April 2025

Testimonies of a life in the Diego Rivera Anahuacalli and Frida Kahlo Casa Azul Museums of the Bank of Mexico

OPACITY, SQUANDERING, INTELLECTUAL THEFT AND ABUSE OF POWER

Hilda Trujillo Soto

I am deeply grateful to each and every one of my friends who helped me, although for personal reasons they preferred to remain anonymous.

This testimony is made public for the sole purpose of informing and raising awareness about the importance of protecting our artistic heritage. The situations and behaviors described are based on observed and documented facts, with no intention of harming any person or entity. I fully recognize and respect the presumption of innocence and do not seek to judge anyone; my goal is simply to make public true, relevant and demonstrable facts in order to foster constructive dialogue and promote actions that safeguard our cultural heritage for future generations, as its protagonists wished.  

This publication comes after almost 5 years of gathering evidence, documentation and testimonies.

The following pages are a testimony of events that I witnessed at different times during the 18 years that I worked as director of the Diego Rivera Anahuacalli and Frida Kahlo Casa Azul Museums, and that I still bear witness today. 

I have continuously questioned and even opposed decisions and actions. I have repeatedly expressed my disagreement before the Technical Committee for the Trust for the Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo Museums, before Carlos Phillips Olmedo (former general director of the Museums), and before the trustees of the Bank of Mexico, who are in charge of overseeing these institutions.  

I am motivated by a commitment to safeguard artistic heritage and to the transparency of museum administration. While it is true that I have been facing a labor dispute for four years with the Bank of Mexico, this is not the origin of my complaint. The comptroller and directors of Banxico, the institution in charge of the Trust that manages these museums, are aware of the facts narrated below and that are related to, as the subtitle states, the opacity in the management of copyright and indiscriminate permissions for the use of Frida Kahlo's works for immersive experiences, waste, authorial theft, abuse of power, cronyism and commissions in the hiring of third parties by the Museum Trust, the closure of the Dolores Olmedo Museum, among other issues. 

Below I present a series of documented events.

I must clarify that, according to the Law of Professional Career Service in the Federal Public Administration, public officials must refrain from acting in a conflict of interest. This implies that they cannot profit from issues in which they have or had access to privileged information, which they must also keep confidential.

I would like to emphasize that I am including official documents in my possession, along with others that have appeared in news outlets. Some of these reports cover various complaints I have made over time. Thanks to the media, much of what I narrate here has been known not only recently but, in one way or another, for a long time.

Finally, I would like to state that upon leaving my position as director of the Museums, I requested that the Audit Office of the Bank of Mexico, as well as the Superior Audit Office of the Federation, conduct the corresponding audits, given that I was responsible for the assets and collections of both museums. However, I never received a response. I keep a documented copy of these requests.

1.- Management of the Nations heritage

Paradoxically, the situation today resembles that of 20 years ago. Once again, the Phillips Olmedo and Rivera families are entangled in lawsuits and litigation. Back then, the conflict was also about control of the museums: Guadalupe Rivera Marín accused Carlos García Ponce and Carlos Phillips, while they, in turn, challenged Guadalupe herself. The lawsuits made headlines in the newspapers, just as they do today. However, this time, the Bank of Mexico is also involved—it has both filed lawsuits and been sued. This institution has become yet another player in the game of political and economic ambitions stirred by the legacies of Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo. These intense conflicts in no way align with the mission for which Diego Rivera created the Museum Trust: to safeguard and keep the Diego Rivera Anahuacalli Museum and the Frida Kahlo Casa Azul Museum open for the enjoyment of the people of Mexico. In Rivera's words: "I return to the people of Mexico what I was able to rescue from their past.” (See Fig. 1) 

It would be a shame if museums were to return to the state of neglect that they were in at the beginning of 2002 due to the conflicts. Today, they are the fruit of ambition.

2.- Irregularities In The Management Of Assets

I.- Since I began my tenure as director of the museums at the end of 2002, I found the secrecy surrounding the trustees' management of income from the copyrights of Frida Kahlo and Diego Rivera to be unusual. This was irregular because the revenue generated by both the museums and the copyrights should have been disclosed to the Technical Committee and audited by at least two organizations. I noticed that neither Carlos Phillips nor the Technical Committee showed any interest in this matter. There was an unspoken policy of "you let me, I'll let you."

From individuals who produced and sold merchandise featuring Frida Kahlo’s works, I learned that the rights to use her image were paid to a private civil association composed of three of the Trust’s lawyers. Instead of being deposited into the official museum account, the profits were received by private individuals. In 2015 there was personnel changes at the Trust and this association disappeared.

II.-  Similarly, but now on a larger scale, copyrights continue to be managed discretionarily and arbitrarily, even with the involvement of Banco de México’s highest-ranking officials. For instance, one might ask why Alejandro Díaz de León, who served as governor of Banco de México from 2017 to 2021, personally negotiated and communicated in 2019—through Jessica Serrano Bandala, Director of Financial Education and Cultural Promotion at Banxico¹matters related to Frida Kahlo’s copyrights for the exhibition Inmersive Frida, con Ocesa y Cocolab MX (ver Fig. 2).   Cocolab International S.A. de C.V. obtuvo del Banco de México licencia de uso para las obras de  Inmersive Fridathat allowed them to adapt the images to digital formats. This same company developed the immersive exhibition program of the museums and contents of Bank of Mexico itself, as announced on its website.

I leave open questions on this matter: Was former Banco de México governor Alejandro Díaz de León one of the participants in the project Inmersive Frida? I found it surprising—both then and now—that this former official took such an interest in analyzing the revenue and financial structures of Inmersive Frida, when his role was to oversee the country’s financial policy. I witnessed these actions in the meetings I attended with the trust’s lawyers.

—I also find it surprising how the Banxico official who currently serves as director of the museums, Jessica Serrano Bandala, seems to be leading the team that, on behalf of the institution and in private alliance, is presenting the Inmersive Frida. What agreements have Banxico and Cocolab signed for the development of this and other immersive exhibitions with content from the Bank of Mexico itself and its museums?What role do Banxico officials play in the international tour of Inmersive Frida organized by different companies? Is it true that in negotiating international exhibitions of Frida Kahlo paintings, certain officials have pressured for the  Inmersive Fridaexhibition to be contracted? Who are the beneficiaries of the external firm that collects the copyright royalties for Frida Kahlo and Diego Rivera—fees that, strictly speaking, should be collected directly by the Banco de México trust? Who, under the secrecy of the trust, is profiting from the revenue generated by the exhibitions Inmersive Frida and the rest of the "experiences" that have been multiplying without control from the Bank and of the National Institute of Fine Art and Literature (INBAL)?

It should be noted that disagreements over the management of copyright royalties for the Inmersive Fridaexhibition project led to a conflict between Banxico —specifically Alejandro Díaz de León and Jessica Serrano Bandala—on one side, and Carlos Phillips and his daughters, Guadalupe and Dolores, on the other. This conflict ultimately resulted in the dismissal of Carlos Phillips as General Director of the Frida Kahlo and Anahuacalli Museums (see Fig. 4).

