Espionage or protection? The clash over Mexico's new telecommunications law

The approval of the new Telecommunications Law has sparked a fierce political battle. While the opposition denounces the law as opening the door to mass surveillance, with direct accusations from analysts like Raymundo Riva Palacio, the government maintains that these powers preexist.

Beyond the social benefits it promises, the new General Telecommunications and Broadcasting Law was born amidst a deep political controversy that touches one of the most sensitive areas of any democracy: the fear of state surveillance. The law's approval has sparked a head-on clash between the government and opposition forces, who have launched a serious accusation: that the law is a Trojan horse for citizen spying.

The core of the conflict lies in the interpretation of certain articles that, according to opposition legislators, grant the federal government excessive powers to monitor citizens' communications without adequate checks and balances. This concern has been amplified by critical voices outside Congress. Journalist Raymundo Riva Palacio, for example, has been forceful, directly accusing President Claudia Sheinbaum of lying about the scope of the law and bluntly stating: "She is a spy."

"Yes, she is a spy": Riva Palacio accuses Sheinbaum of lying under the Telecommunications Law.

This phrase encapsulates the opposition's narrative: that the government, under the guise of modernizing the legal framework and protecting sovereignty, is in fact building a surveillance architecture that threatens civil liberties.

In the face of these accusations, the official position has been firm. Both President Sheinbaum and José Merino, head of the Digital Transformation Agency, have argued that the articles in question are not an innovation of this administration. They maintain that these powers were already included in the 2014 law and, therefore, no new spying mechanisms are being created.

The government's defense focuses on an argument of legal continuity, seeking to defuse alarms by asserting that the status quo regarding security and surveillance has not been altered. However, this technical argument clashes with a public perception shaped by a long-standing distrust of power.

Underlying this technical-legal debate is a battle for power and narrative. The original news source itself identifies "media power" as a key factor. The new law, with its provisions on foreign propaganda and the strengthening of community media, is seen by some as an attempt by the government to rebalance the balance of power vis-à-vis large media conglomerates, which have traditionally wielded enormous influence over public opinion.

The debate over espionage, therefore, cannot be separated from this broader struggle. For the opposition, it is evidence of the government's authoritarian tendencies. For the government, it could be a reaction by the establishment to a law that threatens its interests.

Trust, or the lack of it, is the real battleground. The question that remains for citizens is not so much about the exact wording of a particular article, but rather a much more fundamental question: can the current government be trusted not to abuse the powers granted to it by law? The answer to that question will define the legacy of this controversial reform.