A growing number of American parents are using cannabis, prompting questions about potential child exposure and safety, according to a new study.
Cannabis use increased substantially among parents between 2012 and 2024, with researchers estimating that at least 5.9 million U.S. children were living with a parent who used marijuana on most days in 2024.
By 2024, 8% of parents used cannabis on most days, 5.2% used it daily and 6.7% met the criteria for cannabis use disorder (CUD).
Daily cannabis use among parents was about four times as common as daily alcohol use, the study found.
While increases occurred across nearly all demographic groups, some of the largest were seen among younger and unmarried parents, those in lower-income households and those without a four-year college degree.
Researchers from the University of California, San Diego, analyzed data from the National Survey on Drug Use and Health (NSDUH), involving nearly 482,000 U.S. individuals ages 12 and older.
The findings were published in the journal Addictive Behaviors.
"Marijuana has become so socially acceptable that people are starting to overlook the risks," Dr. Jarid Pachter, who specializes in family medicine and addiction medicine at Stony Brook Medicine in New York, told Fox News Digital.
"Just because it's legal doesn't mean it's harmless," added Pachter, who was not involved in the study.
The physician also expressed concern about the example parents are setting for their children.
"If marijuana use is a regular part of life at home, children may start to see it as something that's normal and relatively harmless," he said, pointing to studies that show children whose parents use marijuana are more likely to use it themselves as they get older.
"That doesn't necessarily mean the parent's marijuana use is causing the child to use, but there's clearly an association."
The doctor also cautioned that THC, the main psychoactive chemical in the marijuana plant, is known to affect attention, memory, coordination and reaction time.
"When you have young children, you need to be alert and able to respond to their needs," he said. "I'm not suggesting that someone who uses marijuana can't be a good parent. My concern is about being impaired when you're responsible for a child's safety."
"I also think we need to be careful about normalizing daily marijuana use," he went on. "We wouldn't automatically consider daily alcohol use harmless, and we shouldn't look at marijuana that way, either."
Pachter emphasized that accidental ingestion is another concern, especially with edibles like marijuana gummies or chocolate, which can look like regular candy to a young child.
"Some develop severe sedation, confusion and difficulty walking. In more serious cases, children can have breathing problems and require hospitalization."
The more frequently someone uses marijuana, the greater risk of developing cannabis use disorder, the doctor cautioned.
"We also know THC can affect memory, attention and coordination. Frequent use, particularly of high-potency products, is associated with an increased risk of certain psychiatric problems in susceptible individuals."
Smoking marijuana around children can also pose a risk of secondhand exposure.
"Marijuana smoke contains many of the same harmful chemicals found in tobacco smoke," the physician said. "We know children can be exposed to THC through secondhand smoke, although we're still learning about the long-term health effects."
For those who use marijuana every day, Pachter suggests they ask themselves whether they can go without it, and whether it is affecting work, relationships or responsibilities.
"And if you're a parent, you need to consider whether your marijuana use is affecting your ability to care for your children."
The study had some limitations. The researchers did not assess parenting quality or childrenâs health, and the findings do not establish that parental cannabis use causes adverse child outcomes.
Additionally, the data relied on self-reported substance use, which could be subject to recall or reporting bias.
The researchers called for further studies examining whether the frequency of parental cannabis use, cannabis use disorder, household exposure and storage practices are associated with children's health or developmental outcomes.
The researchers reported funding support from the California Department of Cannabis Control, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the National Institute on Drug Abuse and the National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism.
Police authorities have seized 42 tonnes of cocaine since January this year, 17 more than in the whole of 2025, national director of the Judicial Police (PJ), Carlos Cabreiro, has
The federal drug police want to turn consumers of certain concentrated kratom-derived products into criminals while leaving traditional kratom leaf products outside the ban. Before exposing adults to arrest and prosecution, the feds owe them a scientific explanation for that distinction.
