By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Claudia Sheinbaum’s administration has reported a significant decrease in Mexico’s murder rate since taking office in October 2024, with the daily homicide average in December 2025 falling to its lowest point since 2016. According to the National Public Security System, the national murder rate per 100,000 people for 2025 was the lowest since 2015. Despite these figures, the government faces criticism, particularly from opposition parties, who point to a high number of political assassinations and a rise in forced disappearances as evidence that the security strategy is insufficient. Security analysts note that lethal violence remains concentrated in certain states, highlighting ongoing challenges for the administration.
Read the original article here
Mexico’s daily murder rate has fallen nearly 40% under Sheinbaum, as the president proudly announced, citing preliminary statistics that showcase a significant drop in homicides.
It’s interesting how this information is being presented. Apparently, the daily homicide average in December 2025 was 52.4, a noticeable decrease from the 86.9 reported in September 2024, the month before Sheinbaum assumed office. This represents the lowest number recorded since 2016, a fact that the president herself highlighted in a morning press conference, flanked by security officials.
However, a nagging question immediately surfaces: What specific policies were implemented to achieve these figures? The details seem a bit sparse in that regard. It appears the focus is primarily on the numbers themselves, rather than a deep dive into the underlying strategies and actions that led to this reduction.
The silence on the specifics raises some eyebrows, and frankly, I can understand why. One of the common concerns raised is about disappearances. While the homicide rates may be down, reports suggest that disappearances are, unfortunately, on the rise. This fuels speculation about potential manipulation of the numbers – that some homicides might be reclassified as disappearances to skew the statistics in a more favorable light. This is a crucial point, and it’s a valid concern.
This leads to the question of trust, and the various perspectives on the matter. Some are outright skeptical, accusing the government of essentially hiding the true extent of the violence. There are suspicions about connections between politicians and cartels, and the possibility that certain groups have been given a degree of leeway to keep things “quiet” for political convenience. This perspective suggests that the drop in homicides might be less about successful policy and more about strategic agreements and perhaps, even a tacit understanding with organized crime groups.
Conversely, there’s also a more optimistic viewpoint, or at least a willingness to give the benefit of the doubt. Some express a genuine hope that the numbers are indeed trending downward, and that this could be a sign of positive change. They may even suggest that these numbers reflect a real shift, regardless of the precise causes.
Then, there’s the cynical angle, suggesting that if anything, the situation might be worse, with violence simply going underground. It’s theorized that the government might be subtly changing how they report data, perhaps reclassifying homicides as disappearances, or simply failing to document incidents. This would, of course, create a distorted picture, where the statistics don’t reflect the true extent of the problem.
Adding to the complexity is the historical context. Mexico has long struggled with powerful cartels and high levels of violence. Any assessment of the current situation needs to take this legacy into account. Moreover, this isn’t just a Mexican problem, as the cartels have spread to other countries, and the United States.
Another point that’s often overlooked, but also significant, is the potential for external factors to be at play. Some suggest that a shift in relations with the United States or a change in the overall landscape of the drug trade could be influencing these numbers. It is possible that the government is seeking some level of cooperation or understanding with some elements of organized crime. If this is the case, it would create an unstable foundation for any long-term improvement in security.
A key point is the apparent lack of transparency in the explanations for the lowered murder rate. The lack of detailed information regarding the government’s approach fuels a sense of distrust. Without specifics on policies, it’s difficult to independently verify the claim and assess whether this trend is a genuine reflection of improved security.
Then there is the issue of reliable sources, and their potential biases. It is worth noting that the source of the claim is the government itself, and in particular, the president. This is not inherently negative, but it does mean that any information needs to be examined critically. The potential for the government to present a more favorable picture is a real concern, and this creates a need to seek out independent verification.
The fact that the numbers are “preliminary” also lends an air of caution. Provisional data is, by its nature, subject to change. While these initial figures might appear promising, they might not accurately reflect the eventual outcome. The term “daily murder rate” is something I’ve never heard before.
The situation is nuanced. While the reported decrease in homicides is encouraging, there’s a strong undercurrent of skepticism. The lack of detailed explanations, the rising number of disappearances, and the existing concerns about the government’s relationship with cartels all create a situation where a healthy dose of doubt is warranted. The people of Mexico deserve accurate reporting and honest actions to remedy the situation.