By Eng. Marita Chappuis
(06-08-2025) On July 28, as tradition dictates, the President of the Republic delivered a Message to the Nation that lasted more than four hours. In the days prior, various analysts speculated that in order to rise in the polls she would seek to address the problem of illegal mining.
Ultimately, during the speech, the President reported on recent actions such as the installation of the Technical Roundtable on Mining Formalization, which will address the formalization process for the 31,560 authorized registrations, safeguarding the labor rights of their workers; and the establishment of a technical group to draft a new law for small-scale and artisanal mining.
She also announced that her government had approved the new National Strategy for the Reduction and Interdiction of Illegal Mining to 2030, coordinating 16 State entities with a firm approach against crimes such as human trafficking, contract killings, extortion, and money laundering. She assured that her administration would maintain a permanent presence in areas such as Pataz and Madre de Dios, giving concrete signs of governing with firmness, legality, and respect for communities.
She did not mention the repercussions of the universal tariff on copper-manufactured products that the U.S. government will apply, nor any incentives for formal mining to attract young people who, due to lack of work, swell the ranks of the informal economy. Topics such as the energy transition and critical minerals—highly important in today’s world—were also absent.
Analysts’ comments were disapproving. Enrique Castillo considered that although her speech was a disaster, the President sought to present herself as a brave politician, a “Wayki of iron”. Carlos Basombrío opined that Dina Boluarte never understood the scope and risks of violent crime. Meanwhile, Alejandra Costa warned that it remains uncertain what the price floor will be for our main export product (copper), which moves the needle more than any other in Peruvian state revenue. Madeleine Osterling described the speech as full of arrogance and empty talk, recommending that we not lose the capacity for outrage, nor be swayed by numbers and promises, that we recognize when we are being lied to, and maintain a degree of critical analysis.