On October 14, the Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) announced its intent to temporarily place 7-hydroxymitragynine (commonly called 7-OH) and mitragynine pseudoindoxyl—above specified thresholds—in Schedule I. Schedule I is the category for drugs that the agency thinks have "no currently accepted medical use" and "a high potential for abuse." A scheduling order could be issued on or after November 13.
The DEA already classifies mitragynine pseudoindoxyl as a Schedule I substance regardless of concentration. The proposal would ease that restriction by introducing thresholds—while imposing new Schedule I restrictions on 7-OH under the same criteria.
The Food and Drug Administration (FDA) and the Department of Health and Human Services (HHS) have supported the DEA's move, and HHS supplied the proposed thresholds. Under the temporary scheduling provision of the Controlled Substances Act, the DEA must consider HHS's comments but need not follow its recommendations. Congress gave a law-enforcement agency the authority to decide which drugs individuals may consume.
The ordinary scheduling process gives health officials more authority: HHS's scientific and medical findings bind the DEA, and its recommendation against control prevents the agency from proceeding. But temporary scheduling lets the DEA bypass those requirements when it determines a substance poses an imminent hazard to public safety.
Congress should never have given federal drug police that power. Having done so, it should at least demand compelling evidence before they exercise it.
Kratom comes from a Southeast Asian plant whose principal alkaloid is mitragynine. Its leaves contain trace amounts of 7-OH. Manufacturers also sell concentrated 7-OH products and products containing the related compound, mitragynine pseudoindoxyl.
Millions of Americans use kratom or kratom-derived products. A 2022 review cited an estimate of 2.1 million U.S. users in 2020. In a survey of 2,798 users, 91 percent reported using it for pain and 41 percent said they use it to reduce or stop opioid use. In a letter to HHS, nine military veterans described using 7-OH to manage pain and symptoms of post-traumatic stress disorder and to move away from other opioids and from alcohol. They warned that banning it could drive them back to more dangerous drugs.
These reports describe benefits that warrant further study and needs that will persist after a ban.
Concentrated 7-OH products deliver a potent alkaloid without requiring consumers to ingest large amounts of kratom leaf. 7-OH is significantly more potent than mitragynine in activating the opioid receptors involved in pain relief. Researchers still need to determine how its benefits and risks compare across different human doses.
The DEA's proposed criminal controls hinge on concentration and composition. The concentration threshold is 1 milligram per gram of solid material or 1 milligram per milliliter of liquid, calculated for the two covered substances combined. Products would also trigger controls if the mitragynine-to-covered-substances ratio fell below 100 to 1.
Consider a tablet containing 15 milligrams of 7-OH, a strength advertised by some sellers. If the tablet weighs one gram, its concentration exceeds the limit fifteenfold. Diluting the same 15 milligrams into a product weighing 15 grams brings it to the concentration limit. Consuming the entire product still delivers the same dose. It would also need at least 1,500 milligrams of mitragynine to avoid the separate ratio restriction.
Adding bulk changes the concentration but does not change the amount of 7-OH consumed. These calculations tell us nothing about whether that dose is effective or safe.
The DEA acknowledges that controlled trials have not established safe consumption limits or standardized dosing for concentrated 7-OH products. Neither DEA nor HHS has determined that below-threshold products are safe.
In a public comment submitted to HHS in July, I urged officials to obtain the human evidence needed to justify a threshold before setting one. Animal studies can reveal hazards, including dependence and respiratory depression, but they cannot, by themselves, identify a scientifically defensible cutoff for human consumption.
Officials may intend these thresholds to distinguish traditional kratom from concentrated products. What evidence shows that crossing that boundary justifies criminal penalties?
The DEA also owes consumers an accounting of what prohibition could do to them. People seeking relief from pain or withdrawal will still need it after a ban. Some may abandon these products, while others may turn to illicit sellers or switch to other opioids. Criminalizing those choices could make them more dangerous.