In this case, it has been astonishing to see how high-ranking officials at Banco de México, due to their close ties with the Phillips Margain family, have protected them—even at the expense of the institution they serve. This has been the case with Luis Urrutia Corral², a personal friend of the family, who on multiple occasions acted in their favor, supporting their interests in the dispute over copyright ownership. 

Both parties—the Phillips Olmedo family and the Banco de México Trust for the Diego Rivera Anahuacalli and Frida Kahlo Casa Azul Museums—are currently engaged in litigation over the ownership of the copyrights to Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo’s works. As I have previously pointed out, this practice was carried out through a civil association established by the Trust’s lawyers several years ago. 

It is essential to investigate the full extent of what is now being revealed regarding the Frida Kahlo Immersive exhibition and museums. It is also crucial to raise awareness about the intentional, arbitrary, and increasingly widespread misuse of the Frida Kahlo Museum name, which is being appropriated by newly opened venues. Banco de México has failed to take any legal action to defend this name, despite being obligated to protect it. I have no doubt that this dispute compromises the management of the museums and the artistic legacy of Frida Kahlo and Diego Rivera, which rightfully belong to the Nation. That is what is at stake. 

I would like to cite the case of another immersive proposal, currently being presented at a new museum in Tulum (see Fig. 3)—on a prime piece of land adjacent to the archaeological site, which is visited by thousands of people. Upon its launch, it was self-proclaimed as Museo Frida Kahlo by Woman Experiences, even though the venue itself does not display a single sign indicating that it is a museum, nor does it credit its creators or producers. It is only during the visit that the curator—who is honored with the fourth gallery of the space—is cited as photographer Cristina Kahlo, a member of the Technical Committee of the Banco de México Trust for the Casa Azul and Anahuacalli museums. The creators of this venue have announced in the media their plans to open additional locations in Los Cabos and San Miguel de Allende, as well as in 38 other cities worldwide, with the participation of multiple investors. In the meantime, they have already launched this same concept in Guatemala.

III.- There are several astonishing and sad events involving the Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo Museums. One such case is the permission granted in 2006 by one of the trust delegates to a Chinese company, allowing them to reproduce Frida Kahlo’s entire body of work at the exact size of the originals³. This act was entirely illegal, irresponsible, and contributed to the production of counterfeit copies of artworks that were declared National Artistic Monuments by presidential decree in 1984. The absurdity of this permit was publicly denounced by experts such as researcher Helga Prignitz Poda⁴, yet no action was taken to reverse the situation. 

IV.- On another occasion, a trust delegate, Luis Alberto Salgado, authorized the establishment of a derivative of the Museo Frida Kahlo in Playa del Carmen—without the knowledge or approval of the Technical Committee. This authorization involved the Panamanian company Frida Kahlo Co., the world’s largest commercial entity profiting from Frida Kahlo-related products, despite the Trust’s responsibility to safeguard the copyrights of the painter’s works and image. This so-called museum, which also operated as a restaurant under the artist’s name, has exhibited—and continues to exhibit—copies of documents from the Museo Frida Kahlo archive under questionable and irregular circumstances. Among these pieces are letters written by Frida Kahlo, with exhibition credits claiming authorization from Cenidiap (the National Center for Research, Documentation, and Information on Visual Arts of the National Institute of Fine Arts and Literature). Additionally, the venue in Playa del Carmen displays reproductions of approximately 20 of Frida Kahlo’s paintings, including a copy of Las dos Fridas—arguably the most widely used image in all immersive exhibitions. Did they seek authorization from INBAL to use this image? This case warrants a thorough investigation, as the involvement of current and former minor officials from the Trust and the Museo Frida Kahlo in Frida Kahlo Co.’s business is rather strange.

V.- Another inexplicable concession was the granting of a free license to Google for the worldwide reproduction of Frida Kahlo’s works. I repeatedly warned that granting such permission—for the high-definition reproduction and unrestricted access to Frida’s paintings, drawings, and writings—posed significant risks, as it would make forgery much easier. Even then, I foresaw the potential problems this could bring. At the time, we could not have imagined the risks we now face with Artificial Intelligence, nor did we consider how it would weaken control over copyright. I was not wrong in raising the alarm about this danger, which was recently discussed in The Art Newspaper (See Fig. 5). Yet once again, my warnings were ignored.

Despite all these warnings, the trust delegates allowed Carlos Phillips to carry out this negotiation and granted the permissions free of charge, without any financial benefit for the museums. We are talking about a deal worth thousands of dollars; however, it did not generate any revenue for the Frida Kahlo Casa Azul and Diego Rivera Anahuacalli museums. Apparently, the only benefit was personal, as in exchange for the right to reproduce the images, Google included on its site a piece titled Cactus y Feto (Cactus and foetus) (see Fig. 6),, which was acquired by Carlos Phillips in 2004. On multiple occasions and in major media outlets, this painting has been denounced by experts as a forgery. Some examples include art critic Von Stefan Koldehoff in Welt Print (see Fig. 7), Frida Kahlo specialist Helga Prignitz-Poda—in a report commissioned by INBAL on the piece—, Latin American art expert James Oles, and journalist Humberto Musacchio in his column La República de las Letras in the newspaper Excélsior (see Fig. 8).

It is important to mention that the article written by Von Steffan Koldehoff, published in the renowned German outlet Welt Print, in 2010 (see Fig. 7), describes how the loan of Frida Kahlo’s works—belonging to the Olmedo collection—to various globally recognized institutions was conditioned by Carlos Phillips on the inclusion of the painting Cactus y Feto (Cactus and foetus) (of questionable authorship). The author of the article suggests that the directors of these institutions likely accepted such a condition due to the importance of the Phillips Olmedo collection, as well as the influence Phillips wielded over the authorization of Frida Kahlo’s copyrights.

VI.- Regarding the Technical Committee of the Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo Museums Trust, some of its members have engaged in irregular practices, seeking financial gain by making proposals and developing projects for the Museums. Council members should not have any financial, political, or social interests in trusts or civil associations; their participation, as mandated by law, must be honorary and “nonprofit.” On one occasion, a Committee member offered creating the audio guides for the Anahuacalli Museum; I objected such proposal due to their lack of experience in the field. Nonetheless, they were hired and paid 300,000 pesos in advance. Today, five years later, those audio guides have not been realized. Wouldn’t the participation of Technical Committee members in a private project constitute a conflict of interest? It should also be noted that the meetings of this Technical Committee, controlled by certain individuals, have turned into trivial gatherings of gossip and wine—frivolous affairs that ultimately benefit those who profit from the legacy of Mexico’s artists. 

VII.In 2017, a Technical Committee member offered Carlos Phillips a notebook of crude drawings, claiming they were by a young Diego Rivera in an attempt to sell them to the Banxico Trust. Phillips called me to a meeting at the Dolores Olmedo Museum with the Trust’s lawyers, where he said the purchase was necessary to “stay on good terms” with the member of the Committee. I argued the piece was inauthentic—they knew it, and it was obvious. During the negotiations, the price fluctuated between 450,000 and 500,000 pesos. I never heard anything further about the purchase.

