Sheinbaum Plans US Envoy Talks, Says Crossings Fell 98%

The proposed meeting is separate from Thursday’s discussion at Mexico’s National Palace. Sheinbaum said that earlier meeting focused on trade and business concerns, not border security or the Querétaro police academy dispute. The follow-up is meant to address specific security and other issues with Johnson and Mexico’s foreign secretary, Roberto Velasco.

Sheinbaum said the new meeting would include the ambassador and Velasco. She described it as a “particular meeting” after a reporter pressed her about border security, an alleged drone attack, and the academy. She also said she had discussed security results in front of business executives and Johnson, but not those disputed topics.

The meeting matters because security cooperation affects Mexico-US relations, including migration, fentanyl enforcement, tariffs, and concerns about US military activity. For now, there is no announced date, venue, or detailed agenda. Existing border rules and tariffs remain unchanged.

“Irregular border crossings” means people crossing a national border without using the lawful entry process. The phrase can include unauthorized entry or attempts to enter outside approved procedures. A lawful entry happens through an authorized port or another legal route, with the required permission or documentation. The distinction is about how a person enters, not simply whether the person is traveling.

In this article, Sheinbaum uses the term for people crossing toward the United States outside regular legal channels. She claimed those crossings had dropped 98%, partly because Mexico persuaded migrants not to travel to the northern border. The article does not give a starting date, end date, or source for that calculation.

That missing context matters. Without a defined period, baseline, and measurement method, readers cannot independently assess the size of the claimed decline. The article reports the figure but says it has not been independently confirmed. Lawful entry rules themselves did not change Friday.

The two headline figures were a 98% decline in irregular border crossings and a 75% decline in fentanyl seizures in the United States. Sheinbaum attributed the first result to joint work, including Mexico’s efforts to persuade migrants not to travel north. She attributed the second to operations conducted on the Mexican side.

The article provides no measurement period for either figure. It also gives no data source, baseline number, or calculation method. That makes it impossible to tell whether the percentages compare recent months, a year, or another timeframe. It also leaves unclear whether “fentanyl seizures” refers to a specific agency or all US seizures.

The figures therefore describe claims, not independently verified findings. The article explicitly says neither number has been independently confirmed. The missing details matter because a percentage decline can look very different depending on the starting point and time period. No policy changed because of the statements.

Migration and fentanyl enforcement are not only law-enforcement issues in this relationship. The article says Washington links security cooperation with trade relief and with keeping US troops on the US side of the border. That makes cooperation a condition shaping broader diplomatic choices, including tariff discussions and military deployments.

For example, Sheinbaum said Mexico’s work helped reduce irregular crossings and fentanyl seizures. She also said Mexico detains people wanted by the FBI and sends them to the United States. At the same time, she insists cooperation must respect sovereignty. These results can become evidence in negotiations over security, tariffs, and the location of US forces.

The investment link comes from uncertainty about the relationship. Security disputes can affect the mood of American investors in Mexico, while cooperation may support a more stable investment climate. Still, Friday produced no policy change. Tariffs remained in force, talks continued, and the planned security meeting had no announced date.

Sheinbaum’s phrase sets a boundary for cooperation. Mexico can coordinate with US authorities, share information, and conduct parallel work, but it should not become subordinate to Washington. Her position places territorial integrity, sovereignty, mutual trust, and coordination without subordination at the center of security policy.

She gave a practical example by describing “mirror operations” on both sides of the border. She also said Mexico detains people wanted by the FBI and sends them north. But she contrasted that cooperation with her criticism of the Calderón government, which she said allowed US agencies to operate freely in Mexico. Joint action is acceptable; unilateral foreign activity is not.

Sovereignty is central because the dispute concerns who controls operations inside Mexico. Sheinbaum said her defense of sovereignty was not rhetoric. The article does not report any agreement permitting independent US operations. The planned meeting with Johnson and Velasco may address security issues, but its date and agenda remain unknown.

The two countries cooperate because drug trafficking and border security affect both sides. Sheinbaum said Mexico conducts operations, detains people wanted by the FBI, and sends them to the United States. She also said joint work helped reduce irregular crossings and that “mirror operations” now occur on both sides of the border.

The disagreement is about authority, not necessarily the goal of stopping trafficking. Sheinbaum’s four principles include territorial integrity, respect for sovereignty, mutual trust, and coordination without subordination. She supports cooperation between governments, but rejects a model in which US agencies operate freely or independently inside Mexico. She linked that concern to the Calderón period.

This difference makes security talks politically sensitive. The article says a police academy dispute and border questions were not raised during Thursday’s trade meeting. A separate meeting with Johnson and Velasco is planned for specific issues. Until then, the article reports no new agreement on US officials’ operating authority.

Section 232 is a US law that allows the United States to impose import tariffs when it invokes national-security grounds. A tariff is a duty charged on imported goods. In this case, the article says Section 232 duties remain on Mexican cars and steel. The law provides the stated legal basis for those charges.

The mechanism is direct: US authorities classify certain imports as connected to national-security concerns, then apply duties to them. Those charges can make affected goods more expensive in the US market and become part of negotiations with Mexico. The article does not describe the legal process or explain how the specific rates were calculated.

Sheinbaum said Mexico wants the United States to remove the remaining car and steel tariffs. Friday changed nothing on paper, so the duties stayed in force and trade talks continued. The security relationship matters because Washington links cooperation to trade relief, while Mexico continues defending its sovereignty.