Treacherous Waters: SEMAR, Huachicol, and Deaths that Shake Power
The immediate challenge for Sheinbaum is to prevent this case from being remembered as the first great stumble of her administration.
By Ghaleb Krame
I. Initial Facts — What Happened and Why It Matters
Within the span of a week, the most delicate case in years erupted for Mexico’s Navy Secretariat (SEMAR): 14 arrests of individuals allegedly belonging to a “fiscal huachicol” network that operated from strategic ports, involving active naval officers and civilian/business operators. Among those implicated is Vice Admiral Manuel Roberto Farías Laguna, whom a federal judge placed on trial along with nine naval officers for organized crime and activities related to fuel smuggling; the case file places them in Tamaulipas and in logistical nodes linked to ports and energy permits.
The case also acquired a symbolic and political dimension: the arrest of former federal judge Anuar González Hemadi —dismissed in 2019 for corruption after his ruling in the infamous “Los Porkys” case— now accused of acting as the legal representative of a diesel transport company with CRE permits and irregularities dating back to 2020, which journalistic investigations connect to criminal networks. His inclusion raised the profile of the case, linking naval tracks with regulatory and judicial hinges. (El País)
The official narrative was delivered by Federal Security Secretary Omar García Harfuch, who stated that the capture of the 14 was “just the beginning” and that investigations would deepen into routes, permits, and complicities. Within that same announcement, it was revealed that at least one of the detainees is related to former Navy Secretary José Rafael Ojeda Durán. The government sought to soften the blow with an explicit disclaimer separating SEMAR’s institutional responsibility from Ojeda’s personal history.
Simultaneously, two events sharpened the public impact of the case: the death of Captain Abraham Jeremías Pérez Ramírez in Altamira —initially reported as suicide— and, twenty-four hours later, the death of Captain Adrián Omar (Ángel) del Ángel Zúñiga during a live-fire training exercise in Puerto Peñasco. Although both deaths remain under investigation and no judicial determination links them directly to the case, their temporal proximity and the operational profile of the officers amplified the perception of crisis and institutional vulnerability.
Finally, the timing: all this unfolded just days after the visit of U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio (September 3), during which both sides reaffirmed security cooperation —including combatting drugs, arms, and fuel smuggling— with explicit respect for sovereignty and “each from their side of the border.” The sequence visit → arrests → indictments → narrative crisis created a window of opportunity and pressure that reordered incentives in both Mexico and Washington.
II. Subsequent Escalation — Sensitive Deaths, Perception of Risk, and Reputational Damage
What initially appeared to be a complex yet manageable judicial case turned into a far deeper crisis with the news of two consecutive deaths of naval officers, occurring within just 48 hours and under highly sensitive circumstances.
The first incident was that of Captain Abraham Jeremías Pérez Ramírez, found dead at the port facilities of Altamira, Tamaulipas. The preliminary official version pointed to suicide, though without conclusive details regarding the immediate circumstances. The officer had been indirectly mentioned in the press as connected to port operations within the broader huachicol network. His death, in an operational setting already under investigation, immediately sparked speculation about pressures, emotional strain, and potential cover-up risks.
Less than a day later came confirmation of the death of Captain Adrián Omar (Ángel) del Ángel Zúñiga, during a live-fire training exercise at facilities in Puerto Peñasco, Sonora. The official report described it as an “accident,” yet the temporal proximity to the previous death —and the fact that Zúñiga had held responsibilities in strategic ports such as Manzanillo— fueled the public perception of anomaly. That two naval officers with port experience died almost simultaneously, in the midst of a scandal over fuel smuggling in ports, was difficult to explain without raising doubts.
In the media narrative, the deaths quickly became symbols of institutional fragility. Military columnists and observers raised questions the official communication did not immediately address: Were these tragic coincidences? Training protocol failures? The consequence of internal pressure from ongoing investigations? Or disguised purges? The absence of prompt, detailed information fed a vacuum of trust.
That vacuum was swiftly exploited by pro-cartel influencers and narratives, which on social media floated alternative explanations —from the idea of a “disguised purge” to outright conspiracy theories. The risk here is not only reputational: when the official discourse fails to control the interpretive frame, the space is filled by actors with their own agendas, contributing to the erosion of the Navy’s symbolic capital.
In sum, the subsequent escalation to the judicial operation did not stem from new arrests or probative findings, but from the combination of sensitive deaths and deficient communication. Together, these factors shifted the conversation from “institutional cleansing” to vulnerability and a crisis of trust.
