The proposal to modify the Telecommunications and Broadcasting Law, published at the end of April, has not been well received by the national telecommunications market. However, most analyses have focused on pointing out the problems that arise from this document as if they were isolated events.
It is important to remember that the main elements of the telecommunications reform continue a government strategy that began during President Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s term with the 2024 judicial reform. It continued in 2025 with reforms to the legal frameworks governing the energy and technology sectors.
The main feature of these reforms is the creation of a presidency with almost absolute powers. From the National Palace, not only will the Judiciary be controlled, but decisions will also be made on matters of competition, concession assignments, and fines, among others.
What matters most to the government is the elimination of the autonomous powers of the various branches of the State. What was once seen as a positive element to increase transparency and neutrality in decision-making is now being dismantled in favor of institutions that are mere appendages of the Executive Branch. For this same reason, their performance will be discretionary, as they will hardly issue rulings or promote regulations that directly contradict the wishes of the Presidency.
It is insufficient to justify the proposed text based on President Claudia Sheinbaum’s intentions. For example, Article 109 states the government’s power to block a digital platform. This is not new; in Brazil, we have seen how the National Telecommunications Agency (ANATEL) has, over the years, temporarily suspended the operations of entities such as WhatsApp and X (formerly Twitter).
Text of Article 109:
“The competent authorities may request the collaboration of the Agency (for Digital Transformation and Telecommunications) to temporarily block a digital platform in cases warranted due to non-compliance with the provisions or obligations established in the applicable regulations.
The Agency shall issue the Guidelines that regulate the procedure for blocking a digital platform.” (Author’s translation)
The difference between ANATEL’s actions and what could potentially happen in Mexico is that the Brazilian regulator is an autonomous entity; it makes decisions independently of the country’s executive branch. Meanwhile, in Mexico, such actions could result in outright censorship. Voices are indeed defending the wording of Article 109, claiming that the spirit of the law centers on imposing sanctions related to e-commerce violations.
This argument is naïve or ignorant. Let’s say that President Sheinbaum’s current administration only enforces this article in cases involving e-commerce. Who guarantees to the Mexican people that whoever is elected in 2030, 2036, or 2042 will interpret the law the same way?
Understanding the potential danger is as simple as observing the stark differences between President Trump and his immediate predecessors, Presidents Obama and Biden, or looking to Brazil to see the gulf between President Lula and his predecessor, Bolsonaro. In both countries, the judicial and informational control proposed in Mexico could easily have contributed to the success of the attacks on the U.S. Capitol or Brazil’s National Palace of Justice.
There is no doubt that the centralization of power occurring in Mexico, by weakening the Judiciary and the Legislature, is taking the country back to the days of PRI one-party rule, when the only question was who the outgoing president would appoint as his successor.
Creating a presidency with near-monarchical powers allows it to influence the decisions of judges, media concessionaires, telecom operators, digital platforms, energy providers, fuel distributors, and the issuance/revocation of permits for handling hydrocarbons.
In other words, the Presidency has the power to define how, where, and when a development strategy is implemented in the country. Entities such as the Ministry of Energy (SENER), CFE, PEMEX, and the Agency for Digital Transformation and Telecommunications (ATDT) are tools the Presidency will use to exert political control. Not to mention that it already controls the main security forces in the country, which can be used to ensure the implementation and enforcement of orders issued to the agencies subordinate to the federal Executive.
This concentration of power is unhealthy. Soon or later, the system will show signs of decay as citizens’ rights to impartial justice, freedom of expression, and protection from abuse of power are eroded. Let’s not forget that the creation of autonomous entities was meant to prevent abuses of power by the administration in office.
It is very difficult to view the proposed telecommunications and broadcasting law as a step in the right direction for the future of this sector in Mexico, especially when it contains so many articles that could be interpreted as encouraging censorship of government critics. In addition to platform suspensions, it includes fines of up to 5% of revenues for those who transmit foreign propaganda — a concept far too subjective and prone to outrageous interpretations depending on who is speaking and who is offended. Would quotations from foreign governments or interviews with foreign officials be considered propaganda? Will this promote self-censorship in the media? Why revive the failed idea of user lists? Is the goal to protect users — or to surveil them?
Additionally, the Executive’s control over all matters related to the radio spectrum inevitably creates concern among industry players. How much spectrum management expertise exists within the Presidency? Who might receive direct concessions? How will the national connectivity policy be determined? Will priority go to states with allied governments, or will a national timeline be created with work phases covering the entire country?
The proposal continues with a shallow treatment of issues like net neutrality, which could be compromised by compliance with various articles, or considering an all-IP environment in which applications, artificial intelligence, cybersecurity, and virtual reality dominate any serious conversation about technology. These weaknesses reveal a poorly written bill, with goals that counter user benefits. These goals, combined with the energy and judicial reforms, amount to a double-edged sword that can do good or harm depending on who holds the presidency.
A real shame. Mexico deserves better.
