STAY UP TO DATE: The Effects of the US Foreign Aid Freeze on Freedom House
Expanding Freedom and Democracy
Freedom on the Net 2025

Mexico

Partly Free
61
100
A Obstacles to Access 18 25
B Limits on Content 25 35
C Violations of User Rights 18 40
Last Year's Score & Status
61 100 Partly Free
Scores are based on a scale of 0 (least free) to 100 (most free). See the methodology and report acknowledgements.
Mexico_hero_map

header1 Key Developments, June 1, 2024 – May 31, 2025

The level of internet freedom in Mexico remained largely unchanged during the coverage period, though legislative measures that were proposed or passed underscored persistent weaknesses in the legal framework for upholding human rights online. Mexico continued to be one of the world’s deadliest countries for journalists, and reporters often faced digital intimidation that could escalate into physical violence, with significant impunity for the perpetrators. In addition, online journalists increasingly encountered judicial harassment. All of these factors contributed to a climate of self-censorship.

  • In November 2024, Congress passed constitutional reforms that eliminated a number of independent entities, including the Federal Telecommunications Institute (IFT), which had regulated telecommunications companies. It also approved the establishment of the ministry-level Agency of Digital Transformation and Telecommunications (ATDT), which was tasked with some of the duties of the IFT and other abolished entities (A5).1
  • Separately in November 2024, the Supreme Court confirmed that Google and other intermediaries should not be held liable for third-party content on their platforms, and that any government requirements for intermediaries to restrict content must be accompanied by a court order and be necessary and proportional (B2 and B3).2
  • Judicial harassment of online journalists and social media users increased during the coverage period, resulting in financial strain and a chilling effect for those targeted.3 Retired digital journalist Jorge Luis González Valdéz, for example, was found responsible for moral damages against an official for the state of Campeche in May 2025. His personal property was ordered to be seized to compensate the plaintiff, and three other cases against him were pending as of August.4 Digital journalists also faced specious accusations of gender-based violence against women political candidates, a form of reprisal against the media that has escalated in recent years.5 In January 2025, news site reporter Arturo Ángel Arrellano Camarillo was ordered to pay a fine and reparations to a woman mentioned in an article about nepotism in politics (C3).6
  • In July 2025, after the coverage period, Congress approved a package of laws that broadened state surveillance capabilities without adequate safeguards.7 Notable provisions called for the establishment of a registry of mobile service users linked to their biometric identification records, and would grant authorities access to real-time geolocation data with limited judicial oversight (C4, C5, and C6).8 A proposed reform that would have allowed the authorities to block online platforms without a court order was scrapped in April (B1 and B3).9
  • In March 2025, the Chamber of Deputies approved new laws on transparency and personal data protections that weakened access-to-information rights and data protection obligations.10 As part of the constitutional reforms adopted in November 2024, Congress had already eliminated the autonomous National Institute for Transparency, Access to Information, and Personal Data Protection (INAI) (C1 and C6).11
  • More information about the government’s use of spyware under former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador surfaced during the coverage period. Reporting in April 2025, based on documents for a legal case against the Israeli surveillance firm NSO Group, revealed that Mexican authorities were prolific users of the company’s Pegasus spyware product; for instance, Pegasus was used against more than 450 people in Mexico in just a two-month period in 2019 (C5).12

header2 Political Overview

Mexico has been an electoral democracy since 2000, and power has alternated between parties at both the federal and state levels, though the left-leaning National Regeneration Movement (Morena) has grown dominant in recent years. The country suffers from severe rule-of-law deficits that limit full citizen enjoyment of political rights and civil liberties. Violence perpetrated by organized criminals, corruption among government officials, human rights abuses by both state and nonstate actors, and rampant impunity are among the most visible of Mexico’s many governance challenges.

This report has been abridged for Freedom on the Net 2025 due to ongoing budget constraints. Please consider making a donation to support future editions of this vital resource.

For additional background information, see last year’s full report.

A Obstacles to Access

A1 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Do infrastructural limitations restrict access to the internet or the speed and quality of internet connections? 5.005 6.006
A2 1.00-3.00 pts0-3 pts
Is access to the internet prohibitively expensive or beyond the reach of certain segments of the population for geographical, social, or other reasons? 1.001 3.003
A3 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Does the government exercise technical or legal control over internet infrastructure for the purposes of restricting connectivity? 6.006 6.006
A4 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Are there legal, regulatory, or economic obstacles that restrict the diversity of service providers? 4.004 6.006
A5 1.00-4.00 pts0-4 pts
Do national regulatory bodies that oversee service providers and digital technology fail to operate in a free, fair, and independent manner? 2.002 4.004

B Limits on Content

B1 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Does the state block or filter, or compel service providers to block or filter, internet content, particularly material that is protected by international human rights standards? 6.006 6.006
B2 1.00-4.00 pts0-4 pts
Do state or nonstate actors employ legal, administrative, or other means to force publishers, content hosts, or digital platforms to delete content, particularly material that is protected by international human rights standards? 2.002 4.004
B3 1.00-4.00 pts0-4 pts
Do restrictions on the internet and digital content lack transparency, proportionality to the stated aims, or an independent appeals process? 3.003 4.004
B4 1.00-4.00 pts0-4 pts
Do online journalists, commentators, and ordinary users practice self-censorship? 2.002 4.004
B5 1.00-4.00 pts0-4 pts
Are online sources of information controlled or manipulated by the government or other powerful actors to advance a particular political interest? 1.001 4.004
B6 1.00-3.00 pts0-3 pts
Are there economic or regulatory constraints that negatively affect users’ ability to publish content online? 2.002 3.003
B7 1.00-4.00 pts0-4 pts
Does the online information landscape lack diversity and reliability? 3.003 4.004
B8 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Do conditions impede users’ ability to mobilize, form communities, and campaign, particularly on political and social issues? 6.006 6.006

C Violations of User Rights

C1 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Do the constitution or other laws fail to protect rights such as freedom of expression, access to information, and press freedom, including on the internet, and are they enforced by a judiciary that lacks independence? 3.003 6.006
C2 1.00-4.00 pts0-4 pts
Are there laws that assign criminal penalties or civil liability for online activities, particularly those that are protected under international human rights standards? 2.002 4.004
C3 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Are individuals penalized for online activities, particularly those that are protected under international human rights standards? 4.004 6.006
C4 1.00-4.00 pts0-4 pts
Does the government place restrictions on anonymous communication or encryption? 4.004 4.004
C5 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Does state surveillance of internet activities infringe on users’ right to privacy? 1.001 6.006
C6 1.00-6.00 pts0-6 pts
Does monitoring and collection of user data by service providers and other technology companies infringe on users’ right to privacy? 3.003 6.006
C7 1.00-5.00 pts0-5 pts
Are individuals subject to extralegal intimidation or physical violence by state authorities or any other actor in relation to their online activities? 0.000 5.005
C8 1.00-3.00 pts0-3 pts
Are websites, governmental and private entities, service providers, or individual users subject to widespread hacking and other forms of cyberattack? 1.001 3.003

On Mexico

See all data, scores & information on this country or territory.

See More

Country Facts

  • Population

    127,500,000

  • Global Freedom Score

    59 100 partly free

  • Internet Freedom Score

    61 100 partly free

  • Freedom in the World Status

    Partly Free

  • Networks Restricted

    No

  • Websites Blocked

    No

  • Pro-government Commentators

    Yes

  • Users Arrested

    No