Noroña and the Map of Resentment

Once again, the radicalism of certain Latin American politicians brings to the table the true face of an ideology that, disguised as historical justice, reveals deep-rooted aspirations of confrontation with the United States. This time, the statements come from Mexican politician Gerardo Fernández Noroña, known for his extremist posture and incendiary rhetoric. In a recent message, Noroña proudly recalled how in January 2017 he took a map of Mexico from 1830 to Trump Tower, asserting that the wall would be built—and that Mexico would pay for it using that old map as the foundation.

This is no minor anecdote. The symbolism is clear: reviving a map that includes vast regions of current U.S. territory is not merely a historical reference—it’s a veiled threat with political and geopolitical implications that cannot be overlooked. From Texas to California, that map represents a past that some radical sectors are not willing to leave behind.

That a politician who has held significant office in Mexico keeps this map as a trophy and showcases it as “the one used to protest” in front of then-president-elect Trump is not just a provocation—it’s a sign of how some narratives continue to feed anti-American resentment under the disguise of nationalism.

Beyond the political theatrics, the real danger lies in the message: there are still those who believe that reclaiming U.S. territory—even symbolically—is a legitimate act of historical revenge. What if an American politician visiting Mexico’s National Palace had shown a map of the Confederate States from 1861, hinting at some return to that past? The scandal would be immediate and global. But when the attack comes from the south, many choose to ignore it.

Meanwhile, the left remains silent.

That complicit silence—both in Mexico and in certain sectors of the U.S.—is deeply troubling. Because the real goal of this rhetoric is not to build bridges or promote bilateral cooperation, but to stir up tension, inflame resentment, and strengthen a narrative of victimhood that feeds off anti-U.S. sentiment.

And yet, who is the real imperialist when someone suggests that part of another country’s territory should once again be under their control—even symbolically? Isn’t that a modern form of territorial revanchism?

The Trump administration, from the first term and even more in this second, has made it clear: national security is non-negotiable, and sovereignty will not be compromised. Provocations like this only reinforce the need for firm policies, secure borders, and a realistic view of America’s role in the world.

What’s most unfortunate is that such radical positions also harm millions of Mexicans and Mexican Americans who live, work, and contribute to this country legitimately. Because this kind of discourse doesn’t build unity or justice—it creates suspicion, resentment, and division. Those who use the past as a political weapon, as Noroña has done, do not build the future—they sabotage it.

If we want a healthy, respectful relationship between the two countries, we cannot afford to normalize statements bordering on irredentism. Today it’s a 19th-century map—tomorrow, it could be far more radical rhetoric igniting new generations with visions of confrontation instead of cooperation.

The United States is, and will continue to be, a sovereign nation. The wall is not just a physical structure—it is also a reminder that ideological delusions will not prevail as long as there is strong leadership ready to defend our territory and our people.