Misleading labels, contamination, dependence, and drug interactions warrant attention. Accurate labeling, independent testing, age restrictions, and enforcement against fraud can address several of these concerns. Before resorting to criminal penalties, the DEA should explain why those measures would be inadequate.
We already know how difficult it is to verify a drug's identity, strength, and purity in an illicit market. Creating another prohibited product will give that market another opportunity.
Autonomous adults should be free to decide which substances they consume and which risks they accept. The DEA proposes taking that choice away even as it acknowledges major gaps in the medical evidence. Before the drug police turn more consumers into criminals, they should at least demonstrate how doing so will make those consumers safer.
A powerful new synthetic opioid said to be more potent than fentanyl has been linked to dozens of recent deaths in the U.S., prompting warnings from health officials.
Tennessee was an early hotspot, with the state’s health department announcing in March that more than 30 fatal overdoses had been associated with cychlorphine since October 2025.
An April 2026 notice from the White House’s Office of National Drug Control Policy cited at least 41 Tennessee deaths between July 2025 and February 2026 and at least 55 deaths nationally.
Fatal overdoses have also been reported in Illinois, California and Oklahoma, according to public health and law enforcement records.
"Cychlorphine is particularly dangerous due to its strength, where a very small amount can cause someone to stop breathing," the Los Angeles County Department of Public Health said in its advisory.
Nicholas Kardaras, Ph.D., CEO and chief clinical officer of the New York Center for Living in Manhattan and a clinical professor at Stony Brook Medicine’s School of Social Welfare, called cychlorphine "the new fentanyl on steroids."
Cychlorphine is a novel, unregulated synthetic opioid that activates the same receptors as fentanyl, according to the Drug Enforcement Administration. It can cause profound sedation, slowed or stopped breathing, or death.
The drug is not approved for medical use and has been detected in illicit drugs and counterfeit pills.
Kardaras called cychlorphine "one of the most potent synthetic opioids" now appearing in the illicit drug supply.
"Fentanyl is about 50 times more potent than morphine or heroin," he told Fox News Digital. "Cychlorphine is reportedly up to 10 times more potent than fentanyl — so theoretically, about 500 times more potent than morphine or heroin."
"This new synthetic drug is making fentanyl look like yesterday's candy."
Cychlorphine is taken in various forms — people can ingest it as a pill, snort it in powder form or crush it and administer it intravenously, according to Kardaras.
"The problem has been, in addition to its potency, it's often put in other designer drugs and in counterfeit pills," he cautioned.
While some people seek out cychlorphine for its potency, others may ingest it unknowingly when it is mixed into other substances.
"Sometimes, by talking about how potent some of these substances are, we increase the allure of them for some addicts, unfortunately," Kardaras said.
While cychlorphine is primarily a street drug, it can also be purchased online or via "boutique designer-drug markets," according to the expert.
Cychlorphine can cause a fatal overdose in anyone, regardless of age. Kardaras said younger people may face greater exposure because some are more likely to experiment with drugs or purchase counterfeit pills.
"They’re buying something online … and all of a sudden, without knowing it, they’re ingesting fentanyl or another synthetic opioid," he said.
"Most drug tests have very specific chemical structures that they detect in any kind of synthetic or non-synthetic drug, and this new one hasn't quite been baked into the current testing strips," Kardaras noted.
The takeaway, he said, is that cychlorphine may be up to 10 times more potent than fentanyl, is not detected by standard fentanyl test strips or routine hospital opioid urine screens, and may require multiple doses of naloxone to reverse.
"So it's a triple whammy," he said. "It's a constant battle of keeping up with the latest iterations of new drugs."
A Belgian criminal organisation’s links with a Brazilian cocaine gang have been the focus of a major trial in Brussels, where smuggling links have been alleged between European players and the drug cartels of Latin America
In the early hours of 7 September, a convoy of heavily armed police swept through the sleeping streets of central Brussels towards the Haren district, on the city’s north-eastern outskirts. They made their way to 22 Avenue du Bourget, a militarised bunker-like complex that was the former headquarters of Nato.
