I want the other Trump back—the one who understood dialogue
Desde el retiro, Andrés Manuel López Obrador ha vuelto a tomar la palabra para trazar una distinción que considera fundamental: el Trump con quien gobernó era un interlocutor pragmático; el Trump que gobierna hoy es, a su juicio, un instrumento de asesores resentidos que confunden la presión con la política. Al defender a Claudia Sheinbaum frente a lo que describe como interferencia electoral estadounidense, el expresidente no solo habla del presente, sino que invoca una forma de diplomacia que, según él, ya existió y podría volver a existir. En el fondo, su mensaje es una advertencia sobre lo que se pierde cuando la ideología desplaza al pragmatismo en las relaciones entre naciones vecinas.
- López Obrador rompe su relativo silencio con su quinta declaración pública desde que dejó el poder, y esta vez apunta directamente a Washington.
- Acusa a funcionarios estadounidenses de ejercer presión sobre el gobierno de Sheinbaum no por razones de seguridad genuinas, sino para debilitarla políticamente de cara a procesos electorales.
- La designación de carteles mexicanos como organizaciones terroristas —una medida que AMLO dice haberle advertido a Trump que sería un error grave— representa para él la ruptura más clara con el espíritu de cooperación que caracterizó el primer mandato.
- El expresidente sugiere que Trump no actúa solo: lo rodean asesores que describe como inexpertos e ideológicamente rígidos, alejándolo del realismo que antes guió su relación bilateral.
- La tensión entre México y Estados Unidos se profundiza, y el relato de AMLO busca fijar la responsabilidad: no en la continuidad de la política mexicana, sino en el giro unilateral de la administración Trump.
Andrés Manuel López Obrador reapareció esta semana con un documento que es, a la vez, defensa, diagnóstico y advertencia. Su objetivo declarado es respaldar a Claudia Sheinbaum frente a lo que describe como una campaña de presión estadounidense motivada por intereses electorales, no por preocupaciones legítimas de seguridad o migración.
Para construir su argumento, AMLO traza una comparación entre dos versiones del mismo presidente. Durante el primer mandato de Trump, recuerda, la relación fue de diálogo y respeto mutuo: disputas arancelarias resueltas sin escalar, ofertas de apoyo militar declinadas sin fricciones, y el caso del general Cienfuegos manejado con discreción diplomática cuando México demostró que su arresto respondía a presiones políticas. Trump, según AMLO, escuchó incluso cuando no estuvo de acuerdo.
El contraste con el segundo mandato es, a su juicio, total. Las deportaciones masivas, la designación de carteles como organizaciones terroristas —una medida que AMLO dice haber advertido que sería un error— y lo que caracteriza como obstáculos artificiales al comercio bilateral configuran una política radicalmente distinta. Y la explicación que ofrece no exculpa del todo a Trump, pero sí lo matiza: sin la presión de buscar la reelección, y rodeado de asesores que describe como inexpertos y resentidos, el presidente estadounidense habría perdido el ancla pragmática que antes moderaba su impulso.
Debajo de la defensa a Sheinbaum y de la acusación de interferencia electoral late una pregunta más profunda: ¿puede recuperarse una relación bilateral cuando uno de los interlocutores ha cambiado de naturaleza? López Obrador no responde directamente, pero su tono sugiere que aún lo considera posible. Su mensaje parece dirigido tanto a la opinión pública mexicana como, quizás, al propio Trump.
Andrés Manuel López Obrador stepped back into public view this week with a pointed message: he wants the other Trump back. In a document released Wednesday, the former Mexican president contrasted his own dealings with Donald Trump during the first administration—which he described as constructive and respectful—with what he sees now: hostility, mass deportations, and what he views as political interference aimed at weakening his successor, Claudia Sheinbaum.
