Why is Mexico threatening to sue Elon Musk over SpaceX debris?
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has threatened to sue Elon Musk's SpaceX over falling debris from a rocket launch across the border in the United States.
SpaceX said its efforts to recover debris from Mexico had been hindered by 'trespassers'.
Here is more about what is happening between Mexico and SpaceX.
What happened?
A SpaceX 'Starship' rocket, part of Musk's project to send humans to space, exploded in a giant fireball during a routine launch test in Texas on June 19.
Starship rockets are 120 metres (400ft) tall and made primarily from stainless steel.
The rocket, called the Starship 36, went through 'catastrophic failure and exploded' at the Starbase launch facility at 04:00 GMT, according to local Cameron County authorities.
The facility is located at Starbase, formerly called Boca Chica Village, in Cameron County, Texas, close to the US-Mexico border.
What does Mexico say about contamination?
On Wednesday this week, Sheinbaum told her morning news conference that 'there is indeed contamination' which has been detected in Mexico in the aftermath of the SpaceX explosion.
She said Mexican officials are conducting a review of the environmental effect caused to the Mexican state of Tamaulipas, a little more than 300km (190 miles) from Starbase.
Tamaulipas governor, Americo Villarreal Anaya, said authorities were examining 'the internationally required distances are being respected in order to have these types of facilities, so that there is no risk to urban centres', according to a report in The New York Times.
'We are reviewing everything related to the launching of rockets that are very close to our border,' said Sheinbaum.
She added that Mexico is currently trying to determine whether international laws had been violated so it can file 'the necessary lawsuits'.
What does SpaceX say?
In an X post on Thursday, SpaceX claimed its attempts to recover the fallen debris from Mexican territory had been hindered.
'Despite SpaceX's attempts to recover the anomaly related debris, which is and remains the tangible property of SpaceX, these attempts have been hindered by unauthorised parties trespassing on private property,' the X account wrote. It did not clarify who these parties were or where they were 'trespassing'.
SpaceX also said there were 'no hazards to the surrounding area' from the rocket debris. 'Previous independent tests conducted on materials inside Starship, including toxicity analyses, confirm they pose no chemical, biological, or toxicological risks.
'We have requested local and federal assistance from the government of Mexico in the recovery,' it added.
As previously stated, there are no hazards to the surrounding area. Previous independent tests conducted on materials inside Starship, including toxicity analyses, confirm they pose no chemical, biological, or toxicological risks.
And as is the case before any test, a safety… https://t.co/lJHGInE5vj
— SpaceX (@SpaceX) June 26, 2025
Where else have SpaceX rockets exploded?
In May, the Federal Aviation Administration in the US granted SpaceX permission to increase the number of Starships it launches each year from five to 25.
Later that month, a Starship prototype exploded over the Indian Ocean.
Before that, two Starships broke into pieces after launching from Texas during test flights in January and March. In January, airlines were forced to divert flights to avoid falling debris.
Does space debris pose a danger to the Earth?
In January this year, a red-hot 500kg (1,100lb) metallic object fell onto a village in Kenya's Makueni county, 115km (70 miles) southeast of Nairobi. The Kenyan space agency said the debris was a fragment of a space object.
On Monday, March 3, the Australian Space Agency released an advisory that a Russian rocket making re-entry into the Earth's atmosphere was expected to fall into international waters off the southeast coast of Tasmania, causing a 'sonic boom'. However, the following day, the agency said it had 'monitored a space debris re-entry over the southeast coast of Tasmania' but was 'unaware of any reports or sightings of the debris'.
The likelihood of space debris posing a danger to people, aircraft or the Earth, in general, is very low. However, recent studies show that the amount of space debris falling to the ground is on the rise.
A study by researchers at the University of British Columbia in Canada, published in Scientific Reports in January 2025, found that uncontrolled re-entries of rocket bodies or space debris into the Earth are on the rise and may pose an increased risk of collision to aircraft.
Another study, called The Space Environment Report, released by the European Space Agency (ESA) in March this year, found that at least three 'intact', human-made objects fall back onto the Earth every day. This is besides the several fragments of space debris that fall onto the Earth.
NASA has warned that there are millions of pieces of space debris low in the Earth's orbit, but there are no international space laws about cleaning up this debris.