The modernist complex, with its austere and functional architecture, was hastily built in 1967 and houses the Justitia courtroom, where Belgium’s federal trials are now held. It was here that the perpetrators and accomplices of the 2015 Paris terrorist attacks and the 2016 Brussels attacks were tried in 2022.
Around 100 jerrycans were found in the early hours of this morning near the fishing harbour at Assenta Beach, in São Pedro da Cadeira, in the municipality of Torres Vedras,
The report from congressional Democrats found that Trump's pharmaceutical stock holdings grew from a maximum reported value of $1.7 million in 2024 to as much as $56.2 million at the end of 2025.
Portugal’s PJ criminal police have seized 556 kilograms of cocaine in the Porto area and arrested one man as part of an investigation into an organised crime group importing drugs
Recent political developments have rekindled longstanding debates over "fusionism," the combination of libertarianism and conservative traditionalism that dominated the American right from roughly the late 1970s through the early years of this century. That dominance has been severely undermined and likely overthrown by the rise of nationalism and "postliberalism." But some would like to revive it. Reason editor Stephanie Slade's important new book Fusionism: Liberty, Virtue, and the Future of the American Rightoutlines one notable case for such a revival.
I agree with Slade, Jonathan Adler, and others that fusionism is far preferable to nationalism and postliberalism. But I am skeptical about its political viability. In addition, fusionism has significant conceptual flaws. Finally, at least in the short to medium term future, an alliance with "abundance liberals" is probably a more promising political strategy for libertarians than a revival of fusionism.
Despite my relative skepticism about a revival, I readily acknowledge fusionism's significant past achievements, and ongoing superiority over various other tendencies on the conservative right. Between the 1970s and the early 2000s, fusionist conservatives and libertarians (sometimes with the help of moderate/"neoliberal" Democrats) made huge contributions to such achievements as deregulation of many sectors of the economy, reducing tax rates, reinvigorating constitutional protection for property rights and limits on federal government power, and the West's triumph in the Cold War. While early fusionists sometimes undervalued the Civil Rights movement and were soft on racism, over time most of them came to promote color-blindness and and abjuring racial and ethnic discrimination in government policy. They even, for a long time, succeeded in making racial and ethnic color-blindness the dominant approach to such issues in the conservative movement. William F. Buckley and other fusionists also worked to purge the political right of its longstanding tendencies towards anti-Semitism. In combination, these are no small achievements.
The Rise of Right-Wing Nationalism and Postliberalism
Instead of color-blindness and nondiscrimination, we now have a conservative movement increasingly permeated with racial and ethnic bigotry and anti-Semitism of the kind fusionists sought to purge. Prominent right-wing "influencers" go so far as to claim we need to bar Indian immigrants because they work too hard and undermine the objectives of "homogeneity" and "maintain[ing] a white majority in the country." Many congressional Republicans also promote religious discrimination in immigration and other policies. In foreign policy, Trump has undermined relations with liberal democratic allies like Canada, Australia, and the nations of the European Union, and kowtowed towards illiberal nationalist authoritarians like Vladimir Putin.
Trump's idiosyncratic personal predilections contribute to some of these developments. But most arise from inherent tendencies of nationalism, which gravitates towards a zero-sum view of the world that leads to expanded government control of the economy, repression of racial and ethnic minorities, undermining civil liberties, and authoritarianism.
The "postliberalism" advocated by many leading right-wing intellectuals and activists is just as bad. Postliberals like Adrian Vermeule and Patrick Deneen are very clear about their desire to massively expand government control over the economy and civil society, and destroy both economic and personal liberties. Unlike nationalism, postliberalism has little mass public support. But it does have considerable influence among the intellectuals and activists who may staff future Republican administrations and congressional offices.
