Grillonautas2 video report - Aug 15, 2026
English transcript
After yesterday Andrés Manuel López Beltrán, son of former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, revealed that the United States removed his visa to enter his territory, and published a letter directed to President Donald Trump, where he blamed the Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and the Secretary Christopher Landau of that decision. In his letter he added that it does not cause him any problem not to be able to enter the United States, in these times of terrible and unfortunate hatred, racism, drug addiction, family disintegration, social inequality and sadness.
López Beltrán ends his visa with two questions to Trump, the first, if he is aware of what he exposed, and the second, in case he was, if he does not seem to be a prepotent act of his part, which shows, as my father wrote recently, that you are a governor in the current, apathetic and different from what he knew and treated. López Beltrán ends up saying that if he was not aware and there is no reason to remove his visa, and it is only a phobia-conservative disease against the movement of national regeneration and its leaders, because it does not destitute Landau and Rubio.
Regarding the interview with Aristegui Noticias the journalist Anabel Hernández assured that Andrés López Beltrán had direct contact with Ivan, Alfredo, Obidio and Joaquín Guzmán, leaders of the Chapitos. He said he had specific information from people from the López Beltrán group, who worked directly with him, and who were present in the meetings between the son of López Obrador and the children of the Chapo Guzmán. He pointed out that possibly this is one of the reasons why the US government decided to withdraw the visa, as well as on the alleged links of López Beltrán with the Wachicol networks, linked to various groups of organized crime.
This withdrawal from Andí visa has to do with much wider investigations that come directly to the former president López Obrador, and a good part of the Morena regime, which was born of contaminated origin by organized crime, pointed out the journalist in the interview. The cancellation of the visa of López Beltrán is added to a list of more than 50 Mexican politicians, most of Morena, who have lost their visa since last year. Among them is the governor Marina del Pilar Ávila of Baja California, Alfonso Durazo de Sonora, as well as the mayor of Fronterizos and other officials.
The State Department has not revealed the individual reasons for any of the cancellations. In the program of Radio Breitbart News Daily, Tommy Pigott Portavoz of the State Department of the United States, reported that the cancellation of visas has had a significant increase, since in December 2025 there were 100,000, and now 175,000 visas are added to foreigners. He assured that to cancel the document, they are considered three aspects, which meet the conditions of their visas, which influence the law, and which represent a threat to national security, explained the employee in the previous report.
Finally, President Claudia Chimbaum accused this Friday morning of political use and interference from the United States for the cancellation of the visa to Andrés Manuel López Beltrán. My opinion is that this cancellation of visas that they have made, they call them politically exposed people, has a political meaning, essentially. Because it is not equal to all countries, if their meaning was related to crime, or with any proof of any issue related to the entry of a citizen in the United States.
This is my opinion. We can review what happens in other Latin American countries, and what happens in our country. And this is a sense of ingerence in Mexican politics. This is my opinion, because I do not see another reason, and who uses it? Well, the Mexican right, which is increasingly given to the United States. Mexico has a long history of defense of sovereignty, long, since independence. We must remember, not only the United States, that Mexico begins its independence in 1810, comes consumption in 1821, but Spain does not recognize independence until 1836.
And in the moment in which Spain recognizes the independence of Mexico, at that moment comes from many countries, from France, with the War on Pastels, from the United States, wanting to enter Mexico. There is a long history. It is repeated several times in the 19th century, and in 1914 it is repeated again, with troops in the port of Veracruz. And in all cases there has been a heroic defense of our sovereignty and our independence, because Mexico decides the people of Mexico.
Throughout the 20th century, there were many moments of looking for the ingerence in Mexico, with governments at the time of the PRI, with the governments of the PAN, particularly with Fox, but also with Calderón, which is the PRI in reality, from neoliberalism. They open the doors of the agencies of the United States in Mexico. So it is a vision that countries are not independent and sovereign, but that they only respond to an interest. And it is not only because they are United States, it is with any country in the world.
Mexico is a free, independent and sovereign country. And this search to interfere politically in Mexico, or to use Mexico also for its own election, we have always said no. As Carranza said at the time, as Juárez said at the time. As generations and generations of Mexicans and Mexicans have said, that Mexico is independent and we keep a relationship of coordination, but not of subordination. So what do we have to do when a visa comes? We have to be brave.
Because there is nothing else. Because the US government presents a contundent test against any Mexican citizen. Anyone who is in his profession is more in politics, anyone who is in his political party. Well, that he presents tests and that he has been judged according to the Mexican laws. But there has to be tests. As in the case of Sinaloa, which we have said many times, the US at the time has not presented any test, more than what the public did, which does not represent any test for the general tax of the republic.
Ah, that he presents a test, contundent and faithful, which evaluated the general tax of the republic and a judge. Well, the Mexican justice comes in. So, there are attempts to interfere, to have interference in Mexican politics. And it should not be like that, there should be a mutual respect relationship. We have it in many issues, but we also have to point out when we consider that their intention is another. That represents a conflict, because it does not have to represent it, but if you have to say things in their name.
Because in another way, the people do not know what we think, the people do not know what we think. And they stop coming, because nothing happens. There comes, complete. But the people know. Yesterday I was surprised by the encroachment of the waxes. More than 80% of the people are in favor of the government of Mexico sanctioning a means to say lies. Put it back. And look, we have never thought about it. We, the only thing we said was to recover a legitimate struggle of civil society, that many of them were thrown behind.
But from the society, because civil society has its connotations, from the society of what there would be ethics codes in the media, ethics codes in the media. But look, 79% would agree to sanction a means to deceive, to put false news. I say it because when you see social networks, you say, oh, people think that the president is very wrong. When defending the guidelines proposed by the Telecommunications Regulatory Commission. Because in X, everything is against, with its exceptions.
And then you start to see the accounts. And this woman, who is called, I don't know, Melisa, who we don't know who is, who makes 300 tweets a day against the government. And who are all these who have 10, 15, 100 followers and who repeat and repeat and repeat the news. And then when one does the scientific analysis, it is realized that there are networks of bots paid. What, by the way, I take the opportunity to say it, because they are already saying that the Sheinbaum list, I invite you to see again the press conference.
Right of replica of Luisa María and what yesterday she says Luisa María. Luisa what she says is, there is a news of a account. And from there, a mechanism is taken against a political position of a project of the president. She showed how the networks work today. She never said, this is the list of who knows what. No, no, but already, all, all, all, the list above. If there is the greatest freedom of expression in history.
Who is censored? I ask. Who? Nobody. So now they are going to let themselves come, sure, sure, sure, there they are warned. Ah, that they removed the visa to the son of President López Obrador. Ah, scandal, world. So, regarding the United States, I do not say that we ask for respect. We do not think of your election. It is a decision of the people of the United States. But also in Mexican politics. Who decides is the people of Mexico.
It does not have to do with the interference of any country. Of any. And it is collaborated, it is coordinated. But the same, the same. There is an idea, in the opposition of having to count with visa or not having it, it is a certificate of good behavior for a Mexican. What do you think of that? It is the people who define the support, the recognition. It is not a visa. There is the president of the PRI going to the United States, it is vergonious to ask him to remove the visa to the Mexicans.
A name, by the way, due to your two reputations. But the only thing you have to say to the United States, remove the visa, this and this and this and this, because it turns out that they spoke badly of me. What is that? What is that Mexican politics? Is it going to fall apart, to kneel down in front of the United States? What can you expect from a person like that? What can you expect from Mexican senators who use all the television stations in the United States to speak badly of Mexico?
What can you expect? Well, what they are, they open their whole body. We already know who they are. They are those who want to rule another country in Mexico. They are those who want, maybe the United States Justice Department is the one who defines what happens in Mexico. They are those who want, like the conservators of the 19th century, who went to look for Maximiliano so that a foreign monarch would rule Mexico because there was no capacity to do it here.
They are heirs of Santana, they are heirs of Maximiliano. We are not, we are heirs of Juarez. We are heirs of the Mexican Liberals. We are heirs of Madero. We are heirs of Leonavicario, of Jose Fortis, of Curidalgo, of Morelos. We are proud of those who defend sovereignty, of those who say here is the country, of those who say we are the Mexicans and Mexicans, that we do not surrender, that we do not kneel before anyone.
We are heirs of those heroes and heroines, of the anonymous heroes who fought against the French invasion on May 5. We are heirs of the Veracruzans who always defended the sovereignty of Mexico. We are heirs of that and the people of Mexico are heirs of the great heroes and heroines and of the defense of the country, sovereignty and independence, freedom and democracy. We are heirs of those and we are proud to be one. We are not heirs of those who kneel before the powerful.
We are not heirs of those who are going to seek foreign interference to dominate Mexico. We are not heirs of Santana, nor of Victoriano Huerta, nor of Porfirio Díaz. We are heirs of the best of Mexico. And that is what the people of the heart have. So those who are going to kneel before the stranger, I don't think they have many followers in the country. That's why I say, lonely. As Napoleon said, he had a phrase when you, let's say, your enemy is wrong.
You don't interrupt him. You don't interrupt him. You don't interrupt him. Come on, buddy. Follow him, Alito. There you take him. Follow him, Salinas Pliego. There you take him. You are going very well. Go ahead. On Andy's visa, this answer that he gave to the US government, do you not think this can generate more tension too? I don't think so. He is in his right to answer. In the relationship with the US, you always have to look for a good relationship.
But you also have to say things. So he has the right to describe what he decides. What do you think of what we have already said? What I think of this visa cancellation, of how the Mexican right, in fact, of this, an issue for them, because they have a vision that the US should govern us. But, look, I share something with you. We made a decision in the cabinet because it was a collective decision. They invited Omar to go to a conference in the DEA in Argentina, to the Secretary of Security.
At first we had said no, because you know the history of the DEA relationship, with Mexico, especially in recent years. And then I asked everyone in the cabinet, what do you think they would do? General, admiral, Rosicela, Luisa María, depending on the day, on the issues we deal with, they accompanied me 15 times in the cabinet. So I asked them, what do you think? Because there are going to be many countries in the world, Secretary of Security of many countries.
The world, not only Latin America, but the world. It can go to show the results of Mexico. The results that we show here in March, the decrease in homicides, the decrease in painful crimes, the crime of high impact, the strategy we are taking, our relationship with the United States, which is of coordination, without subordination, all of that. Or better, well, don't go. Because Omar told me, what you tell me, I'm going to do it. And everyone by unanimity voted that it was.
Why did they say it's better that the world knows what is being done in Mexico and that it is doing well and that the strategy is giving results? Because if not what is known, it is the false news that, I don't know what is the false news there, it is the false news there. So I said, well, let's be democratic, that Omar is going to show the results of Mexico and that meeting, beyond the idea, because he is going to be present, Secretary of Security of the world.
Because he knows what is being done in Mexico. And how our relationship of defense of sovereignty, of coordination, without subordination with the United States, is giving much more results than in many places in the world. So, today, that's it, that's it. So, yes, and also there are, not everyone thinks the same there. So, we have to say what we think. In another way, I have a responsibility as president. And I have always been respectful to President Trump for the simple fact that he is elected by his people.
Of course, when there are things that do agencies of the United States or he sent a letter or I personally say it in a call, and I also say it publicly. So, everyone can respond in another way. And the best way to relate is not to get angry. Why are we going to lower our heads? Why are we going to kneel? Why are we going to be afraid? No, we are a grand country and we are giving results and people are happy.
So, we are going to continue and continue looking for a good relationship. But also mentioning when they want us to do things that we consider are not correct. Correct? Like this, without further ado? We are talking about the son of the president and the State Department says that the United States revokes visas because it can include those who defame the law or terminate in their visa or if they represent a threat to national security. And we are talking about him.
Do you see with this a decision or a message? Do you see that with this decision it can be a message against the movement? Well, I already said it. I think that many of this does not have reasons for security, but rather political reasons. And I do not know exactly what area the US government comes from. But we have to say it, because why are we not going to say it? It has nothing to do with saying it.
On the contrary, it is important to say when we see incoherent situations in our country. And we are not the first president who does it. Well, yes, the first president, because before there were no women in the presidency, but we are not the first president who does it. Many presidents have done it in Mexico, in different ways. I told you about Miguel de la Madrid, that prior to the football world there was nothing going on by the then ambassador of the ambassador Gabin against Mexico.