Currently, individuals on the ground are not at a high risk of being hit and injured by space debris re-entering the Earth. The US nonprofit space corporation, Aerospace, estimates this risk to be less than a one-in-one-trillion chance.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Qatar Tribune
an hour ago
- Qatar Tribune
France orders Tesla to end ‘deceptive practices'
Tribune News Network Doha French anti-fraud authorities said on Tuesday they have ordered US electric car giant Tesla's local subsidiary to stop 'deceptive commercial practices' after an investigation found several violations harmful to consumers and contrary to law. The fraud prevention and consumer protection agency (DGCCRF) said its agents investigated Tesla's French subsidiary between 2023 and 2024 after reports were filed on a consumer complaint platform. The probe revealed 'deceptive commercial practices regarding the fully autonomous driving capabilities of Tesla vehicles, the availability of certain options and vehicle trade-in offers', it said. The agency also cited delays in refunding cancelled orders, a lack of information on the location of deliveries and incomplete sales contracts, among other violations. Tesla was given four months to comply with regulations. It faces a daily fine of 50,000 euros ($58,000) if it fails to stop deceptive commercial practices over the fully autonomous driving option of certain Tesla models. Tesla did not immediately respond to an AFP request for comment. Tesla sales have tanked in Europe in recent months owing to an ageing fleet of cars, rising competition and consumer distaste for Elon Musk's role in US President Donald Trump's administration. Tesla has completed its first fully autonomous car delivery, with a Model Y driving itself from the company's Texas factory to a customer's home. Tesla's, opens new tab new car sales in Europe fell 27.9% in May from a year earlier even as fully-electric vehicle sales in the region jumped 27.2%, with the U.S. EV maker's revised Model Y yet to show signs of reviving the brand's fortunes. Overall car sales in Europe rose 1.9%, with the strongest growth coming from plug-in hybrids and cars powered by alternative fuels, data from the European Automobile Manufacturers Association (ACEA) showed. Tesla's European sales have now fallen for five straight months as customers switch to cheaper Chinese EVs and, in some cases, protest against Tesla CEO Elon Musk's politics.
Al Jazeera
a day ago
- Al Jazeera
Why the Trump administration is targeting immigration courts for arrests
Why the Trump administration is targeting immigration courts for arrests A man is detained by federal immigration officers at a US immigration court in New York City on June 26 [David 'Dee' Delgado/Reuters] A man is detained by federal immigration officers at a US immigration court in New York City on June 26 [David 'Dee' Delgado/Reuters] Houston, Texas – Oscar Gato Sanchez had gotten dressed up for his day in immigration court. The 25-year-old wore a red button-down, black slacks and dress shoes, his dark hair trimmed short with the aim of leaving a good impression. It was a Monday afternoon in June, and Gato Sanchez, a Cuban immigrant, had come to present himself before a United States immigration judge. As he sat inside the Texas courtroom, he had no reason to doubt that the court would eventually hear his case. Gato Sanchez was seeking asylum on the basis that his life would be in danger if he returned to Cuba. There, human rights groups have accused the government of repression and torture, and Gato Sanchez feared he would face repercussions for having attended recent antigovernment protests on the island. While he waited to go before the judge, his aunt, who asked not to be named for fear of retaliation, sat in the room outside. She was anxious. The clock seemed to move more slowly than usual. 'What is taking so long?' his aunt, a Houston resident, asked a friend next to her. But the two women were not the only ones waiting outside the courtroom. Near the elevators, four men sat staring at their phones, dressed in ordinary street clothes. Around 3:15pm, Gato Sanchez emerged from the courtroom with a folder of documents in his hands. As soon as he did, the four men surrounded him. It was as if they already knew Gato Sanchez's case had been dismissed. They were federal agents, and they were in the courthouse to take Gato Sanchez into custody as soon as his case was thrown out. His aunt was frantic. She tried to ask for information. But the only details the men would give her was that her nephew would be sent to Conroe, Texas, the site of the largest detention centre in the Houston area. The men did not even tell her whether they were from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) or another federal law enforcement agency. 