The Mexican journalist Julio Vaqueiro was born in San Juan del Río, Mexico, in 1987. Over the last five years, he has witnessed the major political and social events that have taken place in the United States and his homeland. These include Donald Trump’s return to power, as well as the assassination attempt that nearly prevented it. Or the rise and fall of President Joe Biden, who unsuccessfully sought humanitarian solutions to the migrant crisis on the southern border. And the election of Claudia Sheinbaum, the first woman to serve as Mexico’s president.
Everything he has seen, recounted and written — as the main news anchor for the Spanish-language American news network Telemundo and as a columnist for the Mexican newspaper El Universal — shaped his first book. Titled Río bravo: La frontera entre Sheinbaum y Trump (or “Rio Grande: The Border between Sheinbaum and Trump”) it has been distributed on both sides of the border since March.
The newscast that Vaqueiro hosts from Miami is one of the 10 most-watched Spanish-language programs among Latino viewers in the United States. Amid the frenzy of the news he reports from Monday to Friday, the journalist has made an effort to document the changing mood of the people — and leaders — of the United States and Mexico. This mood has been defining the destiny of both nations, as well as that of millions of families of migrant origin who tune in to his broadcast every evening.
Question. What’s the mood like on both sides of the border?
Answer. It remains heated. The current situation in the relationship between Mexico and the United States is [extremely] interesting, complex and delicate. There was a decades-long tradition of reaching trade agreements by following the rules established between the two countries — along with Canada — for trade issues. Immigration issues were resolved by talking specifically about migration. The same with security issues. But with Trump, all issues are mixed up with immigration. This throws into disarray the entire structure that [was set up to achieve] a fruitful relationship between the two countries.
Q. The Mexico-United States relationship under former presidents Joe Biden and Andrés Manuel López Obrador was already tense. Has President Sheinbaum learned the key to dealing with Trump?
A. It’s true that, in public, Sheinbaum has managed to establish a healthy conversation with Trump. There are no [verbal] attacks and there’s cordiality. But in practice, Mexico is facing tariffs like other countries, and pressure from the United States to address security issues, [such as] curbing fentanyl trafficking, detaining migrants and receiving deportees. In other words, there are no frontal verbal attacks from Trump as there have been with other world leaders, but Mexico is still facing pressure from a Trump administration that views Mexico as a security problem. The trade dispute has garnered many headlines, but security is now the most important issue between the two countries… and it’s Trump’s priority when it comes to Mexico.
Q. There’s also a security problem in Mexico, with the weapons entering the country from the United States.
A. Absolutely. Now, the [U.S.] Supreme Court has decided that the lawsuit Mexico filed against the arms manufacturers is inadmissible. However, despite the defeat in the Supreme Court, it’s an issue that Mexico brought to the U.S. courts in a very creative way… something it hadn’t done before. The lawyers leading this lawsuit speak of a triumph — at least, in the collective imagination — by having brought this issue to the table.
Q. In the book, you describe the two visions of the United States that clashed during the campaign: that of the United States as a homeland and that of the United States as an idea, a land of opportunity. How does that gap manifest itself now?
A. That’s the great root of the divisions in this country. Is the United States a land of freedom where everyone can achieve their goals if they work for it? Or is the homeland — the place where you were born — only for those who were born [there] and raised with you? There’s a wide gap between not accepting more migrants and saying, “We need more migrants for the country to continue progressing.”
Q. There was a big difference in how former President Biden spoke about migration in his first campaign against Trump, versus how Vice President Kamala Harris spoke about it as a candidate, unable to defend an immigration policy that had failed.
A. Harris took a very complicated position during her campaign, but it’s true that the rhetoric on immigration and the border has changed in recent years. It’s like a car on a highway crashing from one retaining wall to another, bouncing back and forth in a zigzag pattern. Biden wanted to have a more humanitarian attitude toward migrants, but it was also a response to Trump’s policies during his first administration (2017-2021). When family separation — such a harsh policy — was so widely condemned, Biden presented himself as the contrast and the alternative. But after the crisis we witnessed, where a record number of migrants entered, or wanted to enter, the United States, [the Harris campaign] had to go back and adjust again to a much more centrist position, even closer to Trump’s positions.
I remember the interview I had with Harris before the election. I asked her if Trump had won the immigration argument, because at times, it sounded like the Democrats were delivering a very similar message to the Republicans. For the first time, [Democrats were] talking about increasing border security. They were saying very little about providing a path to citizenship for the immigrants who were contributing to this country.