¹ Jessica Serrano Bandala was appointed Director of Financial Education and Culture by Alejandro Diaz de León, Governor of Banco de México in April 2018.

² Luis Urrutia Corral, General Director of Legal Affairs at Banxico from 2015 to 2023.

³ While reproductions are very important for the dissemination of art, they should not be produced in the original size and it should be clearly indicated that it is a facsimile.

⁴ PhD in Art History, specialist in Frida Kahlo and co-author of the catalogue raisonné Frida Kahlo. The Painter And Her Work  (first edition by Frankfurt Neue Kritik, 1988).

3.- Irregular purchases and political haste

VIII.- Inexplicably and irregularly, under the protection of Banco de México’s autonomy, officials from the institution purchased large quantities of alcohol for the Diego Rivera Anahuacalli and Frida Kahlo Casa Azul Museums in mid-2021—cheers! This can be confirmed in documents signed by Banxico’s trust delegates, as reported by Contralínea.

This alcohol purchase took place while then-Governor of Banco de México, Alejandro Díaz de León, was seeking reelection; with this purpose he wanted to promote himself by inaugurating Banxico’s new museum in the Historic Center and Diego Rivera’s Ciudad de las Artes at Anahuacalli. The irony is striking, as just months earlier, in early 2020, Díaz de León had no knowledge about the Anahuacalli Museum—his questions about it made that evident.

In 2005, during the cleaning and classification of archives discovered at Casa Azul between 2002 and 2003, a set of documents related to Anahuacalli’s construction was found, including sketches and letters revealing Diego Rivera’s intent to create a Ciudad de las Artes (City of Arts) on the site. We then invited Dr. Renato González Mello from the UNAM Institute of Aesthetic Research, who, along with his students, conducted the first study on these materials.

At the time, there were no funds to even begin the project. Over the years, we turned to colleagues and friends for support, including architect Telma Lazcano, who contributed to the study of the space and the long-term planning needed to realize Diego Rivera’s vision.

To bring Ciudad de las Artes to life at the Anahuacalli Museum, I secured over 160 million pesos from museum revenues and funding from various legislative sessions of the Chamber of Deputies—particularly from Baltazar Hinojosa, Marcela Ronquillo, Kenia López Rabadán, María Rojo, Alfonso Suárez del Real, Inti Muñoz, Armando Báez, Margarita Saldaña, among others—as well as from business leaders and friends of the Museums. 

By January 2020, the construction of the Ciudad de las Artes—a dream Diego Rivera envisioned for Anahuacalli—was 92% complete. This project, conceived by Rivera and developed under my direction with the support of many contributors, was architecturally designed by Mauricio Rocha. It took 15 years to materialize the City of Arts.⁵.

At the beginning of 2020, I invited Banco de México Governor Alejandro Díaz de León, the Technical Committee, and Banxico officials to visit the construction site—a project they knew nothing about. A few weeks later, Jessica Serrano Bandala, Director of Financial Education and Cultural Promotion at Banco de México, began rushing the project’s completion to have it inaugurated as soon as possible and boost Díaz de León’s image for reelection.

With political urgency now driving the process, secret meetings were held behind my back, leading to the use of low-quality materials that ruined the construction’s finishing touches. These details were crucial, as the final quality of the project depended on them.

The urgency to wrap up construction led them to decide against creating a space for mothers or caregivers waiting for children in workshops, claiming that benches without backrests—like those used at Banco de México—should be placed instead “so people wouldn’t linger.” They failed to understand that time spent engaging with culture and the arts is about education, enrichment, enjoyment, and leisure. Additionally, other areas were left incomplete, such as the ceiling of the welcome hall at the entrance to the Ciudad de las Artes.

Beyond rushing the construction and neglecting details, Jessica Serrano Bandala and Carlos Phillips Olmedo began laying off museum staff to “cut costs,” even though financial records proved this was unnecessary. However, they did so, therefore sacrificing the staff.

To prevent unjustified layoffs and irresponsible construction that could pose risks to future museum visitors, I decided to hold a pre-inauguration of the Ciudad de las Artes in late September 2020. I invited architects, engineers, and the press to the site, pre-inaugurated the project, and the media covered it. This way, no political haste could justify the reckless decisions being made.

I knew that this would mean my departure from the museums, since I had disrupted political ambitions. But I could not allow a project of such significance and quality to be compromised. Although I prevented them from completing the Ciudad de las Artes in a subpar manner, I could not stop the staff layoffs. It was one of the most painful moments in the museums’ history.

Alejandro Díaz de León was not reelected at Banxico, but he had already planned his celebrations. In the end, he was left all dressed up with nowhere to go when President López Obrador publicly confirmed his non-reelection.

Today, three years later, at the main entrance of the museum and its Ciudad de las Artes, there remains an unfinished space—a roofless, unused room initially designed to welcome visitors to Diego Rivera’s dream: The Anahuacalli and its City of the Arts. A project left incomplete, serving as a testament to political shortcuts, bureaucratic incompetence, and misplaced priorities.

The facilities of the City of Arts are practically hidden and partially closed nowadays, with limited access to the public., even though it is also home to the pre-Hispanic art collection, with more than 50,000 pieces collected by Diego Rivera himself. Once the public can access these storerooms, which were designed and built to be visited and open to the public, they will discover the marvel that this is (existing examples in other parts of the world were meticulously studied), as well as the care and professionalism with which they were made.

⁵ For this project, a competition was held with a jury composed of renowned architects, including José Luis Cortés, Agustín Arteaga, Joaquín Barbará Zetina, Mtro. Ramiro Martínez, and Luis de Regil, among others, all chaired by architect Francisco Serrano. The contestants were architects Tatiana Bilbao, Bernardo Gómez Pimienta, Alberto Kalach, Felipe Leal, and Mauricio Rocha. The executive direction was led by architect José Luis Cortés, while the construction was carried out by Arquitech, a company led by Santiago Sánchez Ahedo. All under the coordination of Hilda Trujillo Soto. Although the trust operates between public and private, and was not required to hold a competition, one was still conducted with clear participation guidelines.

4.- Censorship of Projects Related to Frida Kahlo and Diego Rivera

IX.- At various points in their lives, Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo faced censorship, both striving to escape and resist it. As we well know, freedom is essential for creativity to thrive. Art is always a pursuit of freedom and cannot emerge under the control or manipulation of power or money. 

Fig. 15. (left) Lola Álvarez film in La Casa Azul, 1944. Fig. 16. (right) Photograph by Nicolas Murray, New York, 1938.

In the Casa Azul, while Frida was still alive, several film recordings took place, including one by Nicolás Murray, one of her greatest loves. Lola Álvarez Bravo also filmed the artist in a sequence suggesting intimacy with a young woman. Frida rejected societal constraints, expressing this through her clothing, speech, and painting. She was—and remains—an emblem of absolute freedom.

