The Elimination of INAI: A Blow to Transparency and Accountability in Mexico

Former Mexican President Andrés Manuel López Obrador ended his term with sweeping proposals to dismantle key institutions designed to ensure government accountability and protect citizens’ civil and economic rights. These efforts gained momentum ahead of the historic election of Claudia Sheinbaum, Mexico’s first female president and López Obrador’s chosen successor. Suppose her first action in office—enacting López Obrador's judicial reform—is any indication. In that case, the next institution on the chopping block is the Mexican Information Commission, the National Institute for Transparency, Access to Information, and Personal Data Protection (INAI), and six other autonomous agencies. 

This impending constitutional reform represents a profound setback for Mexico’s democratic trajectory. Framed as a cost-cutting measure to streamline administrative functions and “correct” an alleged legal anomaly that restricts federal authority, the reform fundamentally erodes critical institutional checks and balances. It also casts doubt on how freedom of information rights will be safeguarded moving forward, introducing uncertainty at a time when robust mechanisms for accountability are more vital than ever. 

INAI and the broader National Transparency System it oversees are the product of more than two decades of institutional construction. Two defining features underpin this system. The first is a commitment to addressing the deep-seated public distrust of government stemming from a long history of opacity and information concealment. To this end, the Mexican Constitution established INAI as an autonomous and specialized body with the authority to hold all public entities accountable and impose noncompliance sanctions. 

The second defining feature is a citizen-centered approach to transparency. INAI has shifted the responsibility of providing access to information from citizens to the government. It has significantly lowered the costs of searching for and requesting information by standardizing processes, creating a centralized, cost-free portal to access all public information, and eliminating the need for intermediaries. 

The results speak for themselves. In Mexico, over 95% of information requests are resolved within legal time limits, and exemptions are claimed in only 2% of cases. Dissatisfied requesters can easily appeal through the same portal, a free and efficient process that favors them in more than 75% of cases. In comparison, under the U.S. Freedom of Information Act (FOIA), over 40% of responses cite exemptions, and another 20% claim no records exist. Appeals are cumbersome, requiring an internal review by the same agency and, ultimately, a costly federal lawsuit. Of the over one million FOIA requests filed annually, only about 800 (0.08%) lead to lawsuits, compared to 5% of appeals in Mexico. Even then, US federal judges, often deferential to government claims of secrecy, rule in favor of agencies more than 90% of the time, discouraging meaningful compliance improvements. 

Proponents of the reform claim that existing agencies, such as the Ministry for Anti-corruption and Good Government, or similar entities within the judicial and legislative branches can absorb INAI’s functions. However, this argument overlooks the importance of autonomy and specialization in ensuring impartiality and credibility. Shifting these responsibilities to traditional government agencies under a more decentralized framework undermines their independence and compromises their capacity to address irregularities without bias. Given Mexico’s history, an autonomous body like INAI is better equipped to avoid conflicts of interest and provide robust accountability mechanisms. 

The reform also raises serious concerns about its impact on the right to freedom of information. A transition to a decentralized system akin to the United States would likely create significant barriers for citizens seeking public information. Government agencies are unlikely to prioritize transparency, particularly when faced with requests that expose inefficiencies, corruption, or abuses of power. With diminished access to information, investigative journalism, civil society advocacy, and citizen oversight will suffer. 

Beyond these practical implications, eliminating INAI sends a troubling message. In a country plagued by endemic corruption and sky-high impunity, dismantling one of its most effective transparency mechanisms—and one of its most successful institutional innovations—signals a retreat from commitments to open governance. This move further erodes public trust and weakens the institutional framework necessary for fostering civic participation and democratic resilience. 

Internationally, this reform could damage Mexico’s relationships with key partners, particularly the US. Weakening the right to information could hinder cross-border collaboration on trade, human rights, and anti-corruption initiatives. Additionally, dismantling INAI risks tarnishing Mexico’s global reputation, undermining its credibility in open governance initiatives. 

The stakes are high. Transparency is essential for democratic accountability, but it requires independent oversight to be effective. While INAI was not without its challenges, abolishing it is not a solution but a move that exacerbates existing problems. The reform weakens Mexico’s capacity to ensure accountability, threatens the fundamental right to information, and jeopardizes its standing with international partners. As this reform proposes, centralizing power is a misguided approach that risks undoing decades of progress, leaving Mexican citizens with fewer tools to hold their government accountable. 

*This article was written prior to the approval of the constitutional reform in the House of Representatives on November 20