López Obrador's reappearance marks his fifth public statement since leaving office, and this one carries real weight. He is defending Sheinbaum against what he characterizes as pressure from Washington designed to destabilize her government for electoral reasons. "It is clear that these attacks are not motivated by genuine interest," he wrote, framing the pressure as political theater rather than policy concern. The implication is sharp: the United States is meddling.
During his own presidency, López Obrador recalls a different Trump—one willing to listen, to negotiate, to understand Mexico's position. Trump offered military support twice to help combat organized crime, López Obrador notes, and when the former president disagreed with the offer, he accepted the refusal without rancor. They resolved disputes through reasoned dialogue. There was one moment of tension over tariffs, but both sides stepped back from the brink. The relationship, by López Obrador's account, was built on respect and pragmatism.
The contrast he draws is stark. Trump, he notes, refrained from attacking Mexicans or the border wall during his first term. The two countries signed the USMCA without the kind of manufactured obstacles—sanitization requirements, environmental pretexts—that López Obrador suggests are being deployed now. He points to the case of General Salvador Cienfuegos, the former defense secretary, whose arrest on drug trafficking charges López Obrador considered a political setup. Trump allowed Mexico to review the evidence, and when the investigation revealed what López Obrador calls a political reprisal designed to force the Mexican military into alignment with Washington's interests, the matter was resolved.
Most tellingly, López Obrador says he warned Trump that designating drug traffickers as terrorists would be a grave mistake. Trump listened. He did not sign such an order. But in his second term, Trump has done exactly that—labeling the Sinaloa Cartel, the Jalisco New Generation Cartel, and other criminal organizations as terrorist entities. The reversal is complete.
What changed? López Obrador offers theories. Perhaps Trump no longer feels the need to moderate himself, freed from the pressure of seeking reelection. Perhaps the times are simply different. But his sharpest observation is about influence: Trump, he suggests, is now surrounded by advisors he describes as inexperienced, resentful, and ideologically rigid—men who are not statesmen. They are steering him in directions he might not otherwise go. López Obrador even notes that during a public event at the White House, Trump once acknowledged that migrants contribute to American economic development, a position entirely at odds with the mass deportations now underway.
The message is layered. On the surface, López Obrador is defending Sheinbaum and accusing the United States of electoral interference. Beneath that, he is suggesting that Trump himself may be a captive of his own administration, pulled away from the pragmatism that once defined their relationship. And underneath even that is a warning: the relationship between Mexico and the United States is deteriorating, and the fault lies not with Mexico's leadership but with a Trump administration that has abandoned the reasoned approach of the past.
Citas Notables
For the good of all, let the other Trump return— Andrés Manuel López Obrador, in written statement
These attacks are not motivated by genuine interest; they are political and electoral in nature— López Obrador, defending Sheinbaum against US pressure
La Conversación del Hearth Otra perspectiva de la historia
Why does López Obrador feel the need to defend Sheinbaum publicly now, rather than staying retired?
Because he sees what he built being dismantled. He's not just defending her—he's defending his own legacy of managing the Trump relationship. If that relationship collapses, it reflects on him too.
But he's blaming Trump's advisors, not Trump himself. Isn't that letting Trump off the hook?
Not entirely. He's suggesting Trump has lost agency, which is almost worse—it means there's no one to negotiate with, no one making decisions from principle. It's chaos dressed as policy.
The terrorist designations are the clearest break. Why does that matter so much to him?
Because it touches everything. Designate cartels as terrorists, and suddenly you can justify military intervention, asset seizures, extraditions. It changes the entire legal framework. López Obrador saw it as a trap.
Do you think he's right that this is about electoral politics?
He's right that it's convenient timing. Pressure on Sheinbaum's government, instability at the border, migration chaos—all of it weakens her politically. Whether it's intentional strategy or just the natural result of Trump's approach, the effect is the same.
What does Sheinbaum do with this statement?
She uses it. She's new, she needs credibility, and having the previous president publicly backing her against foreign pressure gives her room to maneuver. But she also has to chart her own course, or she becomes just an extension of López Obrador's presidency.