'Why, God, did they do this?' His aunt screamed, overcome with emotion. As the agents took Gato Sanchez away, his aunt's friend yelled out to him. 'You're not a bad person,' she said through tears. Gato Sanchez is one of the hundreds of people recently detained immediately after leaving their immigration hearings. Advocates fear the courthouse arrests not only violate the right to due process but also discourage immigrants from pursuing legal means to stay in the US. 'These are people that are doing the right thing,' said Cesar Espinosa, the executive director of Houston immigrant rights nonprofit FIEL. 'You're between a rock and a hard place. If you don't show up, they're going to come get you. If you do show up, they're going to come get you, which is not due process.' Federal officers lead a migrant man to an elevator in a immigration court in New York City on June 26 [David 'Dee' Delgado/Reuters] Federal officers lead a migrant man to an elevator in a immigration court in New York City on June 26 [David 'Dee' Delgado/Reuters] The question of whether immigration raids should take place within courthouses has gained new urgency since the return of President Donald Trump in January. In the early months of his second term, Trump has followed through on his pledge to pursue a campaign of mass deportation. Over the last month alone, his administration has stepped up its quota for immigration arrests, raising the bar from 1,000 to 3,000 per day. Part of the strategy for reaching that goal is to leverage the court system and detain immigrants after their scheduled hearings. This has led to some high-profile clashes. In April, for instance, a Wisconsin judge was arrested and charged with conspiracy and obstruction of justice for attempting to help an immigrant evade the federal agents waiting outside her courtroom. John Gihon, the vice chair of the ICE liaison committee at the American Immigration Lawyers Association, said his own clients are now scared to go to immigration court as a result of the arrests. 'It's creating a gigantic chilling effect on everybody going to immigration court. I see that every day, constantly now,' said Gihon, who previously worked as a lawyer for ICE. Immigration arrests at courthouses have long been a controversial practice. In 2011, ICE issued a memorandum identifying "sensitive locations" where arrests should be avoided, including churches and schools. Courthouses were not among them. But that changed in 2021, under former President Joe Biden. ICE issued new guidance discouraging immigration agents from conducting civil arrests in courthouses, just as they would in "sensitive" places. The day Trump began his second term, however, the Department of Homeland Security rescinded all the guidelines for "sensitive" areas. "The Trump Administration will not tie the hands of our brave law enforcement, and instead trusts them to use common sense," the department said in its statement. A man is placed in handcuffs by law enforcement officers at a New York City immigration court on June 26 [David 'Dee' Delgado/Reuters] A man is placed in handcuffs by law enforcement officers at a New York City immigration court on June 26 [David 'Dee' Delgado/Reuters] But advocates say the Trump administration has gone a step further, using the immigration system itself to facilitate courthouse arrests and swift deportations. The immigration court system in the US is separate from the judicial branch of government. Rather, it is run by the Department of Justice, directly under the president's authority. That allows the president to shape immigration policy and give directives to the courts. But critics accuse the Trump administration of manipulating the system to prioritise his deportation push over the right of immigrants to receive a fair hearing. Earlier this month, NBC News broke the story that the Trump administration had issued a memo calling on immigration judges to quickly dismiss the cases on their dockets. In the past, the Department of Homeland Security could request a case be dismissed, but immigrants would still have about 10 days to respond before the judge rendered a decision. But in the new memo, the Trump administration called on immigration judges to grant dismissals on the very same day they were requested. That meant immigrants would lose their protections against deportation immediately. Individuals who have been in the country for less than two years are often eligible for expedited removal from the country, meaning they have little chance of appealing their deportation. And advocates say ICE agents are now stationed right outside the courtrooms, waiting to sweep up the immigrants whose cases were dismissed. Bianca Santorini, a Houston-based lawyer who took Gato Sanchez's case pro bono after his courthouse detention, said that ICE is taking advantage of the immigration system 'to trick people to come to court". 'I'm not asking that every case is won. What I'm asking is that they give people their day in court,' Santorini said. 'They are taking that away from people unjustly.' ICE declined to confirm the number of agents at immigration courts in recent weeks but said that its enforcement at courthouses 'is wholly consistent" with its longstanding practices. 'ICE officers and agents seek to conduct enforcement actions at an alternate location when practicable," a spokesperson told Al Jazeera. "However, when no other location is feasible or when the alternate location increases the risk to public safety or the safety of our officers, ICE will seek to effectuate the arrest in the location that is least likely to endanger anyone's safety." A federal immigration officer patrols the hallway at a Manhattan immigration court on June 26 [David 'Dee' Delgado/Reuters] A federal immigration officer patrols the hallway at a Manhattan immigration court on June 26 [David 'Dee' Delgado/Reuters] A dismissal in immigration court, however, does not mean an immigrant's rights are exhausted. They can still seek alternative pathways to legal status by appealing their case or applying to a government programme like Temporary Protected Status. Gihon, the Florida-based immigration lawyer, explained that immigrants like Gato Sanchez will have a chance to seek asylum again if they choose. But being detained often disincentivises them from continuing their cases. That is part of the Trump administration's strategy, according to Gihon. 'The whole point is to detain as many people as possible because it's much less likely that they're going to be successful in winning their cases and less likely that they're going to fight,' Gihon said. 'They're just going to accept deportation.' Advocacy groups like FIEL are now advising immigrants not to come to court without legal representation, if possible. If a lawyer is not available, FIEL has circulated guidance about what to say to oppose a dismissal and keep a case open. "Your honour, I reserve the right to appeal," one line reads. Another suggests explaining, "Your honour, before dismissing my case, I respectfully ask you to hear my side of the story. I am afraid to return to my country because I will face harm, danger or death." In a statement, the Department of Homeland Security justified its policies by blaming the Biden administration for allowing unfettered immigration into the country. 'ICE is now following the law and placing these illegal aliens in expedited removal, as they always should have been,' a spokesperson said. Narel Lopez comforts her daughters on June 25 after her husband and a son were detained at an immigration court in San Antonio, Texas [Eric Gay/AP Photo] Narel Lopez comforts her daughters on June 25 after her husband and a son were detained at an immigration court in San Antonio, Texas [Eric Gay/AP Photo] Despite the controversy, authorities have continued to target immigration hearings for arrests. The day after Gato Sanchez was arrested, immigration agents were once again in the waiting room of the Houston immigration court. Some wore ski masks and glasses. One approached a Venezuelan immigrant named Daniel, who had shown up to court alone. The agent explained that they would be taking him into ICE custody. 'Understand?' the agent asked. 'Don't understand,' Daniel answered, his grasp of English still minimal. After a lawyer spoke to Daniel to take his information, immigration agents took him into the lift. Moments later, another Venezuelan man and a Mexican man exited the courtroom with Santorini, their lawyer. The three of them were standing by the lift when a plain-clothed agent approached. 'We have a warrant,' he told Santorini. She questioned why ICE would detain one of the men again if he had already been released on a $7,500 bond. 'Where is the warrant?' she asked. 'I don't have it,' the immigration agent responded. He declined to identify which agency he worked with. Santorini said she and her clients would wait until he could produce a warrant. They took a seat in the waiting room. After a few minutes, another man, who identified as an ICE agent, returned with an administrative warrant dated for that day. 'Who are you scared of?' one of Santorini's clients asked in Spanish as he was handcuffed. 'We're just here to work.' As the men were ushered into the lift, the ICE agent assured Santorini that her clients would still have the chance to seek asylum if they feared returning to their country. But Santorini scoffed at the comment and held back tears, knowing that her clients would have to repeat a legal process they had already begun, this time behind bars. 'All we want is that they give us our right to a day in court,' Santorini said. 'Arresting someone at court is not the correct thing to do here in the US.'
