Pride & Prejudice: Mexico’s flag becomes a flashpoint — again

A demonstrator waving a Mexican flag at a recent protest in Los Angeles. Image credit: Eric Thayer / Associated Press / Alamy

by Arturo Sarukhan

(Editor's note: Ambassador Sarukhan is the President of Sarukhan + Associates LLC, a former diplomat and Mexican ambassador to the US)

This was a domestic clash waiting to happen, largely concocted in the Oval Office but potentially exacerbated in Mexico City’s National Palace, risking spillover into bilateral ties with Mexico.

Last Friday, after the US Department of Homeland Security conducted workplace raids in Los Angeles’ garment district targeting undocumented immigrants, protests erupted against ICE. President Donald Trump then took an unprecedented step, commandeering California’s National Guard to crack down on protesters. Demonstrations had been mostly peaceful, but tensions flared significantly after Trump deployed troops, intentionally confronting a Democratic mayor and governor. By sidestepping Gov. Gavin Newsom’s authority, Trump pushed presidential boundaries and fueled criticism of inflaming the situation for political gain. Undoubtedly, it has all the elements the president seeks: a showdown with a top political rival in a deep blue state over an issue core to his agenda and appealing to key voter segments.

Yet, as with everything in this polarized, social media-driven era, where immigration policy and immigrants themselves are weaponized, the events unfolding in Los Angeles resonate far beyond civil rights and constitutional debates, or authoritarianism versus liberal democracy, or even red versus blue America.

Targeting Los Angeles was deliberate. It's among America’s most diverse cities, symbolizing a pluralistic and open society. It's the nation's largest immigrant city with the highest Hispanic population and immense linguistic diversity – 60% speak Spanish, Korean, Armenian, and many other languages. Its residents originate from at least 130 countries, nearly 40% are immigrants, and 47% identify as Hispanic, making it the second-largest Mexican city globally after Mexico City.

Unsurprisingly, Mexico’s flag emerged prominently among protesters, symbolizing as it does pride for many Mexican-Americans. And it is not the first time that the Mexican tricolour has been unfurled on the streets of LA in the context of social mobilization regarding US immigration policy. During immigration marches in 2004 and 2006 aimed at pushing President George W. Bush and Congress toward comprehensive reform, Mexican flags were widely displayed. This sparked backlash, "Mexicanizing" the US immigration debate and shifting the conversation from broad immigration reform beneficial to global immigrants, to a contentious issue focused solely on Mexico. President Vicente Fox, frustrated after immigration discussions with the Bush Administration collapsed post-9/11, exacerbated tensions by urging Mexicans to protest and pressure US authorities. Critics viewed this as disloyalty to the US. Worse yet, nativists framed it as evidence of a takeover: “This is how the nation is going to be taken over without a shot being fired.” Those marches effectively doomed a 2007 bipartisan immigration reform attempt led by Senators John McCain and Edward Kennedy, leaving the Reagan-era 1986 reform as the last major overhaul.

But today, history repeats itself – a dynamic reloaded. Images and videos of protesters waving Mexican flags – some also showing support for Gaza or, more inflammatory, Hamas – amid clashes with tactical-equipped law enforcement spread rapidly online and in traditional media. It all drew swift condemnation from Trump administration figures and MAGA circles who labeled flag-waving protesters as “insurrectionists.” When Mexican flags appeared, it backfired, enabling Trump and his nationalist supporters to exploit the imagery', framing this moment as “us vs them,” taring demonstrators as “aliens,” “foreign insurrectionists,” or “invaders.” Instead of defusing tensions, the president sought irresponsible escalation.

Further complicating matters, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum’s comments from the presidential bully pulpit the day before the protests – taken out of context by Mexican social media – called on Mexicans and Mexican-Americans to specifically oppose the remittance tax proposed in Trump's “Big Beautiful Bill.” Despite having urged peaceful protest and rightly criticized law enforcement protocols early in the week (but notably refrained from discouraging the use of Mexican flags – something she should have done), her words had, by that time, appeared in hard-right US circles, and were subsequently and notably cited by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, accusing Sheinbaum of inciting the demonstrations and therefore the violence. 

Certainly, many seeking to trigger this conflict today don’t require foreign flags to justify their actions in Los Angeles. Yet, fears persist about the political harm caused by dispersed allegiances. Some worry about the harm to the body politic from people who disperse their political allegiances, while others compare dual nationality to treason. One perspective argues for hiding the Mexican flag, publicly appearing without foreign bias. Another insists true Americans should exclusively display the US flag. Both views are fundamentally flawed and potentially racist, evidenced by the lack of similar criticism when Italian or Irish flags are paraded proudly in New York City during Columbus Day or St. Patrick’s Day celebrations. 

Regardless, perceptions and images carry enormous weight today. The ongoing tug-of-war between California and Washington, DC, and between a federalist liberal democracy and an increasingly authoritarian view of power, intensifies this conflict. But however it unfolds, the aftermath risks contaminating the US-Mexico relationship, complicating interactions between Trump and Sheinbaum, and haunting Mexicans and Mexican-Americans long into the future.

There is another relevant footnote to this episode — an ancillary lesson highlighting inconsistency and incongruence that also touches on nationalism and outdated notions of Westphalian sovereignty, but on the Mexican side of the border. Mexico’s ruling party, Morena, under former President López Obrador and now under President Sheinbaum, has consistently criticized international organizations, NGOs, and governments for commenting on Mexico’s domestic policies. Had a foreign leader spoken about Mexico’s domestic affairs in a manner similar to Sheinbaum’s statements about US policies - whether regarding immigration enforcement, a congressional bill, or, God forbid, urging Mexicans or foreign nationals in Mexico to oppose domestic Mexican policies — the Morena administration and its supporters within the 4T would have gone ballistic!