The Economist highlights scrutiny of Sánchez and his circle

The Economist points to Sánchez, his inner circle, and an open investigation

Pedro Sánchez has long claimed he is targeted by a wear-and-tear operation, arguing that attacks are political and come from within. The situation becomes more complex when the spotlight isn't cast by a Spanish outlet with vested interests, but by a publication read in trading rooms worldwide: The Economist. The British magazine has devoted space to the Prime Minister, and in the circulating excerpt, it links him directly to the judicial investigation into Begoña Gómez. In public debate, this mention is interpreted as a warning.

Political analysis has long reached the same conclusion—that the end is near—without ever agreeing on the date. What has changed is not the diagnosis, but who issues the warning.

What does The Economist say about Begoña Gómez?

According to the circulating text, the article notes that the President's vvife is under judicial investigation, that she denies any wrongdoing, and that Sánchez claims to be a victim of political persecution. By this account, the magazine adds that many question how she secured university positions for which, allegedly, she was unqualified, and mentions a letter of support signed by the President for a friend bidding on a government contract.

The narrative includes the five-day reflection period Sánchez took at the time. Instead of apologizing, according to this reconstruction, he blamed the right-wing opposition and left open doubts about whether political life was worth it. Five days later, he returned to office. This episode—the pause and return—is now the most cited aspect of the matter.

Where do the DANA complaints stand?

In parallel, the organization Iustitia Europa has filed complaints regarding the handling of the cold drop (DANA). Those against the Prime Minister and Interior Minister, Fernando Grande-Marlaska, have gone to the Supreme Court; the one targeting the President of the Valencian Generalitat, Carlos Mazón, went to the Valencian Superior Court of Justice. The alleged basis is failure to provide aid. These are filed complaints, not convictions: the judicial path for each remains unwritten.

This front shifts the tone of the conversation. It is no longer just about the magazine's mention, but about the timeline. Those arguing that the erosion is irreversible point precisely here, to the accumulation of proceedings, rather than to polls.

Why do some argue he won't leave?

Because control of the Prosecutor's Office and the ability to set the pace provide room for maneuver, according to this argument. It is the most repeated thesis among those who believe he will not resign voluntarily. One idea summarizes the reasoning: if he doesn't move now, with the Prosecutor's Office under his influence and the Executive tightening its grip, he is unlikely to do so without the protection of his office. The implication is uncomfortable, ranging from prolonged resistance to incivil scenarios.

Another strand of the discussion adds a different nuance: Sánchez lets everything slide off him, and this chapter means little to him.

The alternative that hasn't taken off: Feijóo and strategic voting

The question is not only when the government falls, but who fills the void. The opposition leader is described by one participant in the thread as "a pogre cacique with socialist tendencies," a judgment that says less about him than about voters who still see no viable alternative. Strategic voting voto útil functions as a working hypothesis, not enthusiasm.

There is a current that goes further: if such strategic voting consolidates, any party with a fragile electoral base is left at the mercy of its own voters' disappointment. The recurring conclusion is that the erosion of one side does not automatically translate into strength for the other.

Why some place The Economist in a conspiracy theory

A minority view sees not an economic magazine, but another piece in a supposed global plan: The Economist would be linked to old theories about financial dynasties and a world government replacing national leaders with more compliant ones. To be clear: there is no proof of this. These are known conspiratorial frameworks, lacking documentary backing, that reappear whenever an international outlet embarrasses a government.

The striking effect is that when the warning comes from outside, the "mud-slinging machine" argument loses the national component that made it digestible for its own base.

---

The lingering question is not whether the mention exists, but how much weight it carries. How much of this erosion is real, and how much is the noise the government itself claims is being thrown at it?