signal

After the total failure that was Mexico’s participation in the Qatar 2022 World Cup, where they were eliminated in the group stage, the future looked very dire for “El Tri.” By 2024, the situation had worsened after another international failure at the Copa América. The 2026 World Cup co-hosts had even more pressure now. In a crisis-control move, the Mexico Football Federation opted to bring back its proven problem solver, head coach “El Vasco” Javier Aguirre, for a third stint.

In a short time, Aguirre was able to shape “El Tri” into a competitive squad by breaking from his usual approach. The man who shockingly demoted then-24-year-old goalkeeper Guillermo “Memo” Ochoa in favor of a more experienced player prior to the 2010 World Cup was now relying on upstarts.

Aguirre’s 26-man roster for the 2026 World Cup features 14 debutants on soccer’s grandest stage.The crown jewel of this nucleus is undoubtedly 17-year-old wonderkid Gilberto Mora, but there are also two American-born players who are also expected to become pillars of the team: Brian Gutiérrez, from Berwyn, Ill., and Obed Vargas, from Anchorage, Alaska.

Under Article 30, Section A, Part II of the Mexican Constitution, individuals born abroad are considered Mexican by birth if they are children of Mexican parents — a Mexican mother or a Mexican father. Gutiérrez’s parents are from San Juan de los Lagos, Jalisco, while Vargas’ father is a native of Morelia, Michoacán, and his mother was raised in Mexico City.

“Obviously, I’m taking it day by day and just trying to enjoy the experience,” said Gutiérrez about the opportunity to play for Mexico at the World Cup. “I talk about it a lot with my friends and family. Honestly, it’s amazing… I’m just living in the moment.”

Gutiérrez, 22, and Vargas, 20, are not the first players born in the United States to represent Mexico in a World Cup. That distinction belongs to Miguel Ponce and Isaac Brizuela, who were both born in California and part of the 2014 squad. But the comparisons largely end there.

Unlike Ponce and Brizuela, Gutiérrez and Vargas were fully raised in the United States and went through their entire soccer development on American fields. Ponce and Brizuela were also fringe contributors; they didn’t see any minutes in Brazil 2014.

Meanwhile, Gutiérrez and Vargas are already getting important playing time with the national team. Both were part of Mexico’s historic group stage where, for the first time in history, the team won all three of its games. Gutiérrez was a starter against South Africa and South Korea, while Vargas came off the bench to help preserve the 1-0 lead over South Korea.

Their protagonism in Aguirre’s squad could also signal another new era for the Mexican national team — one in which Mexican American players are just as vital as those born on Mexican soil.

“Brian and Obed are two young players of Mexican heritage. They are very talented players who have made great progress recently. We called them up, and they convinced us with their performances,” said Aguirre prior to the tournament. “I believe there are many Mexican American players who, in the future, will continue strengthening Mexico’s youth national teams, including the women’s side. That makes me happy because they were not born in Mexico, yet they have a deep love for the country and have shown it by choosing to represent us.”

Both Gutiérrez and Vargas are also products of MLS academies.

Gutiérrez, a skillful and dynamic attacking midfielder, rose through the ranks of Chicago Fire’s youth system and made his senior debut in 2020. In December, he moved to storied Liga MX club Chivas, his childhood team. It took time for Gutiérrez to establish himself as a starter for Gabriel Milito’s squad, but his game-changing talent was there — enough to catch the eye of “El Vasco.”

Vargas, a box-to-box midfielder, developed through the Seattle Sounders youth system and debuted with the senior team in 2021. A strong showing against Atlético de Madrid in the 2025 Club World Cup led to the Spanish club adding him to its roster this February. This move also put him in Aguirre’s World Cup plans.

“Playing for Mexico at the World Cup is a dream come true for all Mexican American kids,” said Vargas. “Obviously, with the World Cup being in both countries, it’s special to me. I have connections and ties to both countries.”

For so long, it was said Mexican American players just could not earn a place with Mexico at the international level. Players like Édgar Castillo and Alejandro Zendejas — born in Juárez but raised in El Paso — represented “El Tri” up to the U-23 level, then switched and played for the U.S. Jonathan González (Santa Rosa, Calif.) represented the U.S. at youth level and then chose Mexico, but after a few call-ups he fell out of the picture.

But in this World Cup cycle, Mexican American players have stood out more than ever.

Aguirre’s preliminary 55-man World Cup roster included six Mexican American players. Richard Ledezma (Phoenix), Efraín Álvarez (Los Angeles), Jorge Ruvalcaba (Rialto), and Julián Araujo (Lompoc, Calif.) ultimately missed the final cut. Of the four, Ledezma and Araujo came closest to making the team, but for different reasons fell short.

Vargas believes it was only a matter of time before the talent broke through.

“I think Mexican American players have always been there. The quality has always been there. Obviously, the growing passion for the sport in the United States has helped fuel the development of many of those players,” said Vargas. “I think it’s amazing to see so many Mexican Americans doing well with the national teams of both the United States and Mexico. Dreams come true for kids, and that continues to inspire the next generation of Mexican American players coming through in the U.S.”

Gutiérrez and Vargas, like many standout Mexican American players over the last 15 years, began their paths with “El Tri” amid a long-standing tug-of-war between their birth country and the country of their parents. The Mexico men’s national team and their U.S. counterparts have increasingly become rivals, both on the field and in recruiting dual-national players.

For Mexico, the United States now represents a prime area for scouting outside its territory. According to the Migration Policy Institute’s (MPI) tabulation of data from the U.S. Census Bureau’s 2022 American Community Survey, approximately 38.8 million U.S. residents were either born in Mexico or reported Mexican ancestry or origin.

Not only do Mexican American players expand the national team’s talent pool, but as some argue, they also bring a different element that can be a major advantage for the program.

Former Mexico youth coach and current Guatemala coach Luis Fernando Tena recently raised eyebrows in an interview with ESPN Deportes by stating that Mexican American players possess qualities that can set them apart from homegrown Mexican players.

“They have an American mindset. They grew up with that mentality and with good nutrition, and that makes them different,” said Tena, who led Mexico’s U-23 team to the gold medal at the 2012 London Olympics. “They are more disciplined, work harder, and are more focused — something that we sometimes don’t always find in many Mexican-born players.”

Gutiérrez and Vargas started their international careers representing Team USA at youth level, but FIFA’s one-time switch rule allowed them to change allegiances.

Vargas said he chose Mexico because he simply “followed his heart.” His love for his heritage and the Mexican national team outweighed everything else.

As for Gutiérrez, he was motivated to make the change because his time at Chivas convinced him. In Liga MX, the club has been at the forefront of tapping into the Mexican diaspora in the U.S. Their long-standing “Mexicans-only” policy limits the club’s talent pool when acquiring players. Because of this, Mexican American players are becoming a vital lifeline for Chivas.

“As soon as I arrived at Chivas, I knew my decision was to represent Mexico because we play with 100% Mexicans, that’s just how it is,” said Gutiérrez.

Opportunity may have also played a major role in Gutiérrez’s and Vargas’s “one-time switch” decisions. Both had no clear pathway into the U.S. senior squad, while Mexico offered a clearer route — and a chance at the 2026 World Cup.

In a 2023 interview, El Paso native Ricardo Pepi, who made the one-time switch from Mexico to the U.S., said on the Men in Blazers podcast that his decision was influenced by the fact that the U.S. had him in mind for the senior squad, while “El Tri” did not.

“It was just easy to decide. The U.S. wanted me to join them in World Cup qualifiers, which is a big deal,” said Pepi. “It’s a unique opportunity, being at a World Cup, and something I didn’t even have to think about because Mexico wanted me for the U-20s and eventually the first team. I was like, ‘I’m past that.’”

Although Gutiérrez and Vargas chose Mexico and embrace their parents’ culture, their duality is still present. They carry their communities with them.

A year ago, when aggressive ICE raids and mass deportations swept through many immigrant communities in the United States, particularly Mexican immigrant communities, a visibly frustrated Aguirre refused to comment on the situation, saying he was “apolitical” and not “a spokesperson” for the Mexican people.

