In Chile, Boric and Kast’s relationship collapses just one week before the handover of power

Tensions between Chile’s outgoing left‑wing president, Gabriel Boric, and the incoming far‑right president, José Antonio Kast, escalated sharply just days before the transfer of power. Although their political positions are polar opposites, both had maintained a formal and respectful dialogue since Kast won the December election with 58% of the vote.

That changed during a bilateral meeting at La Moneda Palace, where conflicting accounts emerged regarding a Chinese submarine cable project. Boric claims he warned Kast before the United States sanctioned three officials on February 20, while Kast insists he was never informed — only told after the problem had already arisen. The dispute led Kast to break off the transition process, which is unprecedented in Chile’s recent history. Even during the transition from dictatorship to democracy in 1989–1990, political dialogue was never severed.

“We ended the transition process because we don’t trust the information being given to us. We require a more thorough audit and more information,” Kast said on Tuesday.

The president-elect suspended all scheduled meetings between current ministers and their incoming counterparts after a brief 22‑minute meeting with President Boric at La Moneda. Kast also announced the creation of an administrative task force, led by his future interior minister, Claudio Alvarado, to gather all available data not only from ministries but also from oversight bodies such as the Transparency Council and the Comptroller’s Office. The goal is to obtain as much information as possible and compare it with what they receive once they take office.

The concerns extend beyond the Chinese submarine cable project to sensitive issues such as public finances and civil‑service appointments that, according to Kast, the current government is securing to prevent dismissals. In effect, Kast has launched an investigation into the outgoing administration.

President Boric accused Kast of using a deliberate “strategy” to create tension in the transfer of power, while stressing that his government remained “fully available, for the good of Chile, to hold all the meetings that are necessary.” After the incident, Boric immediately addressed the press to present his version of events, emphasizing that it was Kast who chose to end their meeting and leave La Moneda with his closest advisers.

Political scientist Ernesto Ottone, a key adviser during the government of Ricardo Lagos, argues: “What happened reveals a lack of judgment on both sides and casts a shadow over the transfer of power.” He adds: “There can always be friction, but not a factual confrontation that confuses the public in a risky and dangerous world where Chile needs democratic resilience, serenity, prudence, and autonomy.”

Conflicting versions of events

The dispute between China and the United States over technological influence forms the backdrop to the latest tensions in Chile. On February 20, the U.S. administration announced visa restrictions against three Chilean government officials, including Boric’s minister of transport and telecommunications, Juan Carlos Muñoz.

“The United States is committed to countering attempts to undermine regional security and subvert sovereignty,” the U.S. State Department said in a press release, explaining the sanctions against the officials who, according to Washington, “knowingly directed, authorized, funded, provided significant support to, and/or carried out activities that compromised critical telecommunications infrastructure and undermined regional security in our hemisphere.”

Since the U.S. sanctions were announced, the Boric administration has provided only partial explanations of what happened and has been forced to clarify details as the press uncovered information about the project, which had not been publicly disclosed. The controversy fueled 10 days of political tension surrounding the Chile–China Express, a proposed submarine fiber‑optic cable promoted by China Mobile International (CMI). The project aims to transmit data underwater between continents, spanning nearly 13,000 miles from Concón, in Chile’s Valparaíso region, to Hong Kong.

Chile’s transport minister had signed the decree to launch the concession on January 27 — something the government did not initially reveal — but the process was later halted before reaching the Comptroller’s Office, for reasons that remain unclear.

The trigger for the breakdown between Boric and Kast was an interview Boric gave to the television channel Mega. In it, he claimed that “a few weeks before” the United States announced sanctions, he had informed Kast in a phone call about what was happening with the Chinese cable project. Kast arrived at La Moneda on Tuesday demanding that Boric publicly retract the statement — framed by the right as a request for clarification. When Boric refused, the president‑elect ended the meeting and cancelled all subsequent transition sessions.

Kast later acknowledged that the phone call had indeed taken place — on February 18, just two days before the news broke, not “weeks before” as Boric had said — but insisted that the issue had been mentioned only superficially.

Official information has been released only in dribs and drabs. After the failed meeting between Boric and Kast, Minister Muñoz appeared before the Senate Foreign Relations Committee on Tuesday to present his account of the sequence of events and revealed details that had not been previously disclosed. He stated that three U.S. officials had warned the Chilean government about national and regional security risks associated with the submarine cable project. He also said that the decree authorizing the concession was halted after the U.S. Embassy in Chile informed them of seven alleged China‑origin cyberattacks that had affected telecommunications and construction companies.

For political journalist Ascanio Cavallo, “the president-elect will have to weigh whether the temptation to prosecute the outgoing government contradicts the purpose of initiating an ‘emergency government,’ as he so successfully defined it during the election campaign.”

According to Ottone, “The worst outcome would be a harsh government approach fueled by paranoid fears and an intransigent, fanatical opposition.” But he adds: “There have also been gestures and statements in another direction that could foreshadow a more democratic dialogue in line with the country’s needs. Let’s hope the latter prevails.”

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