WorldRisk

Which passport do you hold?

Risk to a traveller depends on their nationality. A country that sanctions your destination, or is sanctioned by it, changes how you are treated on arrival. Choosing here adjusts every score on the site.

We hold travel advice written for four nationalities so far. Selecting anything else shows the neutral baseline, and every page says so where it applies rather than presenting it as an assessment made for you.

Kept in your browser only. Nothing is sent anywhere, and you can change it at any time from the header.

All countries

Mexico

43Caution43 of 100, Caution band, 25 to 49good confidence(7/7 dimensions)
What this score means
Extreme75 to 100
Severe and systematic. Device search, interception and detention over online activity are documented rather than theoretical. Reconsider what you carry and what you say.
High50 to 74
Substantial and consistently evidenced measures. Device inspection, monitored networks or restricted services should be expected rather than treated as unlikely.
Caution25 to 49
Some risk, and manageable with precautions. Measures are evidenced but are narrow, inconsistently applied, or the picture is mixed.
Low0 to 24
Ordinary precautions. No systematic device search, network restriction or prosecution of visitors for online speech is evidenced.

Government travel advice is written for one citizenry, so the same country carries a different assessment depending on your passport. Change it in the header.

Showing the baseline, which weights every issuer equally. No government in our corpus publishes travel advice written for you, so this is not addressed to you specifically.

Dimensions

Each dimension is scored independently, because the traveller who cares about legal exposure for what they have posted is often not the one carrying client data. Higher means more risk.

Network threat

How hostile is the network environment to a foreign visitor, from state actors and criminals alike?

70High70 of 100, High band, 50 to 74

good confidence5 independent sources

Why this score (7 sources)

Report an inaccuracy (corrections need a link to the reporting, statute or research that shows it).

1 excluded source
  • Committee to Protect Journalists, via a site scoped search, observed 2023-07-01: aged out after 3 years.

Surveillance and interception

How comprehensively are communications intercepted, retained, and monitored, and is commercial spyware in use?

53High53 of 100, High band, 50 to 74

good confidence9 independent sourcesEvidence is ageing: contributing sources are weighted at 64% of full strength.

Why this score (10 sources)

  • Freedom House 2026 scored MEX 3 of 4 on freedom to express personal views on sensitive topics without fear of surveillance or retribution.

    Freedom House, Freedom in the World · observed 2026-01-01

  • V-Dem Digital Society Project 2025 scored MEX 2.55 of 4 on how comprehensively the government monitors social media and private online communication, where higher is freer.

    V-Dem Institute, University of Gothenburg, Digital Society Project · observed 2025-12-31

  • V-Dem Digital Society Project 2025 scored MEX 3.54 of 4 on how far privacy protection law shields communications from government access, where higher is freer. This measures what privacy law permits rather than what monitoring is practised, so it is read here as a constraint on interception rather than a measurement of it.

    V-Dem Institute, University of Gothenburg, Digital Society Project · observed 2025-12-31

  • The World Justice Project Rule of Law Index 2025 scored MEX 0.47 of 1 on whether freedom from arbitrary interference with privacy is effectively guaranteed, a measure built from expert assessments of warrantless interception of communications.

    World Justice Project, Rule of Law Index, sub-factor 4.6 · observed 2025-01-01

  • El 29 de octubre, la aplicación de mensajería WhatsApp, propiedad de Facebook, tomó acciones legales contra NSO Group, la empresa de tecnología de vigilancia que desarrolló el malware espía “Pegasus” aquirido por el Gobierno mexicano, cuyo uso ha sido estudiado y denunciado desde 2016 por ONGs nacionales como R3D, SocialTIC y Artículo 19,  en el caso conocido como #GobienoEspía.

    Our translation: On October 29, the messaging application WhatsApp, owned by Facebook, took legal action against NSO Group, the surveillance technology company that developed the “Pegasus” spyware acquired by the Mexican Government, whose use has been studied and denounced since 2016 by national NGOs such as R3D, SocialTIC and Artículo 19, in the case known as #GobienoEspía.

    Derechos Digitales, via a site scoped search · observed 2025-07-23 · extracted by language model

  • Mexico was the first recorded government client and most prolific user of the Pegasus spyware — a software commonly used to surveil the phones and devices of journalists, civil society workers, and activists.

    Global Voices (Advox), via a site scoped search · observed 2024-02-20 · extracted by language model

  • Only the federal judicial authority can authorize telephone tapping and interception of private communications, at the request of the appropriate federal authority or the State Public Prosecution Service.

    Comparative Constitutions Project · observed 2026-10-16 · extracted by language model

  • La periodista mexicana Carmen Aristegui, directora de Aristegui Noticias , añade otro factor: el espionaje y la desinformación, producto de agentes estatales y privados, y destaca la publicación de Televisa Leaks , una serie de reportajes basados en la filtración de cinco terabytes de información de la maquinaria de desinformación de Televisa.

    Our translation: The Mexican journalist Carmen Aristegui, director of Aristegui Noticias, adds another factor: espionage and disinformation, produced by state and private actors, and highlights the publication of Televisa Leaks, a series of reports based on the leak of five terabytes of information from Televisa’s disinformation machinery.

    Confidencial, via a site scoped search · observed 2025-05-06 · extracted by language model

  • “Aggressive surveillance and malware attacks against Maria Teresa Montaño, known for investigating sensitive topics, is especially heinous given Mexico’s status as the deadliest country for journalists in the western hemisphere and its  abysmal record on illegal surveillance  of journalists,” said Jan-Albert Hootsen, CPJ’s Mexico Representative.