Despite this, both artists and their museums face censorship today, as if returning to the days when the Casa Azul and Anahuacalli were left semi-abandoned by Dolores Olmedo. While Olmedo made some efforts to preserve Anahuacalli, she neglected the Casa Azul, effectively censoring Frida by confining her legacy within the museum—perhaps out of jealousy.

Despite this, both artists and their museums face censorship today, as if returning to the days when the Casa Azul and Anahuacalli were left semi-abandoned by Dolores Olmedo. While Olmedo made some efforts to preserve Anahuacalli, she neglected the Casa Azul, effectively censoring Frida by confining her legacy within the museum—perhaps out of jealousy. It wasn’t until after Dolores Olmedo’s passing in July 2002 that innovative projects emerged in the museums, including the restoration of the house and the recovery of Frida Kahlo’s personal belongings and archives from storage trunks. This revitalized the study of both artists' legacies in dialogue with contemporary creators. As a result, the museums hosted cutting-edge artistic projects and events that championed freedom of expression, featuring artists such as Brian Eno, Graciela Iturbide, Patti Smith, and Spencer Tunick. The museums also became filming locations for productions like Sense8, a series created by the Wachowski sisters. 

In 2019, the Anahuacalli was used as a filming location for the tv series Monarca, produced by Salma Hayek. The script included a social critique on the elite’s access to museums—an argument that Jessica Serrano Bandala from Banco de México deemed inappropriate. She complained that the script was not reviewed beforehand and, from that point on, instructed me and my team to screen all scripts and prevent such critiques in the future. Of course, I opposed this, making it clear that it was censorship. This stance only intensified her evident displeasure with my management of the museums.

Some time later, a journalist requested permission to film a documentary at the Casa Azul, aiming to explore Frida’s bisexuality as well as her sympathies with Marxism and socialism. The request was denied by Perla Labarthe, the current head of the Frida Kahlo Museum, following orders from Serrano Bandala, who argued that they “needed to protect Frida’s image.” This, of course, betrays the very spirit and essence of Frida Kahlo, always in exercise of absolute freedom. 

In this context, we can state that manipulation, censorship, and ideological control persist in the narrative surrounding both artists and their museums. The priority today is no longer to share the artists’ biographies, ideas, and values but simply to “keep the cash flowing.” This approach fosters the economic exploitation of the artists and their museums—not for the benefit of these institutions or the communities that enjoy them, but for the personal gain of a select few. 

I can say, then, that past censorship is making a comeback, led by officials who fail to understand the inherently free nature of art. Acknowledging diverse sexual identities in such an important figure in Mexican art history is crucial for a community that continues to fight for its rights. Viewing Frida through an intersectional lens—considering her gender identity, sexuality, disability, and connection to Indigenous cultures—is essential to grasp her significance in today’s world.

With the support of artists, as well as backing from the Chamber of Deputies, embassies, businesses, public and private institutions, and friends, the Anahuacalli and the Frida Kahlo Museum hosted numerous major exhibitions featuring Ugo Rondinone, Sarah Lucas, Brian Eno, Graciela Iturbide, Prune Nourry, Betsabeé Romero, Jorge Yázpik, Dai Rees, Manuel Rocha, Jean Paul Gaultier, Ricardo Tisci, James Brown, Javier Del Cueto, and many others. 

Significant concerts were also held, such as those by Patti Smith and British artist Peter Murphy—with the support of the Festival del Centro Histórico de la Ciudad de México—as well as the Independent Record Labels Festival, featuring over 100 artists, including Polka Madre, Instituto Mexicano del Sonido, Horacio Franco, Susana Harp, Paté de Fuá, Olivia Gorra, and Enjambre, among many others. Creativity and freedom of expression in these museums resonated worldwide, generating recognition, visibility, and financial sustainability. Today, that legacy continues to bear fruit, as seen in Christian Dior’s presence at the Frida Kahlo Museum, Carolina Herrera’s at the Anahuacalli, and the ongoing documentaries and films shot there—as long as they bring in money and don’t unsettle the so-called good conscience. Whatever that means —essentially, the double standards of Banco de México officials and executives.

5.- The archives and the Halt of Research Projects

X.-When Lola Olmedo passed away, the Technical Committee was renewed. However, the museums were of no concern or interest to Banco de México officials or Carlos Phillips, who rarely set foot there. This remained the case for most of my tenure, though in the last two years, the bank’s lawyers began attending two or three meetings a year. Nonetheless, as director of the Diego Rivera Anahuacalli and Frida Kahlo Casa Azul museums, I always had the support of the recently deceased president of the Technical Committee, Carlos García Ponce, and—despite his ambivalence—José Luis Pérez Arredondo. This support made it possible to "unearth" Frida by recovering her and Diego’s archives, which had been locked away for over 50 years in trunks, storage rooms, and cabinets⁶. At the same time, we revived the Anahuacalli and built its Ciudad de las Artes.⁷.

Following the discovery of the archive at Casa Azul, efforts were made to promote its research and restoration, resulting in globally recognized curations, studies, and publications. Some notable examples include Diego Rivera in the Rockefeller Center, Vida Americana, Frida: Sus Fotos, Querido Doctorcito, Los Vestidos de Frida, Tesoros de la Casa Azul, Frida Kahlo en París, Frida Kahlo: Todo el Universo and its second edition, El Anahuacalli de Diego, Frida by Ishiuchi, among others.

However, many research, restoration, conservation, exhibition, and publication projects at both museums came to a halt with the arrival of Bank of Mexico’s Director of Financial Education, Jessica Serrano Bandala. She considers these efforts an expense rather than an investment, prioritizing revenue: “As long as the cash register rings” and “everything should be done in-house; specialists aren’t needed.”

This narrow and uninformed vision of museum management resulted in the obstruction of research on the works of Frida Kahlo and Diego Rivera, as well as studies on other artists and historical events of their time. Two examples include research on the Ciudad de las Artes within Diego Rivera’s work and Los Extranjeros en México (Foreigners in Mexico). Currently, the archives are closed to public access. With no permission to consult them, various researchers have turned to me for information on the archive. I assist them as much as I can.

It is important to emphasize that both museums, thanks to the involvement of numerous researchers, curators, and artists, grew from being practically abandoned in early 2002 to what they are today: two nationally and internationally renowned institutions, attracting nearly 800,000 visitors a year and generating annual revenues exceeding 115 million pesos. In 2002, annual revenues were only 3.5 million pesos, and income sources were limited to ticket sales and copyright fees. Over the course of 18 years, not only did revenues grow, but the number of income-generating activities expanded to 18.

The consolidation, professionalization, and national and international projection of these museums have never been about simply “making the cash register ring.” It has been a process driven by continuous investment, improvement, creativity, research, promotion, conservation, and study of the collections—with support from the Cultural Committees of the Chamber of Deputies across different legislatures, and over 18 years, with contributions from business leaders, embassies, and friends. Yet today, their efforts are not recognized.