Al Jazeera
a day ago
- Al Jazeera
Political violence is quintessentially American
Violence begets violence, so many religions say. Americans should know. After all, the United States – a nation founded on Indigenous genocide, African enslavement and open rebellion against an imperial power to protect its wealthiest citizens – cannot help but be violent. What's more, violence in the US is political, and the violence the country has carried out overseas over the generations has always been connected to its imperialist ambitions and racism. From the US bombing of Iran's nuclear sites on June 21 to the everyday violence in rhetoric and reality within the US, the likes of President Donald Trump continue to stoke the violent impulses of a violence‑prone nation. The US news cycle serves as continual confirmation. In June alone, there have been several high‑profile shootings and murders. On June 14, Vance Boelter, a white male vigilante, shot and killed former Minnesota House Speaker Melissa Hortman and her husband, Mark, after critically wounding State Senator John Hoffman and his wife, Yvette. That same day, at a No Kings mass protest in Salt Lake City, Utah, peacekeepers with the 50501 Movement accidentally shot and killed Samoan fashion designer Arthur Folasa Ah Loo while attempting to take down Arturo Gamboa, who was allegedly armed with an AR‑15. On June 1, the start of Pride Month, Sigfredo Ceja Alvarez allegedly shot and murdered gay Indigenous actor Jonathan Joss in San Antonio, Texas. On June 12, Secret Service agents forcibly detained and handcuffed US Senator Alex Padilla during Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem's news conference in Los Angeles. Mass shootings, white vigilante violence, police brutality, and domestic terrorism are all normal occurrences in the United States – and all are political. Yet US leaders still react with hollow platitudes that reveal an elitist and narcissistic detachment from the nation's violent history. 'Such horrific violence will not be tolerated in the United States of America. God bless the great people of Minnesota…' said Governor Tim Walz after Boelter's June 14 shootings. On X, Republican Representative Derrick Van Orden wrote: 'Political violence has no place in America. I fully condemn this attack…' Despite these weak condemnations, the US often tolerates – and sometimes celebrates – political violence. Van Orden also tweeted, 'With one horrible governor that appoints political assassins to boards. Good job, stupid,' in response to Walz's message. Senator Mike Lee referred to the incident as 'Nightmare on Waltz Street' before deleting the post. Political violence in the US is commonplace. President Trump has long fostered it – such as during a presidential debate in Philadelphia, when he falsely claimed Haitian immigrants 'eat their neighbours' pets'. This led to weeks of threats against the roughly 15,000 Haitian immigrants in Springfield, Ohio. On June 9, Trump posted on Truth Social: 'IF THEY SPIT, WE WILL HIT… harder than they have ever been hit before.' That led to a federally-sanctioned wave of violence against protesters in Los Angeles attempting to end Trump's immigration crackdowns, including Trump's takeover and deployment of California's National Guard in the nation's second-largest city. But it's not just that Trump may have a lust for political violence and is stoking such violence. The US has always been a powder keg for violence, a nation-state that cannot help itself. Political violence against elected officials in the US is too extensive to list fully. Assassins murdered Presidents Abraham Lincoln, James A Garfield, William McKinley, and John F Kennedy. In 1804, Vice‑President Aaron Burr killed Alexander Hamilton in a duel. Populist candidate Huey Long was assassinated in 1935; Robert F Kennedy in 1968; Congresswoman Gabby Giffords was wounded in 2011. Many assassins and vigilantes have targeted those fighting for social justice: Dr Martin Luther King Jr, Malcolm X, Elijah Parish Lovejoy, Marsha P. Johnson, and civil‑rights activists like Medgar Evers, James Chaney, Andrew Goodman, Michael Schwerner, Viola Liuzzo, and Fred Hampton. Jonathan Joss and Arthur Folasa Ah Loo are more recent examples of marginalised people struck down in a white‑supremacist society. The most chilling truth of all is that, because of the violent nature of the US, there is no end in sight – domestically or overseas. The recent US bomb mission over Iran is merely the latest unprovoked preemptive attack the superpower has conducted on another nation. Trump's unilateral use of military force was done, presumably, in support of Israel's attacks on Iran, allegedly because of the threat Iran poses if it ever arms itself with nuclear weapons. But these are mere excuses that could also be violations of international law. It wouldn't be the first time the US has sought to start a war based on questionable intelligence or reasons, however. The most recent example, of course, is the US invasion of Iraq in 2003, a part of George W Bush's 'preemptive war' doctrine, attacking Iraq because they supposedly had a stockpile of WMDs that they could use against the US in the future. There was never any evidence of any stockpile of chemical or biological weapons. As many as 2.4 million Iraqis have died from the resulting violence, statelessness, and civil war that the initial 2003 US invasion created. It has not gone unnoticed that the US mostly bombs and invades nation-states with majority people of colour and non-Christian populations. Malcolm X said it best, a week after Lee Harvey Oswald assassinated John F Kennedy in 1963: 'Being an old farm boy myself, chickens coming home to roost never did make me sad; they've always made me glad.' Given that Americans consume nine billion chickens a year, that is a huge amount of retribution to consider for the nation's history of violence. Short of repealing the Second Amendment's right-to-bear-guns clause in the US Constitution and a real commitment towards eliminating the threat of white male supremacist terrorism, this violence will continue unabated, with repercussions that will include terrorism and revenge, domestically and internationally. A country with a history of violence, elitism, and narcissism like the US – and an individual like Trump – cannot divorce themselves from their own violent DNA, a violence that could one day consume this nation-state. The views expressed in this article are the author's own and do not necessarily reflect Al Jazeera's editorial stance.