This was not the case with Gutiérrez and Vargas, who both addressed questions about the ICE raids during Mexico’s World Cup media day in Pasadena, where they switched seamlessly between English and Spanish.

Gutiérrez answered without hesitation. His hometown of Berwyn is a suburb of Chicago, a city that in September was targeted by “Operation Midway Blitz,” a major federal immigration enforcement surge. According to the Chicago Tribune, between 3,800 and 4,500 individuals were detained or arrested during the operation.

Gutiérrez’s words reflected the strain felt throughout his community.

“It’s been a hard, hard year for us,” Gutiérrez said. “It’s affected a lot of families, and I take playing for Mexico with great pride and hope to show it on the field.”

It’s no secret that a large part of Mexico’s fanbase is composed of Mexican Americans. They are the ones who help fill massive NFL stadiums for “El Tri’s” annual MexTour, a slate of mostly inconsequential friendly matches that are often seen as a cash grab for the Mexican Football Federation. The presence of standout players like Gutiérrez and Vargas is a major development for this segment of the fanbase.

By featuring players with shared cultural experiences and struggles, the connection between the Mexican diaspora in the U.S. and “El Tri” can only strengthen. The ties now go beyond simply sharing the same roots; Mexican Americans can now gravitate toward a team with players who represent their dual identity. And this can bring a true sense of belonging.

Reporting from Washington — The hotly contested Keystone XL and Dakota Access pipeline projects that President Trump brought back to life with the stroke of a pen Tuesday may still never get built — but for Trump, that isn’t necessarily the point.

The projects have become among the country’s most potent symbols of the clash between an oil and gas industry seeking to maintain the old order of energy production and the climate change movement pushing for a different direction.

Trump used the two proposed pipelines to send an unmistakable message during his first week in office: energy firms and their projects are back in favor.

When the Obama administration rejected Keystone in 2015 after years of protests and tens of millions of dollars spent by all sides, green-energy champions celebrated a seminal victory. The decision against the project came right before Obama signed a landmark global warming accord with dozens of other heads of state at a summit in Paris.

The Dakota Access project more recently became a national rallying point not only for environmental groups but for Native American tribes who said it threatened grounds they hold sacred. The Standing Rock Sioux Tribe has set up a camp to protest the pipeline, and the battle over it has become violent at times, with protesters clashing with police.

As the fight drew increasing national attention last year, the Obama administration dealt the project a potentially devastating blow that once again sent a strong message of opposition to fossil fuel projects. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers denied the pipeline a crucial easement and announced it would look for alternatives to its planned route under a dammed section of the Missouri River called Lake Oahe.

Days before Obama’s term ended, the Corps of Engineers announced it would start an extensive environmental review that could add months — potentially years — to the permitting process and open the project to more public comment, creating new opportunities for opponents to block it.

Trump’s decision to revive the prospects for both projects comes as his administration jettisons much of Obama’s climate policy — including U.S. participation in the Paris accord — and promises to work aggressively to curb regulations that inhibit drilling and mining.

As the Trump administration moves swiftly to change direction, it also issued a gag order to the staff at the Environmental Protection Agency, which took a lead in Obama’s climate fight. Officials at the agency have been instructed not to interact at all with the news media and to freeze all contracts and grants.

Trump’s directives on the pipelines may pay political dividends. The angry opposition to the announcements comes mostly from places and groups that have never supported Trump. By contrast, the moves are likely to be well received by workers in Rust Belt communities who backed Trump in the election and now see him delivering on his promise to work for more jobs in middle America.

The decision on the Dakota Access pipeline instructed the Corps of Engineers to “consider” whether it can grant final approval for the project. It does not immediately clear the way for construction to resume, but strongly tilts in that direction, telling the Corps to consider skipping any additional environmental review.

Jan Hasselman, a lawyer for the advocacy group Earthjustice, called that directive illegal, saying it was “an insult to Standing Rock, and it continues a historic pattern of trampling on the rights of native people.”