 ⁶ The archives of Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo were found in the Casa Azul, stored in cabinets, furniture, and bathrooms that had been sealed for over 50 years—first for fifteen years by Diego Rivera’s instruction and later by the will of Dolores Olmedo. They were recovered thanks to the support of the Mexican Archives and Libraries Association (Adabi). This discovery revealed more than 22,000 previously unpublished documents, over 6,500 photographs treasured by Frida, Diego, and Guillermo Kahlo, as well as more than 300 textiles, nearly 2,700 books, jewelry, toys, prints, and other personal belongings and objects.

 ⁷ At the beginning of my tenure in 2002, the neglect was so severe that when lifting the mattress in Diego Rivera’s bedroom at the Casa Azul, his pajamas were still there. At the Anahuacalli, there were over 40 wild dogs and tons of garbage scattered across the more than 40,000 square meters of green areas on the property.

6.- Plagiarism and Misappropriation of Editorial Content

XI.- During my years working at the museums, I observed how some officials from Banxico, in charge of publications, plagiarized ideas and research, blatantly stamping their names above the actual authors. This happened to me with the books El Anahuacalli de Diego (Chapa Editores and Banco de México, 2008) and La Casa Azul de Frida (Chapa Editores and Banco de México, 2007), in which my coordination and authorship were not acknowledged. It happened again in 2022 with El Universo. Frida Kahlo El Universo. Frida Kahlo (Editorial RM, 2022). In the first edition, my authorship was recognized; however, in the second edition, my name was removed, along with my introductory essay. Additionally, ideas and entire paragraphs were plagiarized by Jessica Serrano Bandala, Director of Financial Education and Cultural Promotion at the Bank of Mexico.

The second edition of El universo. Frida Kahlo (Editorial RM, 2022) was sponsored by the Bank of Mexico with support from the Culture Commission of the Chamber of Deputies. I initiated the project in 2019 while still serving as director of the Diego Rivera Anahuacalli and Frida Kahlo Casa Azul museums. I curated the contents, preserving some essays from the first edition and inviting new authors. However, in October 2020, I was informally notified that my role as museum director would change, and I lost control over the reissue’s content.

In 2022, I came across the book in a store and discovered that it contained a text with paragraphs, ideas, and excerpts originally written by me but now attributed to Jessica Serrano Bandala. In other words, she had misappropriated material I had originally written for the book Todo el universo, el mundo México. Frida Kahlo (Conde Nast, 2012).

When I sought clarification, Editorial RM responded that they had published what the Frida Kahlo Museum had instructed them to. I made a public complaint (see Figs. 22 and 23), hoping the publisher or the Bank would offer a solution. However, no response was ever given.

In an attempt to strip me of my rights as an author, Jessica Serrano Bandala has pursued a legal case that cannot move forward, as it is evident she cannot prove authorship of the content that had already been credited to me in the book’s first edition. Furthermore, she lacks justification for removing my introductory text from the second edition and plagiarizing its ideas, paragraphs, and phrases.

In October 2022, Miren Arzalluz, director of the Palais Galliera Museum in Paris, inaugurated the exhibition and presented the book/catalogue Frida Kahlo Au-delá des apparences (Frida Kahlo: Beyond Appearances, originally titled Los vestidos de Frida Kahlo (The Dresses of Frida Kahlo), which I coordinated and directed from the Frida Kahlo Museum with Circe Henestrosa as curator. This exhibition had already been showcased at the Casa Azul in Mexico and at the Victoria & Albert Museum in London, where it broke all records. However, months before the inauguration, following instructions from the same Bank of Mexico official, Jessica Serrano, Perla Labarthe, head of the Frida Kahlo Museum, asked the directors of the Palais Galliera Museum to remove my text from the book and erase my name from the exhibition credits. Of course, they refused. On the contrary, they argued that my involvement had been essential in promoting and driving both the exhibition and the book, and they did not exclude either my text from the book or my credits, as in France, authorship rights are respected. In stark contrast, in my own country, Mexico, I was unjustifiably stripped of my authorship, my text, and my credits in the book.

7.- Hiring of Companies and Non-Specialized Personnel for the Needs of the Museums

XII.- Unilaterally, the company Excel was contracted to manage the staff of the Frida Kahlo Casa Azul and Diego Rivera Anahuacalli Museums between 2015 and 2017. Three proposals had been submitted from companies with extensive experience and prestige in the field. However, Excel was suddenly imposed and hired, despite not being among the studied candidates. The responsibility for this hiring fell on the then fiduciary delegate of the Trust related to the Museums, Lic. José Luis Pérez Arredondo, now an Auditor at the Bank of Mexico, and Dolores Moreno Cruz⁸, the current administrator of those trusts. 

It is worth noting that Excel has a questionable reputation, as its board includes Gerardo Rejón y Ruiz de Velasco, who has been named in several media outlets as a tax fraudster. This individual is also linked to Sergio Castro Pérez, who was accused of money laundering and was a fugitive at the time (see Fig. 24 and 25; additionally, I retain official emails and documentation regarding these complaints). Despite my warnings to both the fiduciary delegate and the Trust administrator about Excel's dubious reputation, they upheld the decision to hire the company. Their justification was that the request had come from a certain lawyer with the last name Palencia, who was one of the financial advisors to the then Governor of the Bank of Mexico.

After I raised concerns about Excel’s reputation, the administrator of the Museums' Trust, Dolores Moreno Cruz, launched a campaign of harassment and pressure against me. To this day, these officials continue to work at the Bank of Mexico.

XIII.- For over six years, the company Prolomer has been responsible for insuring the artworks and properties of the Diego Rivera Anahuacalli Museum, the Frida Kahlo Casa Azul Museum, the Franz Mayer Museum, and the Isidro Fabela Museum. Bank of Mexico serves as the trustee for the trust managing all these institutions. 

Prolomer is a brokerage firm —an intermediary—specialized in insuring automobile fleets but with no experience in handling art collections. The general director of Grupo Prolomer is Carlos Latorre López, who was a classmate during the master's program of the current administrator of the Museums’ Trusts, Dolores Moreno Cruz. Additionally, a nephew of this official works for this insurance company.

In previous years, the museums’ assets were insured by Axa Seguros, a company contracted directly by Bank of Mexico. There were no brokers, as is the case today. The hiring of this company is reflected in the financial statements of Banco de México’s Trusts. As an anecdote, I have encountered Banco de México officials at events hosted by Prolomer, such as private business cocktail receptions organized by the Contemporary Art Fair at Centro Citibanamex. These officials have always denied any personal connection with the executives of this company.

XIV.-  The administrator of the Trusts, Dolores Moreno Cruz, hired her former master's professor, Vinicio Barajas Mercado, director of Human Resources at Human Capital and Productivity, to conduct unnecessary and unjustified studies on the work environment of the staff at the Frida Kahlo, Anahuacalli, and Franz Mayer Museums. These services cost approximately three million pesos, as evidenced by the official financial statements of the Trusts, of which I keep copies. 

The studies conducted by Human Capital and Productivity used outdated methodologies that ultimately caused conflicts among staff, generating unnecessary tensions that disrupted museum operations. The foundation of the study was supposed to be job profiles for all museum staff. However, these ended up being completed by the museums' own personnel, as the company failed to deliver them.

Barajas Mercado was hired despite his known history of conflict. During his tenure as head of personnel at Universidad Iberoamericana, his poor relationship with the union contributed to one of the institution's most challenging strikes in 1999.

Furthermore, employees of Prolomer and Human Capital and Productivity have stated that they were required to pay a percentage of their earnings to the administrator of the Trusts in exchange for their hiring. I requested Banco de México’s Internal Control Office to investigate this matter. After exposing these allegations from company employees regarding these compensation demands, the harassment against me intensified.

According to staff who participated in the study conducted by Human Capital and Productivity, Banco de México’s Director of Financial Education and Cultural Promotion, Jessica Serrano Bandala, along with the museum trust delegates, instructed Vinicio Barajas Mercado to alter the study results to justify the dismissal of Carlos Phillips Olmedo, who was removed from his position shortly thereafter.

XV.- Currently, the management of the staff at the Diego Rivera Anahuacalli and Frida Kahlo Casa Azul Museums is in the hands of a company specialized in accounting but with no experience in personnel management. This is the firm Yárritu, Vázquez & Sosa, which is also personally connected to the trustee delegate, the administrator of the museums. I want to emphasize that the three companies mentioned in points XIII and XIV have been hired directly, without comparing different providers in terms of quality and price, solely due to the personal relationship with the administrator Dolores Moreno Cruz.

XVI.- During the first year of the COVID-19 pandemic, while serving as the director of the Anahuacalli and Casa Azul museums (until October 2020), my priority was to protect employees’ jobs, as the museums' financial reserves were sufficient to withstand the crisis. However, behind my back, Jessica Serrano Bandala and Carlos Phillips Olmedo arranged the dismissal of 15 employees from both museums. They instructed the current museum directors and administrators (María Teresa Moya, Perla Labarthe, and Laura Zavala) to compile a list of staff to be let go—obviously ensuring that I would not be informed.

I repeat, Serrano Bandala asked the museum coordinators for a list of names of employees to be terminated, emphasizing that I should not be notified. They even held secret meetings and activities, with the promise that they would take my position once I was dismissed. It was evident that these actions were intended to force my resignation. What I find most irrational is that they resorted to firing staff just to push me out—in the middle of a pandemic! At a time when no new jobs were available, they left these employees in uncertainty. It wasn’t necessary; simply asking for my resignation and providing a severance package would have sufficed. The entire process was poorly planned, strategically unsound, and full of missteps. As Juan Gabriel would say: “¡Pero qué necesidad, para qué tantos problemas!” ("What's the need for so many problems!")

These dismissals caused deep demoralization among the remaining staff. Workers who had dedicated years to strengthening these museums were unfairly laid off during the pandemic—a period of widespread anxiety due to job insecurity—without adequate compensation. Some cases were particularly heartbreaking, such as that of an employee who nearly lost his home, leading to severe depression with fatal consequences. It was a devastating time for the team, who felt abandoned by Banco de México. Once again, there was no justification for these layoffs; the financial statements of the museums clearly show that there were more than enough funds to retain the staff. It was a cruel and unnecessary decision.

XVII.- I reported, and I reiterate here, the resale of tickets. During peak seasons, I witnessed how tickets for the Frida Kahlo Casa Azul Museum were resold, primarily through two online travel agencies, with prices reaching up to 1,800.00 pesos per ticket. These agencies purchased tickets in advance and later resold them. In 2019, I requested an investigation to uncover the mechanisms behind this operation. I still have a copy of this study, which exposed the involvement of relatives of the museum’s administrative operator. I made Bank of Mexico officials aware of this situation, yet they took no action. 

All these issues contributed to the actions that ultimately led to my “position change”, which I was informed of on October 16, 2020, via Zoom. From that date on, I received no further updates regarding this supposed change, nor did I receive my salary. To this day, I am involved in an ongoing labor dispute full of setbacks and missteps. How should I interpret such behavior from Banco de México and Carlos Phillips? At this point, I can only see it as aggressive and completely lacking in strategy.

I would like to share the testimony of a student who read this document; I relate to it deeply, and I couldn’t have said it better myself:

""Let’s keep in mind that the Frida Kahlo Museum is not a large space; the ever-growing cultural significance of the artist continually attracts hordes of domestic and international tourists. The general admission ticket costs $320 MXN, the national rate is $160 MXN, and students, teachers, neighbors, children, and seniors receive a discounted price. Now, I ask myself: wouldn’t it make more sense to use the 562.5% markup on these resold tickets to allow low-income individuals to visit the museum—without losing a single cent due to the high surplus? It could even fund scholarships for someone to attend one of the workshops offered by the institution. It’s difficult to understand the desire to profit at the cost of depriving people of the opportunity to visit the museum—a gift that Frida and Diego left as their legacy. A museum should generate income only to sustain itself, support projects, and improve as a space for recreation, dialogue, and community.”

⁸ Dolores Moreno Cruz previously worked at the Financial Intelligence Unit. She was invited to join the Museum Trust as administrator by Luis Urrutia, General Legal Director of Banco de México.

8.- Unattended complaints by the fiduciary delegates of Banco de México

XVIII.- During the years I was in charge of the Diego Rivera Anahuacalli and Frida Kahlo Museums, I repeatedly reported the abuse of these museums' heritage by Carlos Phillips Olmedo, then general director, for the benefit of the Dolores Olmedo Museum (a different trust with its own funds). Between Carlos Phillips and the fiduciary delegates, as I have already mentioned, the policy was "You let me, I'll let you.". Therefore, my complaints were ignored. 

One of the issues I questioned, from 2003 to 2017, was the permanent hiring of 12 people who did not work for the Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo museums, as well as companies that were paid without providing services at these locations. These individuals worked illegally and inexplicably for the Dolores Olmedo Museum. I was able to verify this situation over the years. I keep documentation on these events (minutes, memos, financial statements, emails, among others).

XIX.- I also constantly questioned the fact that Carlos Phillips rented the store at the Frida Kahlo Museum for $15,000.00 MXN (fifteen thousand pesos per month), when the average sales are around $24,000,000.00 MXN (twenty-four million pesos per year). This fact was, and remains, completely unfair and irregular for the museums' revenues. It was inexplicable that despite the lawsuits the Phillips Olmedo family faces with Banxico, they continued operating the store under the same conditions as in the past.

In October 2024, the Banco de México Trust won the lawsuit to recover the store at the Frida Kahlo Casa Azul Museum. The store suppliers are no longer allowed to enter the museum; still, the three employees working there smuggle in merchandise. The space occupied by the store will likely soon be vacated, and the Phillips family will stop receiving these significant income.

The case of the Dolores Olmedo Museum

XX.- In a process similar to the one Diego Rivera followed when he bequeathed his works and those of Frida Kahlo to the people of Mexico, Dolores Olmedo donated her artistic heritage to the Nation and established a trust under the custody of Nacional Financiera. She also remained as "lifetime director" of the Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo museums. Upon her death in 2002, Carlos Phillips became the general director of these two museums and the one created by his mother. The works and the Exhacienda de la Noria in Xochimilco, home to the Dolores Olmedo Museum, have been and are managed by family members and descendants of the patroness, as stipulated in the trust itself. These works cannot be sold, as they belong to the Nation; nor can the museum change its location, as established by the legal donation set out in both Dolores Olmedo's will and the creation of that trust. Even so, the events we have witnessed in recent years show how the family has not respected what was stipulated by the patroness in the Dolores Olmedo Trust, established in 1994, and its subsequent modification made by her in 2001 to ensure the irrevocability of the donation.

The Phillips family has never agreed with "Lola Olmedo," as she is popularly known, bequeathing her assets to the Nation and the people of Xochimilco, as expressed in the testamentary donation. This includes the most important collections of works by Frida Kahlo and Diego Rivera, the La Noria hacienda, the land it comprises, the animals that live there and their future offspring, jewelry, furniture, and other objects. Evidence of this discontent is that Carlos Phillips has taken actions against his mother’s wishes over the years, which I will outline below. 

First, in an attempt to reverse the donation of the Dolores Olmedo Museum made by "Lola," Carlos Phillips consulted three Supreme Court justices; unsurprisingly, the response was negative, as the donation is irreversible. Second, very shortly after Dolores Olmedo's passing, Phillips decided to sell the ivory pieces and other jewelry from the collection, in direct violation of his mother’s will. Furthermore, he dismantled the rooms that had been her final residence, once again disregarding her wish for it to remain a house-museum. A fourth action against his mother’s project was changing the museum’s name, which became simply El Olmedo.

It is worth noting that the opening of the Dolores Olmedo Museum in 1994 was financially supported by the Federal Government under the presidency of Carlos Salinas de Gortari, as well as by the then Department of the Federal District, through negotiations led by Marcelo Ebrard, who was Secretary of Government at the time. These institutions contributed two-thirds of the initial capital fund, which was made up of Lola Olmedo’s contribution and money from the Nation’s treasury. This fund still exists and is untouchable, as its purpose is to keep the museum open for "the enjoyment of the people of Mexico." 

Dolores Olmedo’s will explicitly states that the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit (SHCP for its initials in Spanish) contributed $4,785,852.00 MXN for preparatory and/or conditioning expenses. Additionally, the SHCP allocated a $60,000,000.00 MXN fund, from which only the interest could be used for the museum’s operational expenses. Regarding the SHCP’s role, the trust establishes that: “In the event that the trustee is unable to continue providing the necessary funds for the maintenance of the trust, it will be transferred to the Federal Government of the United Mexican States, under the responsibility of the Ministry of Finance and Public Credit.” Furthermore, “The museum may not change its name or location, nor be transferred to another State Department. The trust’s assets must always remain together and in their original location.” The will clearly stipulates that the museum must remain at the Hacienda de La Noria in Xochimilco and that artwork loans from its collection may only be for temporary exhibitions.

In his effort to reverse the museum’s donation to the Nation and to lessen criticism of his intentions, Carlos Phillips Olmedo attempted twice—once in 2017 and again in 2018—to shut down the Anahuacalli Museum (an attempt blocked by trustee delegate Adolfo Castillo Reyeros). Phillips sought to transfer the staff of the Dolores Olmedo Museum to the Bank of Mexico’s trust for the Diego Rivera Anahuacalli and Frida Kahlo museums so that they would absorb the substantial labor liabilities, relieving his own trust of this financial burden. When I opposed the closure of the Anahuacalli Museum, Phillips asked the Bank of Mexico’s trustees to exclude me from the museums’ Technical Committee meetings. From mid-2017 onward, I was no longer invited.

Phillips was determined to close the Dolores Olmedo Museum and used the Covid-19 pandemic as a pretext to do so. To the media, he repeatedly lamented the museum’s supposed lack of resources while gradually reducing its exhibition program, limiting it to visits to the permanent collection and its annual Day of the Dead altar. However, sufficient funds do exist to keep the Dolores Olmedo Museum open, as evidenced by a 2009 report from the museum’s administration (see Fig. 29), which saw a significant financial boost through a fundraising campaign led by Phillips himself in 2012. During this campaign, some of the country’s most prominent companies, along with several individuals, contributed substantial amounts. In fact, the halls of the now-closed museum still bear their names. A legitimate question arises: where did all that money go? The SHCP provides public access to the annual income and expenditure reports for trusts, associations, and other donation-receiving entities. These reports confirm that the 2012 fundraising campaign generated more than 600 million pesos.

En 2017 tras la negativa a Carlos Phillips Olmedo por parte de Nacional Financiera, Nafinsa, de participar en los intentos de revertir la donación a la Nación del Museo Dolores Olmedo y sus importantes colecciones de obras de arte de Frida Kahlo, Diego Rivera, otros artistas y demás objetos donados, así como los terrenos de la Ex-Hacienda de la Noria,  Phillps Olmedo logró terminar el contrato con esa fiduciaria y en su lugar contrató como fiduciario a Cie Bank, con el que firmó un documento en el que se dice que “La familia es propietaria de estos bienes”, desde luego es ilegal porque un contrato bancario no sustituye a un testamento notariado de donación a La Nación, de nada les servirá esta argucia, no hay vuelta de hoja a la DONACIÓN A LA NACIÓN Y NO SE PUEDE REVERTIR COMO ESTABLECE LEGALMENTE EL PROPIO TESTAMENTO, cualquier intento de despojo a La Nación sería legalmente desechado por la Suprema Corte de Justicia.

Today, the facts demonstrate how the project to defy the wishes of his mother has been carried out. Following the pandemic, the museum has been closed, violating the explicit instructions of its founder as outlined in the trust agreement. Now, the collection of works by Frida Kahlo, Diego Rivera, and other artists is set to be displayed at the Chapultepec Fair, based on a 40-year contract signed by the Phillips Olmedo Margain family with Aztlán Parque Urbano.

While the collection will technically remain “open to the public,” it is essential to acknowledge that the Museo Dolores Olmedo was an exceptional case in a city where major museums are concentrated in central areas. Geographically expanding cultural resources is crucial in a city with rich artistic heritage. Lola Olmedo had a personal bond with the local community, which is why she specified that her legacy was also intended for the people of Xochimilco.

Throughout both her will and the legal foundation of the trust, Dolores Olmedo explicitly stated that the museum cannot be relocated and that its permanent home must remain the Ex-Hacienda de La Noria in Xochimilco. She bequeathed it to the people of Mexico and Xochimilco, as she clearly expressed in writing.

Conclusion

The events described here have resulted in a deeply damaging situation for the preservation and protection of the artistic heritage housed in the Museo Diego Rivera Anahuacalli and the Frida Kahlo Casa Azul, two museums with international significance today.

In sum, the favoritism in hiring companies and personnel with no expertise in artwork management, heritage preservation, or museum operations; the exploitation of heritage for personal gain; the ticket resale irregularities at the Frida Kahlo Museum; contracts that jeopardize the conservation of artworks and facilitate illegal reproduction; unjustified expenses; and plagiarism of official documents all represent serious threats to the legacy of these museums. These actions endanger their collections and reveal a disturbing lack of transparency and commitment to an artistic heritage that spans over a century of history—a collection formed at the initiative of Diego Rivera and Frida Kahlo, two of the most influential artists in Mexican and international art history.

The involvement of current and former officials of Banco de México in exhibitions and the external management of the artists' copyright rights violates the authority of these officials, who clearly have a conflict of interest in participating in exhibition projects. Once again, this situation jeopardizes the preservation of the Nation’s artistic heritage.

On the other hand, those involved in these irregularities—whether Martínez, Ortega, Pérez, Chávez, Moreno, Serrano, Cruz, etc.—are individuals who do not understand the value of the artistic legacies they manage. They exhibit a combination of ignorance and arrogance, prioritizing personal interests over cultural preservation. However, I want to clarify that, in general, Banco de México officials are highly qualified, committed, and honest. Many support the museums, but some have taken advantage of their autonomy for personal gain. I have personally witnessed these abuses, which are documented in this report and supported by evidence I have kept.

All of this has taken place under the indifferent gaze of the Technical Committee of the Trust for the Diego Rivera Anahuacalli Museum and the Frida Kahlo Casa Azul Museum. Additionally, this Committee faces internal conflicts due to disputes between the Phillips family and Banxico officials over the copyright rights of Frida Kahlo and Diego Rivera. These conflicts led to the dismissal of Carlos Phillips as General Director of the Museums, the resignation of Carlos García Ponce as President of the Technical Committee—which Banco de México did not formally accept, although he never attended meetings again—and the absence of several Committee members, mainly due to this dispute. It is impossible not to conclude that if neither the Bank’s authorities, the Trust, nor the Technical Committee are addressing these serious and numerous complaints, it is because these accusations point to commitments and vested interests. These actions are not only unethical but also illegal. 

It is a violation of the spirit of the Trust for officials or members of the Trust to profit from business dealings or investments made possible by the power and information they possess as members of the Bank or the Technical Committee. All this information is known to the Governor of Banco de México, the Deputy Governors, and a large number of officials within the institution. 

We have returned to an era of censorship regarding the artists’ works, revealing the ignorance of Banco de México officials tasked with the protection and preservation of artworks declared National Artistic Monuments.

After considering all the facts, I believe that Lola Olmedo now faces a similar fate: her family seeks to dismantle her legacy, abandoning La Noria, where she would have wanted to remain, and handing over her art collection to a private-government project. What is happening to Lola is exactly what she did to Frida Kahlo—they are burying her, trying to erase her from history. Her family follows a political and economic project that no longer values her name: the museum is no longer the Museo Dolores Olmedo, as she envisioned. Today, it is simply "El Olmedo"—they have erased Lola. This is how the cycles of this unique story continues.

The success of the Frida Kahlo and Diego Rivera museums has awakened excessive ambitions and triggered serious conflicts that must be investigated. However, there is a solution: we must return to Diego Rivera’s original vision, as outlined in the Trust: "The museums belong to the people of Mexico." Rivera designed a structure for the Trust to function properly, with a Technical Committee that must prioritize the museums over personal or family interests. The committee should be composed of committed individuals who actively participate in decision-making, ensuring efficiency, transparency, and expertise. 

Rivera also established that Banco de México, as trustee, must act as a responsible custodian, safeguarding the heritage "as a good father of a family," as is the fundamental principle of a Trust. The trustees must not make decisions based on personal interests, nor should officials intervene in matters they are not experts in.

Lastly, Rivera envisioned a museum director with leadership, experience in museum operations and collections management, and a strong sense of responsibility—not merely an employee who follows orders without question. However, today, the true director of the Frida Kahlo and Diego Rivera Anahuacalli Museums is not the official director but Jessica Serrano Bandala, who oversees operations from a desk. Meanwhile, museum staff merely follow instructions, open and close doors, and ensure the "cash register keeps ringing."

The director's role should be to implement the Technical Committee’s directives, propose growth strategies, and ensure the proper care, research, and exhibition of the collections. Under the supervision of the Trust’s legal team, the museums must undergo constant audits. 

Yes, I must say it: the donations of Diego Rivera, Frida Kahlo, and Dolores Olmedo are at serious risk. These donations were made to the people of Mexico, to the Nation—they belong to all Mexicans, to our peers, our children, and future generations. This is their cultural and artistic legacy.

In short, we must remember that Diego Rivera meticulously designed the operation of the Trust and its museums, envisioning a separation of powers. It is imperative to restore that structure, appointing capable, knowledgeable, and committed individuals who can fulfill the mission of this great legacy. Additionally, we need a broader vision to expand research and dissemination regarding the artists and their museums while safeguarding copyright protection—especially given the modern challenges to art appreciation and preservation. The appointment of honest officials who understand and value Mexico’s art and culture is an urgent necessity. 

Postscript

Since my departure as Director of the Frida Kahlo and Diego Rivera Museums, the administration has hired extremely expensive legal firms to avoid paying me the severance compensation I am legally owed. They have also failed to honor the commitments under which I was hired. The law firm Villafuerte Abogados repeatedly attempted to intimidate me, and the firm Chávez & Campos Asociados unlawfully removed my case file from the labor court. This act became a scandal within the court itself, and I also reported it to the Banco de México’s Internal Audit Office (see Fig. 33). 

The labor lawsuit is still ongoing. In fact, on June 26, 2024, years after the case began, lawyer Luis Villafuerte bribed two employees of the Conciliation Board to try to halt the legal process. However, he was caught by my lawyers, and another scandal erupted within the institution.

Many times, I heard Banco de México’s lawyers mockingly say, in a sarcastic tone, that when they fired someone, they would "air their dirty laundry"—and if the person had none, they would fabricate something—so that the individual would leave terrified and running. I naively thought this was an exaggeration until I experienced it firsthand. I personally seek to prove that every worker—every single one of us—including cultural promoters, museum directors, artists—deserves respect. In particular, those of us in my field carry out dignified work that enriches the culture and art of this country—our most valuable heritage.

I only emphasize, as I initially stated, that upon my departure nearly four years ago, after directing the Frida Kahlo Museum (Casa Azul) and the Anahuacalli-Diego Rivera Museum for 18 years, I requested audits from Banxico and the Federal Audit Office. To this day, I have received no response (see Fig. 34 and 35). This lack of response reflects the neglect and omissions of Banco de México officials, who are responsible for safeguarding the museum collections—as evidenced in the first part of this document.