Illiberal big-government nationalism holds a strong sway over the Republican base. The 2024 election dramatically illustrates that. In the 2024 GOP presidential primary, Trump was challenged by Nikki Haley (a prominent advocate of traditional fusionism) and Ron DeSantis (popular governor of a major red state who tried to, in effect, split the difference between MAGA nationalism and pre-2016 conservatism). And, yet, despite the events of January 6, 2021 and numerous scandals, Trump not only beat these opponents, but did so very easily. While that was partly due to his particular type of charisma, it also highlights the influence of illiberal nationalism over the GOP. Even now, with Trump increasingly unpopular, most congressional Republicans shy away from challenging his worst policies, for fear of losing to MAGA types in GOP primaries. Many of those who are willing to challenge him on major issues have either been ousted in GOP primaries (like Rep. Thomas Massie), or chose not to run for reelection because of the likelihood of suffering that fate (e.g. - Rep. Don Bacon).
Facing a difficult political environment in the 2026 midterm elections, some congressional Republicans have become more willing to criticize a few of Trump's policies, such as the badly mismanaged Iran War. But very few have repudiated his big-government nationalism across the board or called for a return to fusionism.
Perhaps this will all change once Trump leaves the scene. But we shouldn't count on it. At this point, the major likely contenders for the 2028 GOP presidential nomination - Vice-President J.D. Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio - seem like they are vying for the mantle of inheritors of Trump's worst tendencies, not opponents of them.
Inherent Limitations of Fusionism
Even if fusionists do manage to regain control of the Republican Party and the conservative movement, the ideology's inherent limitations might undermine its value. The extent to which fusionism is compatible with strong protections for economic and personal liberty is actually ambiguous. Frank Meyer, a key founder of fusionism in the 1950s and 60s, famously argued that liberty and virtue are mutually reinforcing because liberty is what enables people to be truly virtuous. A person who only does the right thing because he is forced to by the state isn't truly virtuous at all. Think, for example, of a man who only refrains from violence and theft for fear of going to prison. A paragon of virtue he is not.
This position has considerable merit. But most social conservatives, including many otherwise sympathetic to fusionism, don't fully buy it, or even come close. They argue that, at least in many instances, we want to achieve virtuous behavior, regardless of the motivation for it. Or, at least, that doing the right thing for a bad reason is far preferable to not doing it at all. Thus, if you believe that using pornography, prostitution, gambling, taking various drugs, and so on are inherently immoral, then you may well advocate using government power to suppress these activities, even if people who only refrain out of fear of punishment are not as virtuous as those who abjure them voluntarily.
Many conservative fusionists do, in fact, believe that a wide range of consensual activities like the above are inherently evil. Alternatively, many believe that we have to suppress at least some of them out of paternalism. For example, they argue we must suppress drugs, prostitution, and gambling, because people who do these things don't understand what's good for them.
For these reasons, most conservative fusionists have in fact been willing to endorse many policies that severely curtail liberty. Even Ronald Reagan - the president whose administration most exemplified fusionism - promoted a major expansion of the War on Drugs, a federal policy that massively curtails liberty by killing or imprisoning hundreds of thousands people merely because they have used, possessed, or distributed substances the government considers too risky. Reagan's drug policies were not as bad as Trump's policy of outright murdering supposed drug dealers in the Caribbean and Pacific. But they were very bad, even so - and a striking example of the limitations of fusionism.
Elsewhere, I have argued that, at this moment in political history, the best available potential allies for libertarians are "abundance liberals." They are by no means perfect. But they agree with us - to a large extent - on numerous major issues, including trade, immigration, nuclear power, "YIMBY" housing deregulation, and more. And, like us, they tend to oppose both left and right-wing ethnic identity politics (on which latter point see recent articles by Matt Yglesias and Kelsey Piper). On the whole, they are less paternalistic and less prone to advocate suppression of consensual activities than most fusionist conservatives. They also have considerably greater influence over the Democratic Party and the political left, generally, than fusionists currently have in the Republican Party and the conservative movement.
The left, of course, has its own dangerous illiberal menace in the form of "democratic socialists," whose statism has much in common with that of MAGA nationalists. But this faction is nowhere near dominating the Democratic Party and the political left to the degree that nationalists have come to dominate the right.
None of this proves that libertarians cannot continue work with fusionist conservatives at all. There are many issues on which there is still room for cooperation. I myself have worked with such conservatives in the Society for the Rule of Law, and in the effort to combat Trump's tariffs (where they played crucial roles in the litigation that led to the invalidation of Trump's IEEPA tariff power grab by the Supreme Court and in currently ongoing efforts to challenge his attempts to use other laws to reimpose sweeping tariffs). Some conservative fusionists are more pro-liberty than others. And, for most, there is considerable variation across issues.
And, perhaps, things will be different in a decade or two. The Trumpist moment in right-wing politics may dissipate over time, though it seems unlikely to do so quickly.
Productive cooperation between libertarians and (some) conservatives is still very much possible. But we should recognize that fusionists are unlikely to regain control over the conservative movement anytime soon, and that fusionism has notable inherent limitations. Thus, we should look for other allies, and carefully limit the percentage of our eggs that we put in the fusionist basket. At this point, it cannot safely hold very many of them.
Drawing on dozens of interviews with intelligence and police officers across two continents, a Guardian investigation reveals the murderous cost of our insatiable appetite for cocaine
As abductions go, few have been more brazen. Alan Jalloh was with two friends outside Goodies supermarket, frantic as usual with late afternoon shoppers. Rush hour in downtown Freetown, Sierra Leone’s capital, was under way with familiar gusto.
A black Toyota Rav4 forced its way through the Peninsula highway traffic. Witnesses describe burly white men leaping out, yanking on balaclavas. Jalloh, 40, seemed to freeze. As did his two friends, one a famous Freetown footballer. All three were dragged into the waiting SUV. None of them have been seen since.
Cocaine seizures in Europe are up more than fivefold in 10 years as a host of cartels take root. A four-month Guardian investigation reveals the true scale of a continent-wide shift
A four-month investigation by the Guardian has revealed that the surge in cocaine trafficking to Europe is directly linked to the expanding presence of Latin American criminal networks in Europe, where they have forged close ties with local mafia organisations.
The investigation, utilising databases, police and intelligence agencies, along with interviews with judges, prosecutors and experts from eight countries, shows that cartels and factions from Colombia, Brazil, Ecuador, Venezuela, Mexico and the US are active in at least 12 European countries. Between 2014 and 2024, there was a 471% rise in the quantity of cocaine seized and more local laboratories processing cocaine derivatives were dismantled.
One man has died during a major anti-drug operation off the Algarve which led to the seizure of around three tonnes of cocaine following a high-speed pursuit at sea. The
A 57-year-old man wanted by German authorities on suspicion of drug trafficking has been arrested in the Algarve by Portugal’s Polícia Judiciária (PJ). The foreign national was located and detained
by James Bovard, Activist Post: As the Covid-19 pandemic struck this nation, many Americans were stunned to see top federal health officials brazenly lie to buttress their own power. Bureaucrats and politicians unleashed themselves by shrouding how the feds bankrolled the creation of the pathogen, sanctifying a pseudo-miracle cure vaccine that was concocted almost overnight, […]
The versatility of drug-trafficking gangs appears to have no limits. The latest major drugs seizure has taken place on beaches and in a property near Figueira da Foz – a
Portugal’s National Republican Guard (GNR) have seized approximately 93,500 doses of cannabis resin found along the coast near Praia da Foz, in the municipality of Sesimbra, south of Lisbon. The
When Eric Leas, a public-health scientist, discovered packages of “magic mushroom” gummies for sale in a smoke shop, he wondered: Were these candies even legal? Had they been properly tested, and did anyone actually know what constituted a safe dose? This Aeon piece follows Leas down a rabbit hole as he investigates whether the Amanita muscaria products currently on store shelves are as safe as their candy-like packaging suggests.
I found a product with a very high reported amount of muscimol. It was a gummy product, one in a benign-looking package that did not have childproofing or clear warnings. I began doing the calculation no one wants to do. If a young child ate the entire package, mistaking it for candy, could they die? I took the reported amount of muscimol, the toxicology estimates (the LD50), a conversion used to translate dosing between species, and the average weight of a small child. The result looked bad. Bad enough that I did not quite trust myself. So, I called a friend, Matthieu Rouffet, a medicinal chemist and the dean of science at a local college, who does toxicology calculations more often than I do. I wanted him to tell me I had made an error. Instead, he was alarmed too.
Costa Rica’s Minister of Foreign Affairs, Manuel Tovar, was dismissed from his post last week by the country’s president Laura Fernández. Tovar was considered one of the “heavyweights” of the country’s dominant political faction, having previously served as Minister of Commerce under President Rodrigo Chávez.
The decision was made by Fernández on September 24, because, according to a statement, her foreign minister failed to inform her of an invitation to a meeting held in New York City aimed at strengthening the so-called Shield of the Americas.
Shield of the Americas is a political-military alliance led by Donald Trump that seeks to secure Washington’s geopolitical leadership in the region, and which right-wing and far-right Latin American governments have joined enthusiastically.
Right-wing President Fernández said that failing to report such an important meeting constituted an act of negligence on Tovar’s part. The Costa Rican president also said that Shield of the Americas is a “fundamental platform in the fight against drug trafficking and organized crime.”
The president did not travel to the United States to deliver her speech at the UN General Assembly because she was on an official visit to Colombia with her counterpart, the far-right Abelardo de la Espriella.
The Costa Rican presidency reported that the invitation – which was not extended to her – came from US Secretary of State Marco Rubio himself. Several heads of state from Shield of the Americas member states participated, including Javier Milei of Argentina, José Antonio Kast of Chile, Rodrigo Paz of Bolivia, Daniel Noboa of Ecuador, Irfaan Ali of Guyana, Nasry Asfura of Honduras, Santiago Peña of Paraguay, Luis Abinader of the Dominican Republic, and Keiko Fujimori of Peru, among others.
In this regard, Fernández publicly apologized to the US ambassador to the Central American country, Melinda Hildebrand: “I reiterate to your country my firm and resolute commitment to continue supporting the Shield of the Americas alliance… I regret my absence… The failure to forward that invitation from your government to me did not go unnoticed, and today the foreign minister of the Republic was dismissed,” which clearly demonstrates the enormous importance San José attaches to an invitation from Washington.
Tovar’s dismissal comes on the heels of a series of dismissals of key ministers in Fernández’s government, a development the opposition has used to highlight a certain instability in the very young administration.
“We are concerned about serious foreign policy mistakes that need to be corrected… Second, we are concerned about the stability of the cabinet: in less than five months, five senior officials – including ministers and deputy ministers – have already been dismissed. That instability is not in her best interest, nor in that of her government or Costa Rica,” said the leader of the National Liberation Party caucus.
For his part, the former foreign minister did not explain the reasons behind his decision not to inform Fernández about the invitation. In a post on X, he said briefly: “I thank Laura Fernández for the opportunity to serve the Costa Rican people from the Casa Amarilla, and I wish her every success as President of the Republic for the good of the country. Finally, I would like to commend the team at the Ministry of Foreign Affairs for the passion and dedication with which they undertake every mission on behalf of the country. To them, I offer my eternal gratitude. I accept this moment with great peace of mind. I will always stand by the just causes of the Costa Rican people and the international community.”
The reasons behind Tovar’s decision remain unknown, although several sectors of the opposition have raised suspicions about an alleged ulterior motive on Fernández’s part for not attending the Shield of the Americas meeting – which, if true, could reveal political and diplomatic contradictions deeper than they might appear at first glance.
Login
