Code red at the border. Intelligence or chaos

Public security in Mexico and the United States is not about walls or speeches—it is about actionable, shared intelligence. In 2025, both governments shifted course by announcing Mission Firewall, a cooperation package that expands eTrace and ballistic identification to Mexico’s 32 states, creates real-time information-sharing platforms, and strengthens joint investigations against arms trafficking feeding violence south of the Rio Grande. In scope and architecture, it is the most ambitious initiative of the Bicentennial Framework era, placing information exchange—not flashy operations—at the core of strategy.

The starting point is stark. Mexico closed 2024 with 33,241 homicides, a national rate of 25.6 per 100,000 inhabitants. It was a break from the decline observed since 2021 and a reminder that peace requires sustained institutional capacity. The figure, officially released by INEGI, offers statistical weight to the diagnosis. Even so, the first half of 2024 had posted the lowest semester total since 2017, with 15,243 homicides. Evidence suggests that local surges, electoral violence, and criminal disputes reversed the trend in the second half of the year. On the U.S. side, the most pressing indicator is fentanyl: CBP reported nearly 22,000 pounds seized in FY2024, an operational burden that can only be managed if information flows quickly between agencies and across borders.

The early months of 2025 show mixed signals. On the one hand, extraditions and transfers of high-profile suspects—29 in February alone and more thereafter—prove that, when cooperation is formalized, cases move forward and criminal leaders face federal courts backed by well-integrated binational evidence. On the other, security diplomacy continues to demand political sensitivity and clear coordination rules so no side feels its sovereignty compromised.

What makes Mission Firewall different? First, it prioritizes the resource most lacking in both countries: weapons traceability and nationwide ballistic coverage in Mexico, enabling investigators to link shell casings, recovered firearms, and crime scenes with sales and trafficking histories in the north. Second, it compels prosecutors, police, and customs agencies to share standardized data that once traveled late or siloed. Third, it establishes an implementation table with deadlines and metrics—long absent in bilateral cooperation. The economic impact is direct: without credible intelligence, nearshoring becomes more expensive due to risk premiums, disrupted supply chains, and municipalities forced to spend more on security than on infrastructure.

To capitalize on 2024’s progress and stabilize 2025, cooperation must move on three fronts. Politically, intelligence must be shielded from short-term partisan battles. Evidence from the Baker Institute, Harvard, and the Mexico Security Initiative at UT Austin shows that agreements endure only when backed by governance rules, transparency, and democratic oversight of data use. That means binational audits of the intelligence cycle (collection, processing, dissemination), privacy safeguards, and forensic-use protocols that reassure judges and public opinion.

Economically, cooperation must measure what matters. In 2024, Mexico advanced public registries and databases that help anticipate “hotspots” and track victimization patterns. The U.S., meanwhile, expanded open dashboards of seizures to guide inspections and risk algorithms. The next step is converting those data into binational operational indicators: response times to ballistic “hits,” turnaround time for eTrace requests, proportion of cases with admissible shared evidence, and, most importantly, municipal-level clearance rates. Only with common metrics can we prove intelligence reduces homicides, not just produces reports.

Technologically, the challenge is even greater. Artificial intelligence promises triage of anonymous calls, prioritization of targets, license plate fusion, and forensic image analysis—but only if data quality and exchange agreements are robust. Mission Firewall can support this ecosystem if it integrates financial intelligence as well: beneficial ownership, anomalous billing, and links between arms trafficking and money laundering. Security intelligence must speak to local treasuries and financial intelligence units. Yet no progress will be sustainable if weapons supply remains unchecked. The key lesson of 2024–2025 is that without massive traceability and regulatory pressure in the north, homicide rates in the south will keep responding to the availability of assault rifles and ammunition.

Looking ahead, the main challenges for 2025 are clear. First, institutionalize the implementation table with public quarterly goals; intelligence needs political credibility to survive cabinet changes. Second, decentralize capabilities: border states and municipalities must have technical nodes rather than depend solely on the capital. Third, strengthen judicial cooperation: without prosecutors trained to litigate digital and ballistic evidence, intelligence never reaches sentencing. Fourth, shield cooperation from diplomatic fluctuations—the political pendulum cannot shut down databases every two years. Fifth, communicate results with rigor—shorter response times, seizures linked to prosecutions, extraditions with shared evidence—so citizens and investors see that binational intelligence is not a slogan but the linchpin of regional security and economic stability.

Written by: Editorial

#BinationalIntelligence #Security2025 #MissionFirewall #SafeNearshoring #DataAgainstCrime