And also saying that this politician is a drug trafficker, this other is a drug trafficker, and this other is a drug trafficker, and this other too. And a mobilization was made in that era of defense of sovereignty. Where practically all political forces minus the PAM, by the way, participated. Well, it happened at that time and a response was made. Because, as we have said, we do not agree with de la Madrid in many things he did.
But in that he defended sovereignty. And I told you about Miguel de la Madrid at the beginning of neoliberalism. And prior to that, Mexico, for example, had the position with Cuba against the blockade. From the first moment, Mexico said self-determination of the peoples. Well, it was de la Madrid who put it in the constitution. The doctrine of the road comes. Prior to that, of a report that the Carranza, its second government report, and prior to that, nothing less and nothing more than Juárez.
So there have been many attempts to reduce the government in Mexico. But we are not like that. We are not like that. There are governments that are like that. Because, for example, Calderón came without legitimacy. Calderón came without legitimacy because he came with a electoral fraud. Which, by the way, now also with the real lists. Incredible. Well, he came without legitimacy. He was a pure president in Mexico, Calderón. And with all his letters, I say it.
He came with a electoral fraud in 2006 and sought legitimacy in the war against the narco. He supported and opened the doors to the US agencies. And he also put a name that was awarded many years in the US because they awarded him. He has awards from a lot of agencies, García Luna. And then it turned out that he was loyal to the narco. So, we have to defend our position. And that does not mean that there is a break-up much less.
But to say things as they are. Obviously, I say it as a president. And I always look for the best possible relationship with the US, always. For my people, for my country and because that's how it should be. But I'm not going to scratch my head either. And it's not a personal matter. It's a matter of defense of the country. That's how simple it is. President, I would also like to ask you about Andrés Manuel López Beltrán.
If he mentioned, as possible, in charge of removing the visa to Marco Rubio and to the Secretary of State, I would like to ask him if you had already had any previous information. He had commented on it in his office. And if this could require any re-information, I would request the Mexican Cancellation. No. He writes this letter, his opinion, his point of view. And our point of view, as I said, is that this issue of visas has a more political motivation than other things.
And that's it. There is no one in charge to grant visas in the US. It's the State Department. So, do you agree with what the State has said in the conference, if it represents another interference? They don't inform us if they are going to remove a visa. It's an individual matter of who has the visa and the US government. We don't receive notifications that we are going to remove the visa from this person, this person, this person.
They take a decision and communicate it and it's from the person if they decide to remove the visa or not. It's a personal matter. And this is our position, what they call politically exposed people. President, as you came forward, the opposition took minutes to answer and even demand that the tax be clarified towards an investigation that involves the son of the former president. There, in some investigation of Huachico, someone is mentioned, named Andy, and that's why they demand that it be clarified.
Do you have any information that has received any documentation? There is nothing against the son of the president. And if there were, on the part of the fiscal year, an investigation, as I said, we are not going to cover anyone if they committed a crime to anyone, but neither because the US removed a visa, we are going to open an investigation. What is the motive? The motive would be that we would have a petition or an investigation that said that someone, some politician, from any political party was involved in some crime.
Well, then the investigation continues and the president has never said to this yes or no, to this yes or no, to this yes or no. I have a lot of confidence in Ernestina Godoy, in the investigations she does, in the procedures, they are very rigorous. Ernestina is a woman of first, the truth, very brave, very brave and a great professional. With her we were in the government of the city, and she knows that she keeps autonomy in her investigations.
She informs me many times, many times she asks for coordination because nature has to be coordinated to the security office, but I am unable to say the investigation this no, this yes, this no, this no, because it is not going to be bad that it is going to have a political impact. No, the investigations are done but it does not have to open up a particular investigation because they removed a visa or a person, be it from any political party.
No, I do not have any information. So would you reluctantly deny any information about the investigation linked to the Uachicol Fiscal that appeals to the President's opposition? There is nothing, until I have informed the Fiscal of investigations that have to do with the President, with Andrés Manuel López Beltrán, and if it were, it would already correspond to the Fiscal, just like any other person.