Q. Is recent immigration unpopular among immigrant communities, considering that many Latino men voted for Trump?
A. What Trump did was present himself as a man who will defend the working class of the United States. And there are many Latinos who work here, who were seeing the impact of the economic crisis and were experiencing the immigration crisis, which was real. There were shelters in New York, Denver and Chicago that were overflowing. Those voters, of course, saw immigration as a problem. But it’s also a fact that many of them have experienced immigration, or know someone who has. Their families have gone through it. And perhaps they viewed Trump’s promise – that he would only deport criminals – as a solution.
Many of them are seeing what’s happening now, where not only criminals are being arrested. And my reading is that they’re surprised by the arrests in the [immigration] courts of people who are following the rules, with the deportation of people we can’t even say are undocumented, because they have papers.
Q. In the book, you talk about Trump and mention that he’s the first convicted criminal to reach the White House. You also note that he made millions of dollars marketing his mugshot. What makes Trump immune to the consequences of his actions?
A. That’s the million-dollar question. I wish I had an answer. But I think Trump is a man with an extraordinary talent for grabbing attention, for manipulating events to his advantage. He’s a marketing genius, in a natural and spontaneous way. He’s also a man who thrives on chaos, which he uses to his advantage. Much of Trump’s success has been his ability to capture the attention of the country and the entire world, navigate uncertainty and generate uncertainty to his advantage.
Q. Was Biden adept at handling the final years of his presidency?
A. The news reports that have come out describe surprising episodes, where Biden’s inner circle was effectively trying to contain the president so that his fragility wouldn’t be exposed. I saw him in the interview I describe in the book — and I saw him every year at the lunches he gave before his State of the Union address — and you could see that he could hold a conversation. Then, we all witnessed his decline, as happens to anyone of that age.
Q. How was the campaign defined by the fact that, at least initially, this was a campaign between two men around the age of 80?
A. In the polls, voters said, “This isn’t what we want.” And despite [Biden stepping down and Kamala Harris being chosen], President Trump won the popular vote. So, apparently, age wasn’t the most important thing for voters: it was also politics and [the record of] the Biden administration. And I found it very interesting that a developed country like the United States, which [has a younger population] than other developed countries, whose business leaders and those in other [sectors] are younger than the average in other countries, continues to be a country of older people when it comes to politics.
Q. You also write about the communities that have been hurt amid all these political and social upheavals between the United States and Mexico. These communities largely make up Telemundo’s audience. What service can journalism provide to these people?
A. What I hope is that information empowers these communities. At Telemundo, we try to do that all the time in the newscast. We need to tell these stories [and] serve as a platform to share the pain and suffering of many families, while also providing useful information by speaking with experts in immigration cases, [such as] lawyers who can give us strategies or alternatives. By telling someone’s story, perhaps someone else will relate. And maybe those solutions will be useful for many other families. That’s what we want to achieve. Every afternoon, that’s what we want to believe: that the work we do serves to help other people with information.
Q. How has the mood of the Latino audience changed in the first five months of the Trump administration?
A. It’s a very difficult time for the immigrant community in the United States. I’ve met families who, in recent months, have experienced firsthand the pain of [family] separations, deportations and arrests. Many people never imagined it would happen to them or their acquaintances. But I think, at this moment, it’s also important to highlight the contributions of this community, to escape stereotypes and try to tell the whole story. Because a story has been told of migrants invading the country, or [there’s a narrative] that they’re all part of criminal organizations… generalizations that aren’t true. That’s why our journalism must highlight the contributions that migrants have made to this country and lift the spirits of [the Latin American] community. There’s a lot of work to be done [as we] explain who Latinos are, where they are, how they contribute, what they do and how this country has benefited from them for so many years. Our journalism must highlight the contributions that this community makes.
Q. Which moments have you witnessed that you always hope to remember?
A. It’s very hard, because this is a job that never stops. And the job is to report on what happens every day. And every day is different; something is always happening. That’s also why I wrote the book; it was an exercise that I really enjoyed. It was like slowing down a bit and reflecting on what was happening.
We journalists are reporting all the time, [so writing is] like suddenly processing what we’ve just experienced, which we forget because of the pace we’re moving at. We’re so focused on doing [the job] well, on getting the job done, that we forget that we’re really witnessing history.
My intention is for the book to function as a moment in time, as a starting point so that we can understand what’s happening: where we come from [and] how we got [here].
Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition