Making sense of the García Luna outcome

Genaro García Luna, when he was Mexico’s Federal Secretary of Public Safety, in 2009. Image: Dario Lopez-Mills, Associated Press.

Mexico’s former Security Secretary, Genaro García Luna, was sentenced to 38 years in prison this week in New York. He was convicted of taking millions in bribes from the Sinaloa Cartel while supposedly leading Mexico’s fight against organised crime. The case struck a nerve in the country.

Many Mexicans are celebrating the sentencing. Both President Sheinbaum and her predecessor have used García Luna as a symbol of corruption. They point to him, and former President Felipe Calderón, in office during García Luna's tenure, to distract from their own security failures. One journalist on X even called his sentencing a career highlight. For some, this moment feels like a turning point. Speculation is rife that García Luna’s downfall, combined with El Mayo’s upcoming trial, could mark the end of impunity for high-level Mexican officials.

Calderón has become a key figure of loathing for many. His aggressive crackdown on cartels sparked a wave of violence, much of which worsened after he left office. Many now see him as a near comic book villain. The idea that he was a mastermind orchestrating organised crime is seductive, but not persuasive.

Calderón made serious errors. His administration’s heavy-handed tactics resulted in extrajudicial killings and human rights abuses. These persisted after he left office. His short-term approach to fighting crime lacked the long-term planning needed to dismantle these groups. He also underestimated how deeply cartels had infiltrated the state. In the process, he ignored warnings he should have heeded. But violence was declining when he left office. Blaming Mexico’s entire security crisis on him ignores the bigger picture. It also lets criminal groups off the hook.

Calderón has more or less admitted he knew the rumours about García Luna. It doesn’t matter.  He stands by his approach. Despite his failings, he’s right to. Governments are meant to confront organised crime. They cannot cede the monopoly of violence they possess. Many will never be satisfied it’s that straightforward. That’s partly because these groups are opaque by design, even to insiders. It’s also because there are corrupt officials, many of them. Witnesses are tainted by association. Divining meaning through it all is akin to reading tea leaves. With so little concrete information, conspiratorial thinking fills the gaps.

It's that sort of thinking that has led some to question why the US chose to prosecute García Luna now. The simple answer is because they could. They had enough evidence to secure a conviction. There’s no grand plan to root out corrupt Mexican officials, or even placate a truculent partner in the form of AMLO. There's no political message. Those on this beat in the Justice Department don’t think they’ll stop drug trafficking any more than they think they'll stop shoplifting. It’s just basic law enforcement.

The US and Mexico need each other for security. Both sides hold frustrations over corruption, unmet requests, and more. Regardless, both countries see value in and rely on their partnership. Officials from both countries are as likely to praise their counterparts as they are to vent about them. García Luna’s conviction doesn’t prove Calderón ran a narco government. It doesn’t validate or undermine his so-called drug war. It’s a neutral event: spectacle over substance. Like Sheinbaum’s recently announced security plan, it makes headlines, but it doesn’t signal any real change.