La batalla judicial por la instalación en el puerto de Ceuta de un campamento para realojar a más de 1.700 migrantes irregulares que llegaron a la ciudad autónoma en la entrada masiva del 30 y 31 de julio no se ha cerrado. La Audiencia Nacional ha admitido a trámite el recurso presentado por el Sindicato Unificado de Policía (SUP) contra la decisión del Ministerio de Transportes de ceder los terrenos de la instalación para acoger a parte de los extranjeros que permanecían en chabolas en las playas de El Trampolín y Benítez desde hace 50 días. El sindicato considera que el procedimiento seguido no garantiza la seguridad para los agentes que lo custodian, los propios migrantes y el resto del personal destinado en el campamento.

La resolución judicial, fechada el pasado viernes y que es recurrible, no supone un pronunciamiento sobre el fondo del asunto, pero sí judicializa la elección del puerto como lugar para instalar el campamento y obliga a Transportes a defender su actuación ante los tribunales. Como primera medida, la Audiencia Nacional da “un plazo improrrogable de 20 días” al departamento de Óscar Puente para que entregue el expediente completo. Ante la posibilidad de que en este pueda haber “documentos declarados como confidenciales por la Administración”, el tribunal pide al ministerio que no los incluya entre los que envíe a la Audiencia Nacional, pero que sí remita “un índice descriptivo” de los mismos y que estos queden “a plena disposición” de los magistrados. La resolución también pregunta al departamento de Puente si tiene conocimiento de la existencia de otros recursos contencioso-administrativos contra la decisión de instalar en el puerto las carpas para la acogida de los migrantes irregulares, para, en ese caso, proceder a acumularlos todos en un único procedimiento.

El SUP, a través de una nota de prensa, ha aplaudido la decisión judicial y reclamado, ahora que el campamento está operativo, “conocer y fiscalizar las evaluaciones de riesgos, protocolos, efectivos y medios previstos para garantizar la seguridad de los policías destinados en un entorno especialmente sensible como el Puerto de Ceuta. Nuestra obligación como sindicato no es esperar a que ocurra un incidente para lamentarlo, sino anticiparnos al riesgo y proteger a nuestros compañeros”, añade el comunicado.

El sindicato policial recurrió el pasado martes ante la Sala de lo Contencioso-Administrativo de la Audiencia Nacional la resolución del Ministerio de Transportes del 5 de septiembre que autorizaba utilizar temporalmente los terrenos del puerto para instalar carpas y espacios de descanso, enfermería y dispensario, zonas de atención e intervención social, servicios sanitarios, oficinas para el personal y una caseta de seguridad. La autorización se extendía hasta el próximo 31 de diciembre, aunque dejaba abierta una eventual prórroga. El SUP alegaba que la autorización no había sido notificada ni publicada en el Boletín Oficial del Estado (BOE), y justificaba su oposición a la misma en que la acogida de un número tan elevado de personas en lo que es una instalación crítica suponía un riesgo. El sindicato recalcaba que su solicitud de paralizar el campamento no se dirigía “en modo alguno contra la atención humanitaria” a los migrantes.

La Audiencia Nacional acordó en un primer momento frenar los trabajos hasta resolver sobre sobre la medida cautelarísima ―por lo que el tribunal no tiene que oír a las partes antes de resolver―, lo que provocó un enorme malestar en el Gobierno. Sin embargo, el jueves el tribunal rechazaba finalmente la pretensión del SUP y permitía el uso temporal del campamento. Al día siguiente, eran trasladados al mismo cerca de 1.700 migrantes. Sin embargo, la admisión a trámite conocida este sábado confirma que la vía judicial sobre la instalación del campamento no está cerrada, aunque al tramitarse por el llamado procedimiento ordinario ―por escrito y con tiempos más largos de tramitación― demorará su resolución meses. Mientras tanto, el campamento podrá seguir funcionando.

U.S. President Donald Trump has once again shared a map on which the American flag covers not only the United States, but also many other countries, including Canada, Cuba, Greenland, and Mexico. The message is clear: in today’s world, where might makes right and geopolitical power runs roughshod over shared rules, territorial revisionism is back on the table.

Once the guardian of territorial integrity, the U.S. has become an anti-status-quo power, actively destroying a pillar of the post-war global order: belief in the inviolability of international borders. Trump is particularly fixated on Greenland, an autonomous territory of NATO member Denmark, insisting (without evidence) that if the U.S. does not take it over, China or Russia will. He has gone so far as to raise the specter of a military invasion.

Trump has also mused about annexing Canada. Saying that the border is nothing more than an “artificially drawn line” is not a throwaway comment, but a statement of his territorial aspirations. From directing the US Board on Geographic Names to refer to the Gulf of Mexico as the “Gulf of America” to changing Lake Ontario to “Lake America,” he has repeatedly indicated his expansionist ambitions.

To be sure, Trump’s maneuvers have so far not translated into new U.S. territories, and, when it comes to a country like Canada, they will do nothing to erode sovereignty or territorial integrity. But they have normalized the language of territorial revisionism, while advancing Trump’s efforts to bend geopolitics to his will. His threats to “take back” the Panama Canal — by force, if necessary — impelled Panama to agree to limit China’s position in the area and authorize an increased U.S. military presence.

Trump’s territorial threats have also facilitated an outrageous resource grab. After deploying troops to Venezuela and capturing its president, Nicolás Maduro, Trump repeatedly indicated that the U.S. would “run” the country and floated the idea of it becoming the 51st US state. The leader the U.S. left in charge — Maduro’s vice president, Delcy Rodríguez — has now agreed to a deal that gives the U.S. control over more than 65 billion barrels of Venezuela’s oil reserves.

Other countries are taking note. Argentina’s right-wing president, Javier Milei, a Trump ally, recently revived the country’s dormant dispute with the United Kingdom over the Falkland Islands, strengthening Argentina’s naval presence in the area. And Ceuta, a Spanish exclave on the coast of Morocco, faced a border crisis under Trump’s watch.

While Ceuta and nearby Melilla have been Spanish sovereign possessions for centuries, Morocco claims both. Nonetheless, Morocco had largely accepted the status quo, partly because the U.S. enforced it. In 2002, when Morocco placed a small contingent on the tiny uninhabited island of Perejil, a few miles from Ceuta, Spain launched a military operation to remove it, before U.S. mediation prevented the conflict from escalating.

But Morocco understands that Trump does not share his predecessors’ commitment to the territorial status quo. During his first term, he officially recognized Moroccan sovereignty over another disputed territory: the Western Sahara, a former Spanish colony that Morocco annexed in 1975, only to become embroiled in a battle for control with the indigenous Sahrawi people.

Recognition of Moroccan sovereignty was not wrong: the United Nations’ effort to secure Western Sahara’s independence is simply not feasible. But Trump’s unilateral approach sent the wrong signal to a country eager to stake its territorial claims elsewhere. Trump’s behavior after returning to the White House in 2025 reinforced that signal.

Last April, the U.S. House Appropriations Committee released a report that described Ceuta and Melilla as Spanish-administered territories “located in Moroccan territory” and called on Secretary of State Marco Rubio to bring the parties into negotiations over their “future status.” Morocco was further emboldened by America’s estrangement from Spain, driven by Socialist Prime Minister Pedro Sánchez’s willingness to challenge Trump (not least on the Iran war).

Beyond reiterating claims to Ceuta and Melilla, Moroccan authorities did nothing last month to stop tens of thousands of young Moroccans from crossing into Ceuta (they returned to Morocco shortly after). While the details of how that surge came about are unclear, connivance by Moroccan agents is a distinct possibility. In any case, Trump rejoiced at Spain’s failure to protect its borders, and there is reason to think that his administration might consider reframing the Ceuta issue as an open territorial dispute.

The impact of Trump’s embrace of territorial revisionism extends further. If the U.S. can claim territory on the basis of vague “national-security” justifications, China can do likewise in Taiwan, in the Japan-administered Senkaku Islands, and across the South China Sea. And Russia can do it in Ukraine. In fact, the Trump administration’s “peace plan” for Ukraine would have the country hand over territory that Russia does not even control.

Perhaps no country is taking greater advantage of Trump’s disregard for territorial integrity than Israel. In his first term, Trump unilaterally recognized Israel’s sovereignty over the Syrian Golan Heights. In his second, he has treated Israel’s continued encroachment on Syrian lands, not to mention Turkey’s expansion into northern Syria, as the new normal. The same goes for Israel’s presence in Southern Lebanon, which was affirmed in a Rubio-mediated memorandum of understanding.

Trump’s 20-point peace plan for Gaza notwithstanding, there are no signs that the U.S. administration will challenge Israel’s new “forward defense” security doctrine, which shifts military operations into so-called buffer zones beyond its borders. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu surely cannot believe his luck.

Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition