Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum Pardo, elected in 2024 with nearly 60% of the vote, has continued many of her predecessor Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s policies while placing emphasis on clean energy, public-private investment, and aggressive mass digitalization. Her flagship Llave MX platform, run by the new Digital Transformation and Telecoms Agency, aims to unify citizen data for easier access to government services and health records.
Central to this effort is República Sana (Healthy Nation) program, which seeks to integrate Mexico’s major public health institutions and advance toward universal healthcare. Enrollment will require a biometric digital identity card under the Unique Population Registry Code (CURP) system, including photos, fingerprints and possibly iris scans, with ambitious goals for broad coverage by 2030. The president argues that centralized biometrics will reduce bureaucracy and petty corruption.
However, critics such as R3D (Digital Rights Defense Network) caution that linking every government transaction, tax payment, medical visit and benefit to a single biometric identity could enable greater surveillance and data vulnerabilities. In a country where roughly 55% of the workforce operates in the informal economy, the system could also help formalize tax collections but at the potential cost of privacy and potential misuse.
The China precedent
China provides a clear cautionary reference point. By combining centralized digital identities with extensive surveillance cameras, it has developed tools for tracking, behavioral scoring and social control. Although Sheinbaum has pledged that her government will not spy on citizens, the infrastructure being built in Mexico — centralized databases tied to biometrics — has prompted concerns about possible function creep and future authoritarian risks.
The Chinese system developed gradually. It began with a national ID program in the 1980s, expanded to biometric collection in the 2000s, and was later integrated with facial recognition, financial records and other data. In Xinjiang, advanced tracking tools have been used for ethnic targeting. The broader lesson is that systems initially justified for efficiency and public safety can, in combination, expand in unintended ways. Mexico is unlikely to replicate China’s model, but the architecture merits careful scrutiny. Biometric collection is also mandatory for non-citizens at U.S. borders but widely applied on a “voluntary” basis for U.S. citizens, also raising serious concerns of potential function creep.
The surveillance infrastructure
Mexico’s digital agenda already connects with a large camera network. As mayor of Mexico City from 2018 to 2023, Sheinbaum expanded the city’s cameras significantly. Under current Mayor Clara Brugada, the Ojos que te cuidan (Eyes that protect you) program has added another 30,400 high-resolution units, bringing the total above 113,000 — the largest urban video surveillance system in the Americas, with plans to have 150,000 installed by 2030.
When combined with Llave MX’s national biometric registry and the Central Intelligence Platform, this network could support automated facial recognition and real-time tracking. Anthropologist Esteban Salmón’s research points to practical downsides in Mexico City, including false positives, issues with evidence handling and over-reliance on video in some prosecutions.
Similar systems elsewhere have shown higher error rates for darker-skinned individuals and women in facial recognition. In Mexico, this could disproportionately affect Indigenous and mestizo populations. Without strong safeguards, such tools risk unintended consequences for justice and civil liberties.
Oversight, security reforms, and implementation challenges
These issues are compounded by changes to independent institutions. The Sheinbaum administration has moved regulatory authority over telecommunications under the executive following the abolition of the independent Federal Telecommunications Institute.
In June and July 2025, the government passed the Investigation and Intelligence Law and the National Public Security System Law. These measures grant the Ministry of Security and Citizen Protection (SSPC) and the military-controlled National Guard broader access to biometric, telephone, vehicle, tax and property records. The new Central Intelligence Platform aims to interconnect these databases across government levels to help prevent and investigate violent crimes.
Critics including R3D and Article 19 have expressed concerns about limited judicial oversight and further militarization of security functions. This builds on earlier debates, including the Supreme Court’s 2021-2022 decision striking down a biometric phone registry on privacy grounds. Mexico’s history of data breaches also highlights risks associated with greater centralization.
Significant implementation challenges remain. Large segments of the rural population and many elderly Mexicans face barriers related to Internet access, devices and digital literacy. Without adequate support, digitalization efforts risk creating new forms of exclusion.
Senate grants Security Ministry broad data access powers, sparking ‘police state’ fears
Mexico’s big tech and digital push
The Mexican government’s digital push has fostered significant relationships with global technology companies such as Nvidia, Microsoft, Palantir, and others for investments in data centers, AI infrastructure, manufacturing partnerships and talent development. Although there is no confirmed contract between the Sheinbaum administration and Palantir for core intelligence or biometric systems, the U.S. firm recently expanded its presence in Mexico through a major deal with GNP Seguros, the country’s largest insurer. Palantir’s Foundry and Artificial Intelligence Platforms are being used for fraud detection, risk monitoring and data integration.
Because these platforms also excel at mass surveillance, profiling and other operations with human rights implications, the company’s aggressive expansion in Latin America has raised questions about how private-sector AI tools could eventually feed into government surveillance architectures. The Sheinbaum administration also has agreements with Google, Meta and TikTok ostensibly focused on combating digital violence, but critics worry that broad partnerships with global tech giants could accelerate the centralization of citizen data.
What can be done
The system is still under development, which offers an important window for civil society to shape its direction. Mexico’s Supreme Court has previously pushed back against biometric overreach. That precedent, along with input from organizations like R3D and Article 19, can help strengthen oversight of the new Central Intelligence Platform. International standards from the Inter-American Court of Human Rights and the IACHR offer additional leverage. Immediate attention should focus on implementing regulations for the Investigation and Intelligence Law. Concerned legislators and privacy advocates can seek provisions for judicial oversight, data minimization, independent audits and penalties for misuse.
Broader engagement is also important. Trade unions, Indigenous communities, digital rights groups and others can advocate for greater transparency around Llave MX and the República Sana program, including independent oversight mechanisms particularly in relation to arrangements with global AI powerhouses.
Sheinbaum’s digital agenda is ambitious and officially presented as a way to improve efficiency, reduce corruption and expand access to services. At the same time, it assembles key elements of centralized data systems: biometric identities, integrated intelligence platforms, extensive camera networks and shifts in regulatory oversight. Its long-term character will depend on whether robust transparency safeguards, independent review and legal protections are incorporated from the outset. Getting the balance right between security, efficiency and rights will be essential — not just for Mexico, but for the broader struggle against digital authoritarianism in Latin America.
This article was written by It was originally published by Foreign Policy in Focus.