    Committee to Protect Journalists, via a site scoped search · observed 2026-05-19 · extracted by language model

  • This report revealed that Claudio X. González, Director of a prominent anti-corruption organization, was targeted with government-exclusive spyware produced by the NSO Group.

    Citizen Lab feed · observed 2025-12-12 · extracted by language model

Report an inaccuracy (corrections need a link to the reporting, statute or research that shows it).

3 excluded sources
  • ARTICLE 19, via a site scoped search, observed 2024-01-15: aged out after 3 years.
  • ARTICLE 19, via a site scoped search, observed 2023-03-08: aged out after 4 years.
  • ARTICLE 19, via a site scoped search, observed 2022-10-05: aged out after 4 years.

Connectivity continuity

How likely am I to lose access to the internet, or to the specific tools I depend on?

38Caution38 of 100, Caution band, 25 to 49

good confidence8 independent sources

Why this score (37 sources)

Report an inaccuracy (corrections need a link to the reporting, statute or research that shows it).

Data jurisdiction

What happens to corporate or client data I carry into the jurisdiction?

36Caution36 of 100, Caution band, 25 to 49

moderate confidence2 independent sourcesEvidence is ageing: contributing sources are weighted at 64% of full strength.

Why this score (2 sources)

  • V-Dem Digital Society Project 2025 scored MEX 3.54 of 4 on how far privacy protection law shields communications from government access, where higher is freer.

    V-Dem Institute, University of Gothenburg, Digital Society Project · observed 2025-12-31

  • La desaparición del INAI dejó un vacío institucional que aumenta la vulnerabilidad de millones de personas frente a la explotación indebida de su información más sensible.

    Our translation: The disappearance of the INAI left an institutional vacuum that increases the vulnerability of millions of people to the improper exploitation of their most sensitive information.

    Derechos Digitales, via a site scoped search · observed 2025-08-19 · extracted by language model

Report an inaccuracy (corrections need a link to the reporting, statute or research that shows it).

Encryption and VPN legality

Are VPNs and strong encryption lawful, and can I be required to install an application or hand over keys?

34Caution34 of 100, Caution band, 25 to 49

moderate confidence2 independent sources

Why this score (2 sources)

  • V-Dem Digital Society Project 2025 scored MEX 3.61 of 4 on whether the government regulates the internet in a way consistent with international human rights standards, where higher is freer. This does not establish whether encryption or VPN use is lawful. It measures internet regulation in general, and is used as indirect evidence because the only survey that reads encryption law directly was published in 2019.

    V-Dem Institute, University of Gothenburg, Digital Society Project · observed 2025-12-31

  • OONI confirmed blocking on 258 of 66,257 measurements of anonymity and censorship circumvention tools in MEX over the 90 days to 2026-10-16, a confirmed blocking rate of 0.39 percent, with 2,152 further results inconclusive.

    Open Observatory of Network Interference, OONI measurement data · observed 2026-10-16

Report an inaccuracy (corrections need a link to the reporting, statute or research that shows it).

Border device risk

How likely is my device to be searched, imaged, or seized at the border, and can I be compelled to unlock it?

34Caution34 of 100, Caution band, 25 to 49

good confidence4 independent sources

No reports were found of devices being searched, imaged or seized at this border, or of travellers being compelled to unlock them. The score below is drawn from general indicators for this country rather than from anything observed about this risk, so it describes an absence of reports rather than evidence that the risk is absent.

What the score rests on (4 indirect sources)

Report an inaccuracy (corrections need a link to the reporting, statute or research that shows it).

Speech and legal exposure

What legal risk attaches to what I have said online, or say while I am there?

32Caution32 of 100, Caution band, 25 to 49

good confidence5 independent sources

Why this score (7 sources)

Report an inaccuracy (corrections need a link to the reporting, statute or research that shows it).

Trend

02550751002026-08-162026-10-16

The overall score is up 11.6 points over 61 days, from 31 to 42.6. Most movement is the event overlay decaying rather than anything happening: a news signal loses half its weight every three weeks, so a score drifts back toward its structural baseline on its own. A step that holds is the one worth reading.

Check this yourself

These are not inputs to the score for Mexico. They are where to look if you want to test what is above against something we did not use.

Sources

This assessment draws on 16 sources: Auswärtiges Amt, Reise- und Sicherheitshinweise; Citizen Lab feed; Committee to Protect Journalists, via a site scoped search; Comparative Constitutions Project; Confidencial, via a site scoped search; Derechos Digitales, via a site scoped search; Freedom House, Freedom in the World; Freedom House, Freedom on the Net, obstacles to access; Georgia Tech Internet Intelligence Lab, Internet Outage Detection and Analysis; Global Affairs Canada, Travel advice and advisories; Global Voices (Advox), via a site scoped search; International Telecommunication Union, Global Cybersecurity Index; Open Observatory of Network Interference, OONI measurement data; UK Foreign, Commonwealth and Development Office, Foreign travel advice; V-Dem Institute, University of Gothenburg, Digital Society Project; World Justice Project, Rule of Law Index, sub-factor 4.6. Every contributing claim is quoted with its origin and date above. Model version 0.12.0, computed 2026-10-16.

If something here is wrong, say so. Corrections are handled in public, and we correct because the evidence is wrong, not because someone objects.