Environmental groups call the $3.8-billion, 1,170-mile project — nearly all of which has already been built — a threat to clean air and water, as well as to farming communities.

On Keystone, the president emphasized the jobs aspect of the project by insisting that the pipeline be built exclusively with U.S. steel, which he said would generate still more jobs.

That demand may or may not be feasible. If it raises the pipeline’s cost, it could prove the death knell for a project that may no longer pencil out financially. The price of oil has plunged over the last couple of years to levels far below what Keystone’s designers had envisioned.

The order Trump signed on Tuesday invited TransCanada, the firm that developed Keystone, to submit a new application for a permit for the pipeline. It directed administration agencies to swiftly review that application and issue a new decision within 60 days. That would be in sharp contrast with the nearly eight years during which the project languished before Obama finally rejected it.

During the long delay, fighting Keystone became a rallying point for the environmental movement. While studies showed the effects of the single pipeline on the climate would be negligible — as would be its impact on boosting global oil production — resistance focused on the environmental movement drawing a line in the sand, demanding that public officials stop backing big, invasive infrastructure projects that feed the world’s oil habit and undermine the push for more green energy.

TransCanada immediately declared it would seize the new opening for its project, which is designed to ship 800,000 barrels of oil a day from the Canadian tar sands to refineries along the U.S. Gulf Coast.

In a statement, TransCanada vowed the pipeline would create thousands of jobs and boost the American economy, saying it “represents the safest, most environmentally sound way to connect the American economy to an abundant energy resource.”

Trump echoed the project’s supporters, saying the pipeline could generate 28,000 construction jobs. Opponents dispute that number, saying the new jobs would be less abundant than Trump claims and noting that in any case they would be temporary. They also say the project would undermine the potential creation of many more jobs in solar, wind and geothermal energy.

Trump’s directive provoked predictable outrage from environmental groups, which are vowing to mobilize just as they did before to block construction with mass protest and relentless legal challenges.

For all the heavy symbolism, however, the project’s impact on the world’s energy sector will ultimately be limited.

“In the end, this is all a tempest in a teapot,” said Andrew Hoffman, a professor of sustainable enterprise at the University of Michigan. The project, he said, ultimately would not lower prices at the pump or add significantly more greenhouse gases to the atmosphere.

“It is just one more battlefield between the left and the right about free commerce, the role of government and the influence of activists,” he said.

Halper reported from Washington and Yardley from Denver.

evan.halper@latimes.com

Follow me: @evanhalper

ALSO

Conservative Colorado judge emerges as a top contender to fill Scalia’s Supreme Court seat

Trump makes his priorities clearer, and deportation of young immigrants has fallen off the list

Trump moves quickly in bid to revamp America’s trade policy

WASHINGTON — U.S. retaliatory strikes against Iran will continue after its forces shot down an American helicopter, President Trump said Wednesday, accusing the Islamic Republic of stringing him along over months of negotiations to end the war.

The prospect of a renewed U.S. air campaign cast fresh doubt on the viability of a ceasefire between the United States and Iran that has largely held since April, when the two sides reached a tenuous truce, pausing weeks of fighting. Trump’s decision to resume attacks comes after an exchange of fire between Israel and Iran threatened to spiral into open war over the weekend.

The administration has presented Trump with options to expand U.S. targets beyond the immediate area around the Strait of Hormuz to Iranian power plants across the country, an escalation that will open the president up to accusations he is targeting civilian infrastructure, according to a defense official familiar with the matter.

Speaking with reporters in the Oval Office, Trump encouraged the Iranians to accept a framework agreement negotiated between the two sides, and suggested that additional military action might compel Tehran to accept a final truce.

“We hit them hard yesterday, and we’re gonna hit ‘em again hard today,” Trump said. “And we’ll see what happens with the deal. We were really close to a deal, but they keep tapping us along — they keep playing us for suckers.”

The president’s remarks came a few hours after Trump posted on his social media website that Iran “will have to pay the price” for taking too long in negotiating a peace deal.

When pressed by reporters to elaborate, Trump said he meant that bombing would resume but declined to say whether that would include strikes on Iranian power plants and bridges, a threat he has repeatedly issued during the war.