III. The Decision and Context — Rubio’s Visit, Concessions, and Political Calculus
The timing of the operation against the huachicol network cannot be understood without reference to the visit of U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio on September 3, 2025. In his meetings with President Claudia Sheinbaum and the foreign ministry, Rubio was explicit in demanding immediate action against narcotics trafficking, arms flows, and —increasingly— fuel smuggling. Mexico’s official narrative responded with a balancing act: reaffirming reinforced cooperation but with “each from their own side of the border” and mutual respect for sovereignty. Yet beneath the diplomatic language lay a clear message: Washington expected verifiable deliverables, and fast.
Within that framework, the Sheinbaum administration faced the need to demonstrate that it could go beyond rhetoric. The choice of case was deliberate. The government opted to target a network that implicated not only civilians and business operators, but also naval officers —including relatives of former Navy Secretary José Rafael Ojeda Durán, a central figure during AMLO’s presidency. The move had dual value: externally, it signaled political will to the United States; internally, it symbolized a break with the immediate past.
However, the way it was announced revealed the deeper political objective. The press conference was not led by SEMAR or the Attorney General’s Office, but by Federal Security Secretary Omar García Harfuch. With this decision, Sheinbaum sought to consolidate Harfuch as the civil-police face of institutional cleansing, presenting him to Washington as a reliable and effective interlocutor. It was a high-risk gamble: centering the narrative on a civilian without a naval background in a matter profoundly tied to naval jurisdiction.
The broader context adds another layer. The restructuring of the National Intelligence Center (CNI) had shifted control from Audomaro Martínez to Francisco Almazán Barocio, a trusted ally of Harfuch. This reconfiguration had already stirred tensions with both SEDENA and SEMAR, altering the balance between civil and military intelligence. In this light, the huachicol operation functioned not only as a response to U.S. pressure, but also as a domestic demonstration that SSPC under Harfuch had the capacity to lead high-impact investigations.
Thus, the decision cannot be read solely as compliance with Washington’s demands. It was also a calculated domestic maneuver: to install Harfuch as the rising figure of Sheinbaum’s administration and to mark a transition away from a militarized model toward a civil-police paradigm.
IV. Execution Failures — Miscalculation and Politicization of the Message
The operation against the huachicol network could have stood as a successful institutional strike had it been carried out under the leadership of the Navy Secretariat (SEMAR) and the Attorney General’s Office (FGR), with technical spokespersons who projected legal solidity and professional rigor. Instead, the decision to put Omar García Harfuch at the forefront of the press conference transformed a judicial case into a political act, laden with symbols that diluted its credibility.
Rather than foregrounding technical evidence —lists of vessels, CRE permits, fuel logistics trails, and documented ties between companies and naval officers— the narrative revolved around Harfuch himself as the executor of the “clean-up.” The implicit message was that the operation was not only about dismantling a corruption network, but also about elevating the new strongman of the cabinet. While appealing to international audiences, this framing generated resistance within the armed forces.
The miscalculation lies in the fact that the legitimacy of the case hinged on protecting the Navy’s institutional integrity, not undermining it. Had SEMAR led the narrative, the reputational cost would have been contained and the operation would have projected unity before Washington. Instead, by putting Harfuch at center stage, the message perceived by naval ranks was one of civilian intrusion into military jurisdiction, interpreted as disrespect, if not outright betrayal.
Compounding this was the flawed sequencing of crisis communication. In high-risk contexts, the principle is clear: present facts and evidence first, and only later craft the political narrative. Here, the order was reversed. Emphasis on the familial ties of detainees to former Navy Secretary José Rafael Ojeda Durán, coupled with promises that “this is only the beginning,” overshadowed the limited factual disclosures available. The vacuum this created was quickly filled by speculation, media scrutiny, and the coincidental deaths of two naval officers, amplifying the perception of chaos.
The result was a double loss. Externally, the United States read the episode as improvisation rather than control. Internally, the Navy felt its historic prestige sacrificed in order to fortify a civilian actor. In governance terms, what could have been a watershed moment for transparency and institutional cleansing instead became a case study in how a political gamble poorly calibrated can backfire, deepening institutional fractures and eroding trust.
V. Internal Implications — Sheinbaum, AMLO, SEMAR, and Governance
The immediate fallout of the huachicol case went beyond judicial proceedings. It reconfigured the political equilibrium within Claudia Sheinbaum’s government and cast long shadows over Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s (AMLO) legacy. Each principal actor bore distinct consequences, generating a new map of winners and losers.
For Sheinbaum, the gamble of showcasing Omar García Harfuch as the civil-police face of the operation produced mixed results. In the short term, it allowed her to demonstrate responsiveness to Washington and distance herself symbolically from the AMLO era. Yet domestically, the move carried unexpected costs: it fractured trust with the armed forces and projected the image of a presidency willing to sacrifice institutional capital for immediate political gain. What was meant to highlight “civilian order” was instead read as a slight against the military establishment, weakening her authority in the early months of her term.
For AMLO, the scandal carries collateral damage. Former Navy Secretary José Rafael Ojeda Durán was one of his closest confidants throughout his administration. The public exposure of Ojeda’s relatives in a criminal network undermines the narrative that SEMAR served as an incorruptible pillar of the Fourth Transformation (4T). Although no longer in office, AMLO is inevitably implicated by association, complicating his efforts to shape the historical memory of his presidency and providing critics with new ammunition.
For SEMAR, the blow is direct and profound. An institution that for decades cultivated a reputation of incorruptibility and discipline is now marked as vulnerable to criminal penetration. The nearly simultaneous deaths of two captains reinforced the image of internal fragility, raising questions about morale and cohesion. Beyond reputational loss, this translates into diminished bureaucratic influence in interagency coordination, reduced weight in security decision-making, and a weakened hand in interactions with Washington, where trust capital is a strategic asset.
In terms of governance, the episode highlights a systemic risk: erosion of trust between the Presidency and the armed forces. Unless Sheinbaum restores symbolic respect and technical communication channels with SEMAR, her administration risks facing leaks, bureaucratic sabotage, and fragmented cooperation across institutions. In other words, what began as an operation meant to project strength has instead revealed —and deepened— political and operational fragility.
VI. External Implications — Washington, the Pentagon, Congress, and International Pressure
The SEMAR–huachicol case is not confined to Mexico’s domestic politics. It has a profound international dimension, especially in the bilateral relationship with the United States. The visit of U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio marked the start of a new phase of explicit bilateral pressure, with Mexico committing to deliver concrete results on drugs, arms, and fuel smuggling. The sequence of arrests and announcements that followed served to demonstrate responsiveness, but the flawed execution and subsequent deaths altered Washington’s perception.
For the White House and the State Department, the operation was interpreted as a direct response to Rubio’s demands. On the positive side, it showed that Sheinbaum’s government can act quickly under pressure. On the negative side, the absence of coherent communication, the lack of technical evidence made public, and the visible fractures between SEMAR, SEDENA, and SSPC projected institutional fragility. In security diplomacy, form matters as much as substance: Washington seeks partners capable of sustaining operations with clear messaging and internal cohesion, not just short-lived spectacles.
Within the Pentagon and U.S. security agencies (DoD, DoJ, DEA), the reading was similarly ambivalent. On one hand, the willingness to prosecute high-ranking officers was welcomed. On the other, concerns grew that the Navy —a historical partner in maritime interdiction— appeared weakened and divided. This perception erodes trust and opens the door for SEDENA, under Ricardo Trevilla, to reposition itself as the preferred interlocutor. The risk is that U.S. agencies may end up favoring one branch of the Mexican armed forces over another, inadvertently exacerbating domestic rivalries.
In the U.S. Congress, particularly among hardline Republicans, the episode reinforced the narrative that pressure works. For them, Mexico acts only when threatened or conditioned. This bolsters calls for stricter oversight mechanisms, ranging from certifications of cooperation to potential trade conditionalities tied to security performance.
In sum, externally, the case left a bittersweet impression: Mexico demonstrated responsiveness but also improvisation and fragility in crisis management. For Washington, the conclusion is that bilateral cooperation must be accompanied by tighter oversight and measurable benchmarks, pointing toward a more asymmetric relationship in the coming months.
VII. Hypotheses and Method — Rivalries, Coalitions, and the Four Axes of Power
The SEMAR–huachicol case cannot be assessed as an isolated judicial operation. It is embedded in a broader context of institutional rivalries, elite coalitions, and struggles over narrative control. To move beyond speculation, this report frames the crisis through falsifiable hypotheses and analytical methods that allow competing explanations to be tested.
Hypothesis 1 — Rivalry SEMAR vs. SEDENA:
The crisis intensifies long-standing tensions between Mexico’s two military branches. Since the National Intelligence Center (CNI) was shifted from Audomaro Martínez to Francisco Almazán Barocio —a close ally of Omar García Harfuch (OGH)— the Army, under Ricardo Trevilla, perceives the centralization of intelligence within SSPC as a direct encroachment on its institutional turf. The weakening of SEMAR may, therefore, serve to consolidate SEDENA’s profile as the “reliable partner” for Washington.
Hypothesis 2 — Elite Coalitions:
The OGH–Morales Ángeles bloc sought to present a civilian–naval front, yet the operation backfired, leaving SEMAR discredited. By contrast, the Trevilla–SEDENA bloc emerges stronger, positioned as the disciplined counterweight. The key question is whether rivals deliberately coordinated —through action or omission— to ensure SEMAR’s exposure at the most visible moment.
Hypothesis 3 — U.S. Exogenous Window:
Rubio’s visit acted as a catalyst, precipitating arrests and announcements within days. The timing suggests that Mexico prioritized an immediate deliverable over consistent institutional execution.
Hypothesis 4 — Civilian Spokesmanship:
Placing Harfuch at the helm reduced legitimacy within SEMAR and reframed the case as a political spectacle rather than an institutional cleansing.
Hypothesis 5 — SEMAR’s Counterstrike:
After being discredited, SEMAR may seek to counterattack via leaks, audits, or bureaucratic maneuvers to restore its reputation and political capital.
Hypothesis 6 — Political Financing via Huachicol:
This sensitive line of inquiry would require robust financial traceability (CRE permits → fuel routes → shell companies → electoral spending). Without documentary evidence (levels A/B), it must remain a hypothesis under investigation, not a confirmed finding.
Methodological toolkit:
Process tracing: reconstructing sequences (Rubio’s visit → Harfuch’s conference → deaths → leaks).
Social Network Analysis (SNA): mapping ties between political, military, and business actors.
Time series analysis: detecting spikes in actions after external shocks.
Congruence testing: comparing alternative explanations to identify the most consistent one.
The four axes of power in the narco–state nexus become clearer through this framework:
Cartels — capturing logistical and regulatory nodes.
Politicians — managing narratives and regulatory cover.
Military — competing for institutional control and prestige.
Influencers — shaping public perception and normalizing alternative accounts.
VIII. Conclusions and Scenarios — From Promised Cleansing to Visible Fracture
The SEMAR–huachicol operation illustrates the difficulty of turning a judicial strike into a narrative of sound governance. What was designed as a double victory —to satisfy U.S. pressure and to position Omar García Harfuch as the civil-police face of institutional renewal— ended up revealing internal fractures, political improvisation, and loss of institutional trust.
The central conclusion is clear: Sheinbaum sought to project strength, but the flawed design of the operation weakened her government, the Navy, and AMLO’s legacy simultaneously. Domestically, the immediate outcome was a breach in the civil–military relationship: SEMAR emerged sacrificed, SEDENA gained ground, and SSPC’s civilian bloc was criticized for politicizing a sensitive case. Externally, Washington received confirmation that pressure produces results —but also that Mexico lacks refined control over its institutions.
From this episode, three plausible scenarios emerge:
Scenario 1 — Ordered Containment.
The government regains control of communication, returns technical spokesmanship to SEMAR and the FGR, and presents verifiable evidence (CRE permits, fuel routes, shell companies, quantified seizures). Reputational costs are contained, and bilateral cooperation stabilizes on technical grounds.
Scenario 2 — Inertia and Fragmentation.
The crisis fades without structural corrections. Leaks persist, rivalries over competencies intensify, and media noise dominates. Washington tightens its demand for metrics and conditions aid or cooperation on tangible results, reinforcing hardline narratives in the U.S. Congress. Domestically, military morale remains strained and coordination fragile.
Scenario 3 — Perfect Storm.
New operational casualties, sensational leaks, or forensic errors trigger an irreversible wave of distrust. Pro-cartel influencers capitalize on public skepticism, the official narrative loses credibility, and the presidency appears out of control. The greatest risk: SEMAR and SEDENA stop cooperating fully, imposing a fragmented “dual command” model.
The immediate challenge for Sheinbaum is to prevent this case from being remembered as the first great stumble of her administration. To do so, she must move from political spectacle to verifiable governance: progressive disclosures of evidence, public audits, stronger port and customs controls, and a unified channel of information. Otherwise, the lasting perception will be that Mexico does not drive its own cleansing processes, but rather acts only under external pressure —a scenario that deepens asymmetry in the bilateral relationship and undermines domestic stability.
Strategic Links Diagram — Mapping Relationships in the SEMAR–Huachicol Case
The following diagram represents, in visual form, the relationships among key actors in the SEMAR–huachicol case. Each type of connection is signaled with a distinct line style:
Solid lines → alliances, subordinations, or narrative/operational ties.
Dashed lines → rivalries or institutional tensions.
Dotted lines → external pressure.
Dash-dot lines → legacy and trust relationships.
This map highlights how the four axes of power interweave in the narco–state nexus:
Cartels (red) — linked to naval officers and amplified through influencers, representing the capture of logistical and communication nodes.
Politicians (blue) — managing narratives, making strategic concessions, or competing for institutional control.
Military (green) — locked in an internal struggle between SEMAR and SEDENA for prestige and operational leadership.
International (yellow) — embodied by U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio, exerting direct pressure on Mexico’s security agenda.
The diagram makes visible how alliances, rivalries, legacies, and external pressures converge to shape the outcome of this case. It also underscores that the erosion of SEMAR’s reputation benefits other actors —particularly SEDENA and SSPC— while simultaneously reinforcing Washington’s leverage over Mexico’s security strategy.
