Sheinbaum’s dilemma after ‘El Mayo’ Zambada’s latest letter: intervene or placate Trump

Intervene in the case or favor caution in the relationship with the United States. That is the dilemma facing Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum amid the controversy over the latest letter from Ismael “El Mayo” Zambada. February 25 marks the deadline that Sheinbaum requested to respond to the request for repatriation from the former capo and founder of the Sinaloa Cartel, alleging violations of due process and claiming his arrest was “illegal.” Sheinbaum has stated that Zambada is somewhat justified in claiming that his capture by U.S authorities constituted a violation of the country’s sovereignty, but she is still analyzing the room for maneuver to deal with the matter amid permanent pressure from Donald Trump to toughen the fight against organized crime. The letter from El Mayo has also opened an internal front between those who interpret it as a “threat” from the capo and consider it unacceptable that the Mexican government accept the request, and sectors that have seen a political opportunity to criticize the position of the authorities.

“We do not bow to blackmail or threats,” Sheinbaum said at her press conference Monday. After the letter came to light last Friday, the president anticipated the questions and stated that the possibility of her government intervening should not be interpreted as a defense of the drug lord, but rather as a case of consular protection. “Beyond this person and the crimes he may have committed, the issue is the right of a Mexican citizen to be tried [in the U.S.], without the entire procedure having been followed,” the president said, asking for time to consult the Attorney General’s Office (FGR) before giving her final response.

“The Mexican State has the unavoidable, immediate and categorical obligation to intervene actively and forcefully in the defense of my human rights, my sovereignty as a Mexican citizen, and the sovereignty of Mexico as a State, given that my transfer to the United States was the result of a cross-border kidnapping,” Zambada stated. After his capture at the end of last July, El Mayo stated in a first letter issued from prison that he was betrayed by Joaquín Guzmán López, his godson and son of El Chapo Guzmán, and handed over to the U.S. authorities against his will.

In addition to the kidnapping allegation, El Mayo and his legal team argue that if the Mexican government does not act to set limits on U.S. extraterritorial operations in the war on drugs, it could set a “dangerous precedent” for Washington to take similar actions against other Mexican citizens, including “politicians and officials.” They also denounce the possibility of the death penalty being applied in his case, arguing that the charge of fentanyl trafficking constitutes a crime against humanity.

“[The Mexican State] must intervene so that this matter does not result in a collapse in the bilateral relationship,” reads one of the most controversial lines of the letter. For months there has been talk of the possibility that El Mayo, with a criminal career spanning five decades, would reach a cooperation agreement in the United States to provide information about the links between politicians and drug traffickers, the operations of the Sinaloa Cartel, and details about its rivals. Some commentators interpret Zambada’s words as a threat to “collapse” the relationship between the two countries by revealing everything he knows.

However, Juan Manuel Delgado González, his legal advisor in Mexico, claims that the meaning of the letter has been “distorted.” “Mr. Zambada’s request for repatriation is a legitimate right and does not constitute, under any circumstances, a threat or blackmail towards the Mexican government,” reads a written statement sent to EL PAÍS. Zambada’s team claims that the United States “lacks a valid legal basis to prosecute him” and demands that, in any case, their client should be returned to Mexican territory so that Washington can process his extradition “through the corresponding legal channels.” Frank Perez, the drug lord’s lawyer in the United States, told journalist Ioan Grillo that his client has not yet cooperated, but that he would be willing to plead guilty because he does not want to go to trial.

The document mentions as a precedent the case of Humberto Álvarez Machain, a doctor accused of the torture and death of DEA agent Enrique “Kiki” Camarena. Álvarez Machain was kidnapped in 1990, and tried and acquitted two years later in the United States for lack of evidence. In 1993, the doctor sued the U.S. authorities for irregularities in his detention and the case triggered the discussion between the two countries on a treaty against cross-border kidnapping, which, however, was not ratified by Washington. In 2003, the U.S. Supreme Court issued an adverse opinion against Álvarez Machain, arguing that there was not sufficient legal basis for him to be compensated by the authorities.

El Mayo’s letter was delivered to the Mexican consulate in New York on February 20, a day after the Trump administration designated six Mexican cartels, including the Sinaloa Cartel, as terrorist organizations. Amid concerns about the decree’s implications for Mexico’s sovereignty, Sheinbaum responded with a constitutional reform initiative to impose “the most severe penalty possible” on foreign agents who act on Mexican soil without authorization. Now, with El Mayo’s letter, one of the political risks is that the Mexican government’s response could be interpreted as resistance to Trump’s new anti-drug campaign or, at the extreme, as a defense of criminals.

Despite having little chance a priori in the legal arena, given the White House’s own hardline stance against the cartels, the El Mayo letter is a matter that has become complicated for the Mexican authorities because it uses practically the same arguments that Sheinbaum employed to respond to Trump’s attacks and threats. It has also been a determining factor that at the center of the issue is one of the most infamous drug traffickers in the world and a priority target for Washington for decades, and that the entire case against the kingpin has been marked from the beginning by media scandals, violence in Sinaloa, and diplomatic tensions.

In the latest attempt to politicize the case, there has been an effort to link one of Delgado González’s partners, Juan Pablo Penilla, with Morena, the ruling party in Mexico. “I don’t know him, there is a photograph there, but I don’t even know where he is from,” said Sheinbaum, after an image of Penilla with her circulated, apparently at a campaign event. The ruling bloc has responded that the lawyer has, instead, ties to the opposition National Action Party (PAN).

In this context, the president is trying to see if she can find a balance that does not compromise the bridges she is trying to build with the Trump administration and that, at the same time, allows her to set limits on the new chapter that the Republican wants to write in the war against drug trafficking. After weeks of stagnation, the case against Zambada has once again had an impact on the Mexican public as the latest entanglement that Mexico faces in its complex relationship with the United States. The next hearing in the El Mayo case in the Brooklyn federal court, where El Chapo Guzmán was sentenced to life imprisonment in 2019, is scheduled for April 22.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition