Federico Hernández Aguilar – Translating Cuba

Mexico and Honduras in the Spotlight

Claudia Sheinbaum resists handing over her corrupt officials to the U.S.; in Central America, critics point to the complicity of Nasry Asfura’s new government with Washington’s interventionism

Sheinbaum and Asfura are at the center of the continent’s attention, for different reasons. / Collage

14ymedio, San Salvador, Federico Hernández Aguilar, May 11, 2026 — Two enormous scandals are currently shaking Hispanic America: the so-called Hondurasgate, in the country located at the very center of the continent, and the formal request by the United States to Mexico to extradite a group of senior officials from the ruling party, Morena, in the state of Sinaloa. Both cases are of enormous importance and could demonstrate the existence of extensive criminal networks and political clientelism in the region.

Perhaps because the media outlets that have reported Hondurasgate are clearly ideological in the way they handle the news — something I allow myself to point out with the same ease with which those same outlets label opposing media as “conservative” or “far-right” — the revelation of compromising audio recordings involving former president Juan Orlando Hernández and current Honduran president Asfura, along with other public figures in that country, has not had in Central America the impact it should have had. And that is a shame.

A media outlet’s political subjectivity is not sufficient reason to ignore everything it says, especially when it presents evidence. Nor should we be naive and think that large media conglomerates tend toward objectivity by definition. What is regrettable is that ideological tug-of-war intervenes so deeply in journalism that colleagues accuse each other of “pushing agendas,” each forgetting that free expression protects their work and that people themselves, according to their own conscience and education, will reward each outlet with their attention and preference.

A media outlet’s political subjectivity is not sufficient reason to ignore everything it says, especially when it presents evidence

In the case of Hondurasgate, for example, the recordings can be freely heard on the very platform that published them. And it is very difficult to deny the credibility of these 37 leaks. The voices of those involved are there, clear, with their unmistakable tones and inflections. In those exchanges, Hernández and Asfura appear willing to facilitate the installation of a network of U.S. and Israeli interventionism in Honduras, something that would explain why Donald Trump pardoned the former and supported the latter in the most recent presidential election.

Certainly, the shameless way in which the President of the United States supported Asfura at the end of last year’s campaign, almost at the same time continue reading

he released Hernández — sentenced to nearly half a century in prison for drug trafficking crimes — would have a real underlying reason: turning Honduras into a regional hub for systematic interventionism, including electronic surveillance, lucrative investments, political interference, and citizen control.

The matter goes much further and would prove several hypotheses. Former president Xiomara Castro, of course, would like us to buy the thesis that fraud was committed against her party, but the truth is that Libre candidate Rixi Moncada never gained traction in the polls and barely managed a distant third place, with less than 20% of the vote. No. What these conversations reveal is that the old Honduran two-party system, made up of the National Party (of Hernández and Asfura) and the Liberal Party (now in opposition), is susceptible to corruption at the highest level, involving electoral authorities, legislators, businessmen, and even gangs of drug traffickers and hitmen.

From this entire plot there would also emerge a supposed warning to Mexico, because the broader plan allegedly includes the creation of digital structures for attacks and smear campaigns against the “progressive” governments of Claudia Sheinbaum in Mexico and Gustavo Petro in Colombia. There is no doubt that Trump does not sympathize with Sheinbaum, but let us be frank: he does not need any sophisticated machinery to undermine her government. She herself seems willing to do that work without her adversaries even asking. To illustrate this, let us look at the clumsy way the president is handling her own domestic scandal.

In force since 1980, the United States and Mexico have an extradition treaty that stipulates the procedures through which criminals will be exchanged between the two nations. Using this historic bilateral agreement, a formal 34-page indictment issued by a Grand Jury in the Southern District of New York and therefore not subject to manipulation by the White House is now asking Mexico for the arrest and extradition of about ten public officials from the state of Sinaloa.

In force since 1980, the United States and Mexico have an extradition treaty that stipulates the procedures through which criminals will be exchanged between the two nations.

Just as in 2025 other alleged perpetrators of crimes related to drug trafficking, bribery, and organized crime — Ismael ‘El Mayo’ Zambada, the Treviño brothers, or Abigael González, to mention a few — were sent through the same process, today the Mexican Attorney General’s Office should proceed with the arrests of those accused without demanding any additional evidence beyond the indictment itself, because the legal cycle of accusation does not require any further element, since the evidence will naturally be presented during the corresponding trials.

But now Claudia Sheinbaum, instead of taking advantage of the opportunity to rid herself of so many discredited figures, has chosen to wrap herself in the Mexican flag, claiming sovereignty, and with a speed worthy of a better cause has backed the Attorney General’s Office over which she does have influence in demanding proof from its northern neighbor against the officials from her party who are implicated. The scandal threatens to grow and become the Watergate of Mexico’s ruling establishment.

As things appear to be unfolding, simple moral principles may end up being more decisive than stale ideologies. “Left” and “right” are merely labels, wrappers, shells… The old misery of human nature prevails.

Translated by Regina Anavy

______________________

COLLABORATE WITH OUR WORK: The 14ymedio team is committed to practicing serious journalism that reflects Cuba’s reality in all its depth. Thank you for joining us on this long journey. We invite you to continue supporting us by becoming a member of 14ymedio now. Together we can continue transforming journalism in Cuba.

Cuba: On Another Anniversary of the Despicable Padilla Case

April 27 marks the 55th anniversary of the event, which was a true watershed moment, a turning point, both inside and outside the Island.

Padilla gives up his seat to State Security Lieutenant Armando Quesada, who “corrects” Norberto Fuentes’s statement. In the background, José Antonio Portuondo. / Screenshot

14ymedio, San Salvador, Federico Hernández Aguilar, 23 April 2026 — When night falls on April 27, it will mark 55 years since the most despicable event that Castro’s totalitarian regime carried out on Cuban art and culture: the sadly famous “self-criticism” of the poet Heberto Padilla (1932-2000) before a group of prominent members of the Union of Writers and Artists of Cuba (Uneac), after spending 37 days in prison accused of holding critical views against the Revolution. [Transcript, in English, here.]

The Padilla Case (as it has been known ever since) was a true watershed moment, a breaking point, both on and off the island. Authors who until then had remained steadfast in their support of the revolutionary process suddenly and painfully understood that Castroism was no better than Stalinism in its tolerance of intelligent dissent and creative disapproval. Even those who remained loyal to Caribbean socialism, whether out of emotion or pragmatism, began to question how far Cuba had gone in imposing limits on art and culture within its supposedly democratic system.

And it is not as if there had been a lack of warnings, of course. Besides the infamous speech of June 1961 in which Fidel Castro made clear how he conceived the “responsibility” of artists and intellectuals within the framework of the historical project he led —“…Within the Revolution, everything; against the Revolution, nothing”— it is sometimes forgotten that quite some time before, in October 1959, the Film Study and Classification Commission had been formed, attached to the Cuban Institute of Cinematographic Art and Industry (ICAIC), an entity that began to censor films considered “problematic” because of their content.

In October 1959, the Film Study and Classification Commission was formed, attached to the Cuban Institute of Cinematographic Art and Industry (ICAIC), an entity that began to censor films considered “problematic” due to their content.

Works such as Alberto Roldán’s Una vez en el puerto (Once in the Port) and Fausto Canel’s Un poco más de azul (A Little More Blue ) were banned from distribution on the island in 1964. Roldán’s film was banned because it realistically documented life in Havana’s seaside neighborhoods, while Canel’s film addressed the ever-sensitive topic of exile. Both filmmakers, of course, suffered the consequences of their “reactionary” actions: they were expelled from ICAIC (the Cuban Institute of Cinematographic Art and Industry), which they had helped found, their freedom of expression was restricted, and they ultimately left Cuba. (Roldán died in Miami in 2014 at the age of 81, and Canel lived in France and Spain before settling in the United States, where he currently resides.)

The hardest blow to creative freedom, however, was the one suffered in 1961 by the documentary PM by Orlando Jiménez Leal and Sabá Cabrera Infante, banned and confiscated by the authorities, who accused it of offering “a biased portrayal of Havana’s nightlife” because, “far from giving the viewer a correct vision of the existence of the Cuban people in this revolutionary stage, it impoverished, distorted, and misrepresented it…” It was precisely in the wake of the scandal caused by the condemnation of this short film, barely 14 minutes long, that Fidel Castro himself brandished his fearsome “ Words to the Intellectuals.” continue reading

The regime’s terrifying “all or nothing” approach found its next victim in Heberto Padilla, whose excellent poetry collection, Fuera del juego (Out of the Game), had been recognized by the UNEAC (somewhat reluctantly) with the 1968 National Prize. Despite having received the award by unanimous decision of the jury, the organization made a strange “statement” indicating that the book would be published—along with Antón Arrufat’s in the theater category—with a note “expressing its disagreement” because they considered them “ideologically opposed to our revolution (sic).”

Three years later, in January 1971, Padilla dared to give a reading at the UNEAC (National Union of Writers and Artists of Cuba) of his new book, Provocaciones (Provocations ). And indeed, his attitude was considered provocative. A few weeks later, on March 20, Heberto and his wife, the writer Belkis Cuza Malé, were arrested by State Security agents and taken to the Villa Marista prison. The charge against them was “subversive activities against the government.”

“Did you think you were untouchable, the rebel artist…?” Padilla recalled the henchmen saying to him in prison. “Did you think we were going to forgive all your counterrevolutionary shenanigans?”

“Did you think you were untouchable, the rebel artist…?” Padilla recalled the henchmen saying to him in prison. “Did you think we were going to forgive all your counterrevolutionary shenanigans?” After the brutal interrogation, during which the poet was beaten, he awoke in a military hospital where he received an unexpected visit from Fidel himself. “Yes,” Heberto says in Bad Memory (1989), “we had time to talk, or for him to talk and expound to his heart’s content, and shit on all the literature in the world.”

The writer was then “suggested” that he draft a lengthy text listing his “errors,” a document he recited from memory 55 years ago at that private meeting at the UNEAC (National Union of Writers and Artists of Cuba). The recorded material of this “self-criticism” finally came to light in 2022, when Cuban filmmaker Pavel Giroud rescued it and used it to create an extraordinary documentary titled The Padilla Case, which was nominated for several prestigious film awards.

At this time, the three and a half hours of the writer’s confession can be viewed on YouTube, something I would recommend to anyone who wants to delve deeper into the censorship processes that Castroism instituted to turn art into propaganda and writers into obligated spokespeople for a revolution that ended up devouring their illusions.
______________________

Donald Trump Will Not Be Able To Destroy American Democracy

The good news for the United States and the world is that democratic institutions will outlive the current president.

Donald Trump, of course, in denouncing the Supreme Court’s decision, has been particularly rude to the two justices he appointed. / EFE

14ymedio, Federico Hernández Aguilar, San Salvador, 27 February 2026 — In April 2025, in this same opinion column, we shared our astonishment at the US president’s threat to impose barriers to free trade on much of the world. Calling it “inexplicable,” we warned that the “reasons” given by the White House to justify its tariff offensive were, in reality, mere excuses, because neither the logic of bravado as a tool of intimidation nor the hypothetical desire to lower interest rates on US debt through recession made sense. The potential benefits of these measures would not outweigh the risks involved.

The three outcomes we predicted came to pass exactly as predicted: increased bilateral trade responses; new alliances centered around development hubs alternative to the United States; and an inflationary wave that has devastated the stability of thousands of American households. Trump’s argument regarding supposed “trade balances” was untenable, aberrant, and illiberal. That is why its effects are hurting the president in the polls and creating unnecessary holes in his country’s image as a reliable partner.

Trump’s argument regarding supposed “trade balances” was untenable, aberrant, and anti-liberal.

However, the icing on the cake was still missing. Was the Supreme Court going to rule against Trump’s economic agenda, overturning his tariff strategy? Because the truth was that no president before him, at least in the last half-century, had gone so far in challenging judicial independence. Just last September, we recalled that the courts were flooded with executive orders and that, of twenty-one cases brought before the Supreme Court, only in three had the Court not ruled in favor of granting the president greater leeway at the expense of the lower court’s decisions.

While none of the above yet constituted a flagrant violation of the Constitution, it was clear that Trump was undermining the system. In his second term, therefore, only the bulwark of the rule of law could prevent him from abusing his power, in the manner of autocrats in South America or sub-Saharan Africa. continue reading

On February 20, finally, with a majority of six to three, the justices of the highest court did their job, reminding Donald Trump that the independence of the branches of government is a pillar of American democracy and that his executive powers cannot exceed the legal framework in which those powers originate.

At the end of his concurring opinion, Justice Neil Gorsuch, alluding to the need for Trump to abide by constitutional procedures, wrote: “Yes, legislating can be hard and take time. And, yes, it can be tempting to bypass Congress when some pressing problem arises. But the deliberative nature of the legislative process was the whole point of its design. Through that process, the Nation can tap the combined wisdom of the people’s elected representatives, not just that of one faction or man. There, deliberation tempers impulse, and compromise hammers disagreements into workable solutions. And because laws must earn such broad support to survive the legislative process, they tend to endure, allowing ordinary people to plan their lives in ways they cannot when the rules shift from day to day.”

Three justices whom the American press calls “conservatives”—John Roberts, Amy Coney Barrett, and Gorsuch—have offered the world proof of what makes the United States great: its institutional strength. And they did so, not out of animosity toward President Trump or a desire to give more power to Congress, but because they understand that posterity will judge them harshly for their decisions, decisions that must be grounded in the Constitution and the tradition of great liberal values.

Aside from sending a message to members of Congress (mostly Republicans) to understand and defend their legislative power, the Supreme Court was consistent in respecting the letter of the law.

Joining the majority of the Court’s justices, Justice Ketanji B. Jackson emphasized that U.S. legislative history provides clear evidence of what Congress intended when it enacted the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), on which Trump sought to base his tariff offensive. Jackson added, “Given that evidence, we need not speculate or, worse, step into Congress’s shoes and formulate our own views about what powers would be best to delegate to the President for use during an emergency.”

In other words, aside from sending a message to members of Congress (mostly Republicans) to understand and defend their legislative power, the Supreme Court was consistent in respecting the letter of the law and avoiding encroaching on the constitutional powers of the Capitol, which would have been a huge inconsistency.

Donald Trump, of course, in denouncing the Supreme Court’s decision, has been particularly rude to the two justices he appointed: Barrett and Gorsuch. As is typical of his rhetoric, he targets the reputations of those he cannot defeat with arguments. But his furious diatribe is also aimed at members of his own party in Congress, who will now have to provide the president with a legal recourse just months before they themselves are up for reelection in November.

Whatever happens, the good news for the United States and the world is that American democratic institutions will survive Donald Trump.

______________________