press conference, Sheinbaum speaks about non-interventionism, and then Trump replies with his now familiar and misogynistic interpretation of the Mexican president, claiming that if Mexico cannot solve its own problems, the United States will step in and do it. The media shorten distances and compress time, placing both leaders face to face within this political communication arena.
In Mexico, pressure has intensified in recent weeks. Political timing is revealing. Today we wake up to the news that Trump’s approval rating has dropped to just 34%, due in part to the consequences of the war against Iran and rising inflation. In this context, the U.S. government has accelerated its pressure on Mexico regarding security and the fight against drug trafficking. In recent weeks, it publicly accused the now-licensed governor of Sinaloa and more than a dozen additional officials. Evidence related to these accusations has been leaking gradually across different media outlets and digital platforms. In addition, CNN and The New York Times released information about the alleged involvement of CIA agents in the killing of a criminal capo.
These developments reveal another form of media operation: one in which public information—certainly relevant information—is supplied from the interest of one of the fighters in the arena seeking to damage an adversary. The ethics of media companies and journalists should involve weighing the greater public good in informational terms. However, in political struggles of the scale described here, everything seems to be fair game.
Corruption within MORENA governments and their links to drug trafficking are undeniable. Nevertheless, a more sophisticated reading of the current situation requires going beyond that perspective alone. Anyone who sees only a process of law enforcement and criminal prosecution within the framework of the war on drugs, and not a complex process of power distribution in which the media also operate as political actors, will be missing a significant part of the analytical edge.
This text was originally read on Informativo NTR Radio, broadcast on May 18, 2026, and hosted by journalist Sonia Serrano.