The parties and security: National Guard and armed forces

Security is one of the issues on which Mexico’s parties differ most, and one of the most voted on in the current Chamber of Deputies. In September 2024 the Chamber passed the constitutional amendment that moved the National Guard, created in 2019 as a security force, to the Ministry of National Defense; in November 2024, the one that extended the list of offences carrying automatic pretrial detention in Article 19 of the Constitution; in June 2025, the new National Guard Law and the law on the national investigation and intelligence system. In almost all of these votes, Morena, the PVEM and the PT voted in favor, and the PAN, the PRI and Movimiento Ciudadano against (Parliamentary Gazette).

The test asks about these questions under the issue “Security and armed forces”. Four statements are part of the main test; two more, on a single police command and lighter sentences for those who leave criminal groups, are asked only as tie-breakers, when the result is very close. These are the eight parties’ positions, each based on a platform, a founding document or a vote. An asterisk (*) marks an estimated position: the party has not taken a direct stance, and its position is inferred from what it has said on related matters. On the four main statements, 4 of the 32 positions are estimated.

SOMOS and PAZ were registered in 2026 and do not yet have an electoral platform: their positions come from their founding documents (declaration of principles and program of action) and are provisional until they register their platforms with the INE in January 2027.

The parties’ positions

The two tie-breaker statements are covered further down.

Who commands the National Guard

“The National Guard should return to civilian command, outside the Ministry of Defense.” Four parties are in favor, one is neutral and three against. Only PAZ’s position is estimated.

Against, the three parties voted for the 2024 amendment without a single vote against in their groups: Morena 252 to 0, the PVEM 62 to 0 and the PT 47 to 0. In June 2025 they also voted for the new National Guard Law (Parliamentary Gazette, 19 September 2024; 24 June 2025). Morena’s 2024 platform does not address command, but proposes consolidating the National Guard “as a peace force and a community police corps”.

In favor, the PAN (0 to 69), the PRI (0 to 37) and Movimiento Ciudadano (0 to 27) voted against that amendment and, in 2025, against the law. Their documents say the same: the PAN’s 2024 platform wants “a corps with guaranteed civilian command”; the PRI’s program of action, to turn the National Guard into a civilian institution (p. 47); Movimiento Ciudadano’s platform, to guarantee its “civilian training and command”. SOMOS proposes “reversing the militarisation of the national guard and placing it under civilian command” (program of action, p. 63).

PAZ’s neutral position is estimated: its program of action does not mention the National Guard; it says the army’s entry into public security was a response to infiltrated local police forces and calls for professional police.

Automatic pretrial detention

“Pretrial detention should always be decided by a judge, case by case, and not applied automatically depending on the offence.” Pretrial detention keeps an accused person in prison while the trial lasts. Article 19 of the Constitution lists offences for which it applies automatically, without a judge assessing each case. Five parties want it always to be a judge’s decision, and three are against. Every position has a source.

Against, Morena (231 to 0), the PVEM (58 to 0) and the PT (45 to 0) voted in November 2024 for the amendment that extended that list of offences (Parliamentary Gazette, 13 November 2024).

In favor, SOMOS is the only party at the end of the scale: it proposes repealing the paragraph of Article 19 on automatic pretrial detention and having prosecutors and supervisory judges assess precautionary measures (program of action, p. 64). The others “agree”, without going all the way:

• The PAN voted against the 2024 extension (0 to 54), and its 2024 platform proposes abolishing automatic pretrial detention. But in March 2025 it voted in favor, in general, of another amendment to Article 19 that extended the list, though against its reserved articles (Parliamentary Gazette, 11 March 2025).
• Movimiento Ciudadano voted like the PAN on both occasions (0 to 25 in 2024; in favor in general and against the reserved articles in 2025), and its program of action says pretrial detention has not worked.
• The PRI voted against both amendments, and its 2024 platform proposes regulating automatic pretrial detention so that the measure is justified by human-rights standards (p. 43).
• PAZ proposes mechanisms to replace preventive measures by analyzing “strictly the specific cases of each detained person”, and defends the presumption of innocence (program of action, pp. 22-23).

The armed forces in civilian tasks

“The armed forces should stop running airports, trains and customs.” In recent years the Ministry of Defense and the Navy have taken on building or running airports, passenger trains and customs. Four parties want them to stop, one is neutral and three are against. Of the four main statements on this issue, it is the one with the most estimated positions: three.

In favor, two parties are at the end of the scale. Movimiento Ciudadano’s 2024 platform proposes reversing military involvement in public administration tasks that belong to civilians (p. 48). The SOMOS program proposes returning to civilian control the functions that are not proper to the armed forces, “especially” public security, ports and customs and the building of transport links (p. 61). The PRI (2024 platform, p. 40) and the PAN, through the joint platform it signed in 2023 (p. 28), propose that the armed forces gradually return to their core duties, without mentioning airports, trains or customs specifically.

Against, only the PT’s position has a source: in 2021 its national leader told the UNAM’s Voto Informado that he “somewhat agreed” with giving the army more responsibilities and tasks (p. 19). Morena’s and the PVEM’s are estimated: Morena’s 2024 platform calls for keeping and extending the Felipe Ángeles International Airport and the passenger trains, several of them run by the armed forces, without saying who should run them, and the PVEM group voted with Morena for the organic laws of the Navy and the National Guard. PAZ’s neutral position is also estimated, as its documents do not deal with the matter.

Facial recognition cameras and artificial intelligence

“The government should use facial recognition cameras and artificial intelligence to prevent crime.” It is the only statement on this issue with no party against: five are in favor and three neutral. Every position has a source.

The PVEM is the only party at the end of the scale: its 2024 platform proposes using drones, “facial recognition cameras” and artificial intelligence to prevent crime (pp. 17-18). Agreeing, without mentioning facial recognition:

• Morena, whose platform calls for favoring “police intelligence over force” and whose group voted 239 to 0 for the national investigation and intelligence law (Parliamentary Gazette, 25 June 2025);
• the PT, which proposes speeding up the purchase of new technologies against crime (2024 platform, p. 24) and voted 43 to 0 for that law;
• Movimiento Ciudadano, which proposes more technology and command and video-surveillance centers (2024 platform, p. 50); its group voted for the law in general and against its reserved articles;
• PAZ, which proposes using “data analysis, artificial intelligence” to anticipate crime patterns while calling for personal data to be protected (program of action, p. 15).

Three parties are neutral for similar reasons. The PAN’s platform proposes using facial recognition and data analysis to solve cases (p. 86), and the PRI’s, using technology and linking up surveillance cameras (p. 41), but both voted against the 2025 law. SOMOS proposes video surveillance in high-crime areas, but also ending government spying and the collection of personal data (program of action, pp. 62 and 65).

The two tie-breaker statements

“All police forces in the country should be under a single national command.” Today there are municipal, state and federal police forces, each with its own command. Only the PVEM is in favor: its 2024 platform proposes “creating a single national Police Command” (p. 18). Six parties are against, all with a source, for reasons ranging from federalism to community policing: the PAN defends a “mixed police command model based on the principle of subsidiarity” (program of action, p. 12); the PRI, strengthening local police and the federal pact; Movimiento Ciudadano, strong and coordinated municipal and state police (program of action, p. 22); the PT, a “civilian and community” public force and devolving functions to states and municipalities (2024 platform, p. 15); SOMOS, strengthening state and municipal police; and PAZ, bringing in “community police”. Morena’s neutral position is estimated: its platform calls for coordinating the three levels of government, without proposing or ruling out a single command.

“To bring peace to the country, lighter sentences should be offered to those who leave criminal groups and cooperate with justice.” This is one of the proposals of so-called transitional justice. Four parties are in favor, two neutral and two against, but none specifically proposes reducing sentences, and three positions are estimated. Morena proposes reforms for “transitional justice processes” and more “disarmament and reintegration” (2024 platform, p. 38); SOMOS backs “a model of transitional justice” with truth and reparation for victims (declaration of principles, p. 9); PAZ lists “national reconciliation and pacification” among its core aims and proposes “alternative mechanisms for commuting sentences” (declaration of principles, p. 5); Movimiento Ciudadano calls for restorative justice and for protecting those who cooperate with justice (declaration of principles, p. 12). Against, the PAN states that peace “can never mean a State that has surrendered to criminal organizations” (program of action, p. 11). The positions of the PVEM (against), the PRI and the PT (neutral) are estimated.

What separates the parties

• Morena, the PT and the PVEM hold almost identical positions on the four main statements: they voted together for placing the National Guard under Defense and for extending automatic pretrial detention. Only the PVEM goes further on the use of technology, and it is the only party that wants a single police command.
• The PAN and the PRI agree on all four: civilian command for the National Guard, a gradual return of the armed forces to their duties and a neutral position on facial recognition, which they propose in their platforms but whose law they voted against.
• Movimiento Ciudadano and SOMOS share with the PAN and the PRI civilian command and the withdrawal of the armed forces from civilian tasks, and go to the end of the scale on the latter. They part ways with them on transitional justice, which they support.
• PAZ sits in the middle on the National Guard and the armed forces, with two estimated positions, and agrees with the PAN, the PRI and Movimiento Ciudadano on pretrial detention and with Morena, the PT and Movimiento Ciudadano on technology.

Who is close to whom on security

To compare the parties in pairs, we added up the differences between their positions on the four statements in the main test (our calculation). Zero means identical positions; the maximum is 16. Here are some pairs, from closest to furthest apart. Estimated positions count like the others.

On security, the eight parties form two clear blocs: Morena, the PT and the PVEM on one side; the PAN, the PRI, Movimiento Ciudadano and SOMOS on the other, with differences of 2 points or less among them. PAZ is closer to the second bloc (4 points from the PAN, the PRI and Movimiento Ciudadano, 6 from SOMOS) than to the first (6 from Morena and the PT, 7 from the PVEM), but two of its four positions are estimated. The furthest apart are the PVEM and SOMOS (13 out of 16).

The security statements count towards your affinity with each party, but not on the political compass: its social axis uses only values questions (rights, education and family, environment and migration).

And justice

The test deals separately, under the issue “Justice and the judiciary”, with judicial reform: the popular election of judges, magistrates and Supreme Court justices, amparo proceedings and the Supreme Court. The blocs look like those on security. On the statement “The election of judges, magistrates and Supreme Court justices by popular vote should be reversed”, Morena (250 to 0), the PVEM (62 to 0) and the PT (47 to 0) voted in 2024 for the amendment that created it and strongly disagree (Parliamentary Gazette, 3 September 2024); the PAN, the PRI and Movimiento Ciudadano voted against and strongly agree, as does SOMOS, which proposes repealing the judicial reform. PAZ’s neutral position is estimated: its documents do not deal with the election of judges. The 2024 and 2026 amendments, the votes and the topic’s other statements are covered in “The parties and the judicial reform”.

Find out more

• All the statements on this issue, with their sources: “Security and armed forces”.
• The parties’ positions on every statement in the test: party comparison.
• Compare two parties, for example Morena and the PAN, Morena and Movimiento Ciudadano, the PAN and the PRI, Movimiento Ciudadano and SOMOS or the PAN and PAZ.
• Party pages: Morena, PAN, PRI, PVEM, PT, Movimiento Ciudadano, SOMOS and PAZ.
• To find out which party you agree with most across all issues: take the test.