The president of Mexico, Andrés Manuel López Obrador, launched an attack for the second day in a row against Natalle Kitroeff, the New York Times’ bureau chief (NYT) in Mexico, during his morning press conference.

The President López Obrador accused Kitroeff of defaming him by publishing a report on an investigation by US government authorities into possible drug trafficking financing of AMLO’s 2018 campaign.

The President vehemently stated that the journalist slandered him by “linking me and my family to drug trafficking without evidence.” The journalistic report in question sought the Mexican government’s position on a US investigation that suggests that the president’s children and close collaborators could have received money from drug trafficking. Kitroeff included her personal phone number as a contact method to receive the Mexican government’s position, which was later revealed by the president during his press conference.

President of Mexico defends his attack on Times journalist

López Obrador defended his decision to expose the journalist’s personal information, arguing that he would do it again if the dignity of the President of Mexico were at stake, thus placing him above the Personal Data Protection Law. He denied that revealing Kitroeff’s personal information posed any risk to her safety.

In the midst of the controversy and with irony, the President advised Kitroeff to “change her phone number” after sharing it publicly.

He questioned the fairness of the situation, asking: “And the right to slander? Does she have the right to slander me, my family, my children? But also, without any proof?”

While defending the freedom of Julian Assange, the founder of WikiLeaks, López Obrador suggested that the Statue of Liberty should be sent to Mexico, proclaiming: “here we do have freedoms.” He dismissed the impact of the New York Times reporting.

President López Obrador underscores a continued stance against what he perceives as defamation, warning that in his morning briefings, any “slander” will receive a full rebuttal, regardless of the accuser. This incident marks a significant clash between the Mexican presidency and a major international media outlet, raising concerns about press freedom and the safety of journalists in Mexico.

ALSO. NYT investigates financing of drug trafficking in the campaign of Mexico’s president during 2018

The New York Times Responds to the President of Mexico Attacks

Through its account, the NYT responded to the Mexico’s President attacks against its reporter with the following message: “This is a troubling and unacceptable tactic from a world leader at a time when threats against journalists are on the rise. We have since published the findings from this investigation and stand by our reporting and the journalists who pursue the facts where they lead.”

Mexico has become one of the most dangerous countries in the world for journalists. In 2024 alone, six journalists have been murdered in Mexico.

Through his press conferences, the Mexican president has a history of harassing and intimidating journalists critical of his administration.

The NYT revelation about Mexico’s president

The NYT’s journalistic work, conducted by Alan Feuer and Natalie Kitroeff, is based on a new investigation carried out by the United States government into alleged drug trafficking financing in his 2018 presidential campaign.

A few weeks ago, ProPublica and other media outlets published information about a DEA inquiry into alleged organized crime money donations, particularly from the Sinaloa Cartel, to Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s (AMLO) 2006 presidential campaign. Thus, the NYT’s publication concerns a new case.

According to a New York Times report, U.S. law enforcement officials conducted a years-long secret investigation into allegations that close allies of the Mexican president held meetings and received millions of dollars from drug cartels after his election. This investigation sought to clarify possible links between cartel operators and advisers or officials close to López Obrador.

You can read the NYT’s investigation here.