The ongoing conflict, which is in its fourth month, has left a mark on the global and domestic economy. The U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics reported Wednesday that inflation accelerated in May, driven by a surge in energy prices linked to the war with Iran.

The consumer price index rose 0.5% on a seasonally adjusted basis — the largest monthly increase in three years — pushing the annual inflation rate to 4.2%.

Asked whether he was concerned about the inflation numbers, Trump told reporters that the “numbers were great.”

“You know what I really love? I love the inflation. You know why? Because as soon as this war is over…,” Trump said, without finishing the thought.

The remark prompted near instantaneous news releases from Democratic operatives, as well as the party war room, which sent out a statement accusing Trump of mishandling a reckless war that has devastated the economy in the process.

“Donald Trump’s disastrous economic agenda and deadly and costly war with Iran have made life unbearable for millions of Americans,” Kendall Witmer, the Democratic National Committee’s rapid response director, said in a statement.

“Working families are shouldering skyrocketing costs for basic goods, with their wages being eaten up by Trump’s soaring inflation,” she added. “On the campaign trail, Trump promised to ‘defeat inflation,’ and to lower costs on ‘Day One,’ but two years later, Trump can’t get a handle on his war of choice with Iran as he tanks the economy back home.”

Trump then told reporters about a secret military mission to ensure safe passage for oil tankers through the Strait of Hormuz, one of the world’s most important commercial waterways. He said the operation had secured the passage of more than 100 million barrels of oil through the strait since it began.

“We took out, the other night, 22 ships late at night with no lights because they don’t have any radar because we blasted the crap out of it,” Trump said.

A couple of hours later, Trump wrote in another post that the military operation had been “wildly successful,” and that it proved the United States — not Iran — was in control of the Strait of Hormuz.

“Their military is defeated, and their economy is lost,” he wrote. “It’s over for Iran!”

Over months of diplomacy with Iran, Trump has sought to avoid a return to conflict, often seeking de-escalation when fighting has flared — and repeatedly pressuring Israel to minimize its attacks in Lebanon, where it continues to battle the militant group Hezbollah, a proxy of Iran.

Israeli strikes continued Wednesday, according to local news reports, while Hezbollah said it carried out attacks on Israeli troops stationed in southern Lebanon.

Speaking to journalists in the Oval Office, the president implied he was losing patience with Iranian tactics at the negotiating table.

“I gave them a break, at the request of Pakistan,” he said. “They still are working on trying them to do what’s right. But we want a deal that’s meaningful. We want a deal that works.”

“It was just tap, tap, tap,” the president added. “I don’t know what they’re doing.”

WASHINGTON — Bold conservative thinkers with clear public records need not apply.

An increasing number of conservative activists fear that is the message President Bush is sending with his two choices for the Supreme Court.

This week’s nomination of White House Counsel Harriet E. Miers, following Bush’s earlier selection of John G. Roberts Jr. as chief justice, means that the president has chosen two Supreme Court nominees with limited — or virtually no — public records on the key constitutional controversies dividing the parties. In the process, he’s bypassed a long list of judges with consistent conservative records on state and federal courts.

“I don’t know that there is a deliberate message — I think he is just trying to avoid trouble — but the message comes through: Do not be controversial, do not express strong opinions that arouse opposition,” said Robert H. Bork, the conservative legal scholar and former federal judge. Bork’s extensive writings keyed an explosive confirmation battle that culminated in his rejection by the Senate when President Reagan nominated him to the Supreme Court in 1987.

During almost five years of bruising partisan warfare on issues from taxes to Iraq, few people have ever accused Bush of dodging a fight. But that’s exactly the charge he is now facing from disgruntled conservatives.

They contend that Bush has chosen Miers, and even Roberts, largely because he fears Democratic resistance to conservatives with more concrete public records, such as appellate court Judges J. Michael Luttig and Edith H. Jones.

“Is the president sending a message that these distinguished conservatives are too controversial to be nominated for the high court, even with a Senate containing 55 Republicans?” a Wall Street Journal editorial asked Tuesday.

