If these hate crimes end up reducing Trump’s ability to use racism and attacks against Mexico in campaigns; if the people and congress are mobilized to demand gun control, if the deaths lead to a greater repudiation of Donald Trump, Steven Miller and his agenda, and if the López Obrador government finally becomes convinced that Mexico does not have to be a friend to a government that foments attacks on its interests and its people, the victims will not have died in vain.

Mexico’s president Andrés Manuel López Obrador recently made two announcements that could finally close the bloodiest chapter in the history of the United States’ global war on drugs. He called for ending the Merida Initiative—the 3 billion-dollar US counternarcotics aid package that has fueled Mexico’s drug war—and announced a pivot from prohibition.

There’s nothing “uncontrollable” about people applying for asylum. All the U.S. has to do is meet its obligations under international law.

Trump’s tariffs-for-crackdown tradeoff punishes Americans and Mexicans and doesn’t fix the border. It’s hard to imagine a more misdirected plan.

I have trouble responding to the Trump Wall Hoax. First because it’s almost incomprehensible that we’re even talking about a “border crisis” that has no relationship to reality (there is no “surge” or “invasion”, no increase in crime, no correlation between violence and migrants, no terrorists over the southern border, no threat to national security). Fact-checking these speeches has become a macabre shadow dance, actions that respond to illusions until the real and the projected become indistinguishable to viewers.

More than twenty-five years since the femicides of Juarez came to light, today throughout Mexico women are disappeared and murdered on a daily basis. The government reports that there are currently more than 9,000 disappeared women on the national registry of missing persons and that figure is probably much higher due to underreporting.

In spite of having overcome the barrier of silence, the coverage of gender violence repeats many vices of the past. With the exception of feminist media, reporters, directors, and editors continue to gravitate towards the more morbid, leaving out the context of the crime- gender violence and the pardon in which it is expressed.What are the ethical obligations of journalism that covers gender violence and how is it held responsible?