Tijuana: The Crisis That No One Controls

Tijuana has once again become the focus of national debate due to a series of events that, far from being isolated incidents, reveal the persistence of a public security model incapable of containing violence, purging its institutions, and offering credible answers to the public. In recent days, the city has been the scene of banners from drug cartels placed in public spaces—including a preschool in Los Laureles—armed attacks in commercial areas, recurring fires, and allegations involving members of federal agencies. All of this has reignited a debate that never seems to end: who really controls security in Tijuana?

The most symbolic episode was the appearance of a banner from drug cartels addressed to police commanders, placed at a school. It wasn’t just a criminal message, but a demonstration of operational capacity in a space that should be inviolable. The official reaction was immediate in its rhetoric, but insufficient in substance: the banner was removed, an investigation was announced, and security was reinforced in the area. However, the message had already achieved its objective: to expose the vulnerability of the urban environment and the ease with which criminal groups can disrupt daily life.

This was compounded by the armed attack in Plaza del Zapato, a busy commercial area. The incident reignited the debate about the presence of criminal cells in tourist areas and about the authorities’ ability to prevent attacks in areas that, in theory, should be under constant surveillance. The official narrative insisted that it was an “isolated” incident, but the public perceives something else entirely: a city where violence can erupt anywhere, at any time.

One of the most sensitive issues in the public discourse has been the accusation of assaults allegedly committed by members of the National Guard. Although the institution categorically denied the involvement of its agents, the accusation opened a flank that Tijuana knows all too well: infiltration, corruption, and a lack of internal controls in agencies that should be part of the solution, not the problem. The mere possibility of federal agents being involved in property crimes fuels distrust and erodes the legitimacy of the security strategy.

Meanwhile, the city faced a series of fires—seven in two days—that tested the response capacity of Civil Protection and emergency services. Although not all the incidents were linked to criminal activity, their simultaneity and magnitude generated concern among risk management specialists. The metropolitan region also felt the effects of the Rosarito fire, highlighting the fragility of intermunicipal coordination.

Institutional actors have reacted with statements that, far from reassuring, have deepened the sense of uncertainty. Municipal officials acknowledged that “insecurity is not a perception, it is a reality,” while voices within the state government itself have suggested the need for a “purge” of the Municipal Police, the State Police, and the National Guard. This acknowledgment is important, but insufficient if it isn’t accompanied by verifiable, transparent, and sustained actions.

In this context, citizens find themselves caught between two narratives: the official one, which insists on progress and containment, and the everyday reality, which experiences assaults, extortion, arson, shootings, and criminal messages as part of the urban landscape. The gap between these two versions is perhaps the most serious symptom of the security crisis: a state that fails to convince because it fails to protect.

Tijuana needs more than reactive operations. It requires a comprehensive strategy that includes genuine purging of criminal elements, financial intelligence, effective binational coordination, and a social policy that addresses the root causes of violence. Until that happens, recent events will not be exceptions, but rather chapters in a story the city already knows all too well.

Source: Zeta Tijuana