White House officials and some Bush allies on the right deny the charge that he is gun-shy about promoting nominees with extensive public records. They note that the president has consistently appointed known conservatives, such as Janice Rogers Brown and Priscilla R. Owen, to the powerful federal appellate courts — even renominating them after they were initially blocked by Democratic filibusters.

“In the president’s mind, it is not disqualifying if you have a public track record of conservatism, and he has proved that through his appellate court appointees,” said White House counselor Dan Bartlett.

Bush, at a Tuesday news conference, sought to assure his supporters that Miers shared his conservative views and would remain steadfast to them.

“I know her well enough to be able to say that she’s not going to change, that 20 years from now she’ll be the same person, with the same philosophy, that she is today,” he said.

But Bush’s critics on the right maintain that his reluctance to nominate a known conservative for the Supreme Court sends a strong signal encouraging caution and consensus among conservative legal thinkers and judges.

“I suppose a lot of people are not going to want to join the Federalist Society,” said Bork, in a reference to a conservative legal group.

Both sides agree that the 1987 defeat of Bork marked a turning point in Supreme Court nominations. Since then, both parties have generally favored nominees without the detailed and controversial record he carried to the witness table.

“It’s almost become a qualification,” said Bork, a senior fellow at the conservative Hudson Institute think tank.

But Bush’s conservative critics say he has carried this tendency to a new height through his selection of Roberts, who had served just over two years as a federal judge, and Miers, who has never served on the bench or written publicly on major legal questions.

In contrast, both of President Clinton’s Supreme Court appointees — Stephen G. Breyer and Ruth Bader Ginsburg — had served for more than a decade on federal appellate courts. And Ginsburg had written widely as a law professor and general counsel for the American Civil Liberties Union.

Bush’s conservative critics acknowledge that Roberts’ limited public record made it more difficult for Democrats to organize against him, an advantage that Miers may also benefit from.

But the president’s critics maintain that Bush is underestimating his ability to win confirmation for a more clearly defined candidate while Republicans hold 55 Senate seats; only twice since 1930 has a president’s Supreme Court nomination been rejected while his party controlled a Senate majority.

“If Bush feels he could have put a Mike Luttig on there without a fight, he would have done it,” said Mark Levin, president of the conservative Landmark Legal Foundation and a former chief of staff to Edwin Meese III, who was attorney general under Reagan. “It’s a political calculation that he’s got enough on his table right now, and why instigate a fight?”

Luttig, of Virginia, is a favorite of conservative activists.

The critics on the right see two principal risks in choosing justices without a long pedigree. One is that without a firm anchor in conservative legal views, they will trend leftward on the court — the way almost all conservatives believe David H. Souter, appointed by President George H.W. Bush, has done. This fear is greater about Miers because Roberts’ advocacy for conservative positions in previous GOP administrations has left the right considerably more, though not completely, confident about him.

The other fear is that the nomination of candidates without lengthy public records will discourage conservatives from advancing controversial positions that challenge legal conventional wisdom — either in their writings or on the courts. The Wall Street Journal said that by appointing Miers, the president “missed a chance to send a message that taking firm sides in our judicial debates is not politically disqualifying.”

Bush advisors and allies say such conclusions misread his logic for the Miers appointment. They say his long personal relationship with Miers gives him more confidence about her judicial philosophy than he could obtain from reading a judge’s opinions or from a short interview.

“Harriet Miers reflects less a reticence to appoint someone with a record and more a commitment to appoint someone he knows shares his judicial philosophy,” said Leonard Leo, a former vice president of the Federalist Society now working with groups supporting the president’s court nominees.

Still, the uneasiness on the right about Bush’s decision-making has reached the point that two prominent legal conservatives this week joked that the best thing that ever happened to Roberts was the refusal by the Senate, then controlled by the Democrats, to confirm him after President George H.W. Bush nominated him to the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit in 1992.

If Roberts had been confirmed then, his lengthy legal record might have dissuaded the current President Bush from nominating him to the Supreme Court this summer, said one of the conservatives, who asked not to be identified.