In the midst of the situational limitations faced by the president, the ease with which the president dismantled essential supports such as resources for shelters and refuges for women, canceled the Popular Insurance, and extinguished trusts for science and technology was evident. Although some Republicans in Congress do not automatically align with him, the Judicial Power can block his initiatives, and society can exert effective pressure to protect its interests. Unlike what is experienced in the United States, institutional checks and organized civil society make the arbitrary exercise of power more difficult, as seen in the case of Trump.
In the case of Mexico, despite the victory of Claudia Sheinbaum and her supposed almost absolute power due to supermajorities in Congress and a reconfiguration of the Judicial Power, there are still voices that do not fully align. Despite the perception of an "imperial presidency," there have been setbacks in some decisions of López Obrador's government, such as the need to cancel the order to freeze federal funds allocated for social programs.
It is important to recognize that in the United States, checks and balances still operate despite Trump’s resounding electoral victory. In contrast, in Mexico, civil society appears disoriented and worn down after successive defeats, which leaves it without enough strength to mobilize. Sheinbaum's power, while considerable, is not absolute, and criticisms of certain proposals show that her margin of action is limited by certain tensions.
In summary, while in the United States democratic mechanisms manage to contain some abuses of power, in Mexico a somewhat different scenario is observed with the diminishing of institutional checks. Still, the actions of both presidents show that power is limited in the face of certain scenarios.
