Stubborn or Circumspect? A Perspective on President Sheinbuam’s Refusal of U.S Military Intervention in México

In response to the potential of U.S military forces operating in México, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum remains firm in her response: “it won’t happen.” Despite domestic and international critics, President Sheinbaum stands her ground, emphasizing that México will not accept intervention from any foreign party, including the U.S. To that end, on November 4, 2025 Sheinbaum stated: “The people of México will not, under any circumstances, accept intervention, interference, or any other act from abroad.”

To understand President Sheinbaum’s stance, it is critical to understand why México places such an importance on sovereignty and self-determination.

The beginning of México’s independence from Spain was marked by multiple attempts at revolution, orchestrated largely by creoles, México-born Spanish. However, it was not until Napoleon’s occupation of Spain in the 1810s when Miguel Hildago y Costa issued the Grito de Dolores, rallying indigenous Mexicans, mestizos, and creoles to revolt against Spain. The inclusion of all Mexicans – not just a handful of ethnic groups – was the turning point for México’s independence.

Even after Hildago y Costa was killed by insurgent forces, other nationalist leaders took his place. These leaders continued the quest for a unified México, while relying on forces comprised of indigenous Mexicans, mestizos, creoles, and laborers. The push for unified Mexican independence continued until the Treaty of Córdoba was signed in 1821. The treaty ended three centuries of Spanish domination in México. However, the Treaty of Córdoba was not the beginning of an independent Mexican state because México remained under a crown. Agustín de Iturbide, or Augustin I, ruled as emperor of México from 1822 until he abdicated in 1823. He was later executed by the state when he returned to México in July 1824. Several months later, the Constitution of the United Mexican States was signed to “establish and fix [México’s] political Independence, establish and confirm its Liberty, and promote its prosperity and glory.”

Contemporary Independence Day traditions are a window into understanding how México’s memory of its colonial period remains vivid. México celebrates Independence Day over two days beginning on September 15 and continuing through September 16, which is the anniversary of Hildago y Costa’s delivery of the Grito de Dolores. Independence Day traditions include the sitting leader reciting Grito de Dolores and ringing the same bell rung during Hildago y Costa’s Grito. These traditions withstood México’s dictatorial periods and the transition to democracy. As an example, President Sheinbaum’s reading of the Grito in 2025 included the lines, translated from Spanish, “Long live the dignity of the People of México! Long live freedom! Long live equality! Long live free, independent, and sovereign México!” From this quote, it is apparent the Grito de Dolores remains as much a rallying cry today as it was when first spoken by Hildalgo y Costa.

As a state with an enduring memory of its colonial past, México is not alone in the importance it places on sovereignty. Around 80% of the world was under colonial rule until the beginning of the dissolution of the European empires in 1914. Many formerly colonized states and peoples continue to face issues pertaining to colonialism. Within the context of contemporary examples such as Palestinians in the Gaza Strip, the Uyghurs in Xinjiang, and Black Africans in South Africa, it is not irrational for President Sheinbaum, on behalf of México, to declare: “We coordinate, we collaborate, [but] we are not subordinate”.

Sovereignty is a cornerstone of México’s foreign policy. The Estrada Doctrine demonstrates México’s respect of other states’ sovereignty through a policy of non-interference and self-determination. Through the Estrada Doctrine, México does not recognize nor denounce the establishment of de facto governments because doing so would invalidate the state’s sovereignty. Under the Doctrine, any action by México towards another state is a violation of the state’s right to self-determination. Historically, México maintains a policy of non-intervention that has drawn criticism, especially for its initial position on Cuba and the Venezuelan presidential crisis. Since 2000, there were multiple attempts by México’s Ministers of Foreign Affairs to replace the Estrada Doctrine, resulting in the short-lived Castañeda Doctrine, until the Estrada Doctrine returned with López Obrador’s election in 2018.

From this perspective of México’s sovereignty, it is not a stretch to understand why President Sheinbaum would staunchly disallow any external intervention in México, or rather why she would view any foreign military action as a breach of national sovereignty.

Currently, President Sheinbaum is not only contending with external pressure from the U.S via tariffs and U.S military intervention, she is actively working for peace within a historically militarized state. As shown in President Sheinbaum’s Plan México, multiple goals address root causes of poverty and criminality by standardizing education, increasing social supports, and providing training to develop skilled workers. Additionally, Sheinbaum announced the Plan Michoacán por la Paz y la Justica in response to the events of the weekend of November 2. The three-part plan aims to address gaps in civilian law enforcement, economic development, and promotion of education and peace dialogues.

As shown through México’s history and foreign policy, sovereignty is a cornerstone of México’s identity. The strength of México’s belief in the right to self-determination is echoed now by President Claudia Sheinbaum’s refusal of external military intervention that would undermine the foundation of México’s statehood. On the path to peace, it is not stubborn to refuse violent intervention, it is circumspect.

The post Stubborn or Circumspect? A Perspective on President Sheinbuam’s Refusal of U.S Military Intervention in México appeared first on Small Wars Journal by Arizona State University.