A senior Guardia Civil officer has accused top leadership of political coercion. The dispute centers on orders to avoid Madrid's May 2 events. The case exposes growing friction between security forces and government directives.
For the first time in the history of the Guardia Civil, a general de división has formally accused a teniente general of exerting political pressure to influence official protocol. The conflict erupted in the lead-up to Madrid's May 2, 2025, commemorations, when internal communications revealed attempts to prevent the regional chief, Fernando Mora, from attending the annual events honoring the 1808 uprising.
According to details obtained by ABC, Luis Antonio del Castillo Ruano, head of the Mando de Operaciones (MOPS), relayed a direct order from Mercedes González, director general of the Guardia Civil, instructing Mora to skip the official ceremonies. The directive was described as a political instruction, reportedly originating from the Ministry, and was delivered amid heightened tensions between the central government and the Madrid regional administration led by Isabel Díaz Ayuso.
Fernando Mora resisted the pressure, arguing that the Guardia Civil must remain impartial and not be drawn into political disputes. He refused to excuse himself from the event without valid reason, emphasizing the force's commitment to honor and neutrality. The exchange escalated, with Mora expressing concern that the order amounted to a slight against both the Community of Madrid and its president.
After further discussions, including a direct conversation with Mercedes González, the initial order was reversed. Mora ultimately received authorization to attend the May 2 ceremonies, responding with a formal acknowledgment. The episode unfolded just weeks after the government of Pedro Sánchez had already prohibited the traditional military parade for the Dos de Mayo, a move that prompted a formal protest from the regional president to the Ministry of Defense.
The incident has intensified scrutiny of the Guardia Civil's leadership and its relationship with political authorities. Several senior officers have voiced concerns that parts of the command structure are being used to serve government interests, rather than maintaining institutional independence. The controversy comes in the wake of previous high-profile disputes, including the Supreme Court's annulment of the dismissal of Pérez de los Cobos, which limited the government's ability to remove regional commanders without judicial oversight.
While the Dos de Mayo parade was halted in Madrid, the military tribute to the heroes of 1808 continued in Seville, highlighting the selective application of official commemorations. The situation has fueled debate over the politicization of Spain's security forces and the boundaries of ministerial authority. As noted in a related report, the Guardia Civil has previously raised concerns about operational directives and political interference, such as in the case of nationwide emergency response plans (see analysis of internal warnings over DGT's V16 beacon plan).
The broader context includes the fallout from the Koldo case and the so-called Leire plot, both of which have placed additional pressure on the Guardia Civil's investigative units. The events surrounding the May 2 commemorations underscore the ongoing struggle within Spain's security institutions to balance loyalty to government directives with the imperative of institutional neutrality. The episode also reflects the legal and political constraints now shaping the actions of senior officers, especially in the wake of recent court rulings that have reinforced the independence of regional commands.
Spain's Guardia Civil, established in the 19th century, has long been regarded as a pillar of national security and public order. Its dual military and civilian character has often placed it at the center of political debates, particularly during periods of heightened tension between central and regional authorities. The current dispute highlights the challenges facing the force as it navigates evolving expectations of transparency, accountability, and political neutrality in a rapidly changing institutional landscape.
