The period was marked by persistent violence against journalists, as well as threats, assaults, legal proceedings, and regulatory measures that affected the conditions for exercising freedom of expression. Disappearances, death threats, physical assaults, and pressure to remove or limit information were also reported.
Among the most serious cases were those of Josué Martínez Contreras, director of Noticias San Martín Texmelucan, who was killed in July in Puebla; Francisco Alejandro Leyva Aguilar, former director of the Corporación Oaxaqueña de Radio y Televisión and a columnist critical of government authorities, who was also killed in Oaxaca; and Ricardo Zúñiga Rosas, a photographer and content creator who was killed in August in Puebla. In some of these cases, there have been prior threats or publications related to sensitive issues. The IAPA, CPJ, and RSF called for thorough investigations and urged authorities not to rule out journalistic activity as a possible motive. Three other killings were also reported that, according to press reports available at the time of this report, showed no indications or evidence of links to the victims’ journalistic work.
The violence was not limited to killings. Threats against journalists and their relatives were also documented in Sinaloa and Tlaxcala, along with social media smear campaigns, assaults during news coverage, and pressure to remove journalistic material. One notable case involved two journalists who, according to the complaint documented, were forced by members of the Mexican Navy to delete images and videos while documenting an alleged oil spill in Tamaulipas. In Chiapas and Oaxaca, journalists enrolled in the Protection Mechanism reported that the existing measures did not eliminate the risks arising from their reporting. In September, threats against Puebla journalist Jaime López and the physical assault of photojournalist and documentary photographer Abril Ángel during a protest in Mexico City were also reported.
Another area of concern was the use of legal provisions and judicial proceedings with potentially chilling effects on journalistic activity. The most significant case occurred in San Luis Potosí, where the so-called “Serrano Law,” related to the use of artificial intelligence, led to legal proceedings against journalists. Freedom of expression organizations questioned broadly worded provisions and warned that they could potentially be used against critical voices. The IACHR expressed concern about proceedings arising from this legislation.
In the case of Vanguardia, a newspaper based in Coahuila, concerns persisted throughout the six-month period over the use of legal proceedings as a means of exerting pressure on independent media outlets. Following the arrest of its general director, Armando Castilla Galindo, in January 2026, and his subsequent release by court order after a judge determined that the alleged events underlying the charges against him could not have occurred, legal disputes threatening the newspaper’s assets and operations continued. On June 23, the Plenary of the Supreme Court of Justice of the Nation, by a vote of eight to one, overturned the rulings related to the litigation and ordered a new judicial review. This decision lent support to the newspaper’s longstanding challenges to the fairness of the rulings against it, demonstrating that its defense was not merely a matter of private interests, but involved legal disputes warranting the intervention of the country’s highest court. The commercial litigation, whose proceedings have been questioned over alleged procedural irregularities and which involves the seizure and potential transfer of ownership of the newspaper’s assets, remains a cause for concern because of its implications for press freedom. IAPA, Article 19, and WAN-IFRA have warned of the risks of using the judicial system to intimidate or financially weaken news organizations. The case highlights the risk that judicial harassment may become a form of indirect censorship, even in the absence of an explicit order to restrict news content.
The debate over the General Guidelines for the Protection of Audience Rights also added to these concerns. Journalistic organizations, academics, and other stakeholders expressed concern that some provisions could affect editorial freedom or encourage self-censorship, particularly if administrative authorities were able to intervene in journalistic content. President Claudia Sheinbaum rejected the characterization of the measure as censorship and defended the regulations as a means of guaranteeing audience rights. The guidelines were approved on August 26, although concerns remained regarding the distinction between information and opinion and the mechanisms for oversight.
Days later, the Electoral Tribunal of the Federal Judiciary ordered the National Electoral Institute to modify its media monitoring guidelines and struck down the so-called “variable 14,” which was intended to record and classify “indirect discursive mechanisms of disqualification,” including expressions of irony or sarcasm by communicators toward pre-candidates and candidates. The court found that its subjective application could affect the practice of journalism and create a chilling effect on media coverage.
Relations between the federal government and some media outlets were also marked by public confrontations and new forms of monitoring digital discourse. The conflict between the Presidency and TV Azteca led to mutual accusations of censorship. Subsequently, the Legal Counsel’s Office of the Presidency launched the “Right of Reply” platform and, in August, presented an analysis of an alleged “digital amplification network” that included lists of journalists, commentators, and analysts. Organizations such as Article 19 and the Alianza de Medios MX questioned the methodology and pointed to possible intimidating effects. The government maintained that the initiative was an analysis of social media dynamics and denied that it was intended to stigmatize journalists.
Against this backdrop, institutional efforts were undertaken to strengthen the protection of journalists and the investigation of crimes against them. The IAPA and CPJ held meetings with the Supreme Court, the Office of the Attorney General (FGR), and the Special Prosecutor’s Office for Crimes Against Freedom of Expression (FEADLE), emphasizing the need to improve judicial training, institutional coordination, and the response to crimes against journalists. However, national and international organizations continued to identify impunity as one of the main risk factors. RSF ranked Mexico 122nd out of 180 countries in its 2026 World Press Freedom Index and 160th in its security indicator.
