The battle over the Gelman Collection, a major repository of 160 works of 20th-century Mexican art (including 18 by Frida Kahlo), continues to escalate. On 1 July, the citizen collective Defence of the Gelman Collection initiated legal action against Mexican cultural authorities to halt a long-term agreement governing their circulation, which they say allows the indefinite departure of the collection’s works, protected by Mexican heritage laws. The move follows months of scrutiny over Fundación Banco Santander’s January announcement of the collection’s new management after its 2023 acquisition by the Zambrano family.
The collective’s main concern is the collection’s 30 works by Diego Rivera, José Clemente Orozco, María Izquierdo and other artists deemed artistic monuments under Mexican heritage law. Although privately owned, they remain subject to government oversight. Kahlo’s works are central to the claims, because they face stricter controls: a 1984 presidential decree prohibits permanent export of the artist’s works, allows temporary export for cultural purposes only, and calls for efforts to repatriate her art from other countries back to Mexico.
The collection, amassed by Natasha and Jacques Gelman, was long at the centre of an ownership dispute involving Robert R. Littman (the executor of Natasha’s will), who sold it to the Monterrey-based Zambrano family. Amid scrutiny, on 17 February, 68 works from the renamed Gelman Santander Collection went on display at Mexico City’s Museum of Modern Art—their first exhibition in Mexico in 18 years. Kahlo’s masterpieces, including Self-Portrait with Monkeys (1943), have drawn crowds to the museum. After the exhibition closes next week, the collection will travel to Cantabria, Spain, for the 8 September opening of the new Faro Santander, before touring internationally.
Since early March, the Defence of the Gelman Collection—mainly composed of historians, artists and curators—has issued open letters calling for transparency from authorities on the collection’s departure. Yesterday (9 July), the collective started a change.org petition to keep the collection primarily in Mexico. Legal proceedings against Mexico’s cultural ministry and the National Institute of Fine Arts and Literature (INBAL), which grants export permits and oversees artistic monuments, seek to annul the 7 January agreement between Mexican authorities, Santander and the Zambrano family governing the collection’s circulation.
The plaintiffs argue that the leaked agreement is unlawful, because it establishes a renewable five-year term. Temporary export permits generally last up to two years and require guarantees. “By INBAL’s admission, there is no export permit, no financial guarantee for the works’ return, and no legal basis for the five-year term,” says Jesús Soledad Terrazas, a lawyer representing the plaintiffs. “The contract does not comply with the law—it replaces the permit the law requires.”
The collective also alleges that the agreement serves private financial interests. “The collection was pledged as collateral for a substantial personal loan [$150m], yet constitutional powers entrusted with heritage protection should never be exercised in furtherance of private interests,” Defence of the Gelman Collection wrote in a 1 July press release.
Diego Rivera’s Portrait of Natasha Gelman (1943) © 2026 Banco de México Diego Rivera Frida Kahlo Museums Trust, Mexico, D.F. / VEGAP. Photo: Gerardo Suter
Santander stresses that it abides by Mexican law. “We recognise the concerns that have been raised, and appreciate the importance of protecting heritage, particularly where works have such significance for Mexico,” a Santander spokesperson tells The Art Newspaper. “Our role is focused on supporting the collection’s conservation, study, exhibition and public access, in full compliance with Mexican law.”
Santander says the works will be back in Mexico soon. “In coordination with the Mexican authorities, the collection will return in the summer of 2028, when it will be exhibited for the public’s enjoyment,” says the spokesperson, noting that Santander is open to “constructive dialogue with any stakeholders who share the objective of protecting heritage while enabling broader public engagement with these works”. Mexican authorities did not respond to requests for comment but previously stressed that the collection would indeed come back.
The case has gained unprecedented resonance across the country. “This issue reveals an awakening among Mexican citizens committed to protecting heritage,” says Francisco Berzunza, a member of the collective. “We are not against the collection’s private ownership or its international exhibition; we oppose this unlawful agreement, which sets a dangerous precedent for Kahlo’s works.” On Wednesday (8 July), the court denied a plaintiff’s request for an interim measure to keep the collection in Mexico. Soledad says further rulings remain pending and that the decision will be challenged.
Fighting for Frida
Also on 8 July, a separate legal issue over export restrictions on Kahlo works took a turn. Mexico’s Supreme Court (SCJN) decided to examine whether the 1984 decree exceeds the executive branch’s regulatory powers by banning the permanent export of Kahlo’s privately owned works. The question arises because Mexico’s 1972 Federal Law on Archaeological, Artistic and Historic Monuments and Zones allows the export of artistic monuments that are privately owned. The case stems from a 2023 protection filed by Banco Ve Por Más seeking to export Kahlo’s Self-Portrait with Medallion (1948).
This new case could affect major private Kahlo holdings, including the Gelman Collection and the Dolores Olmedo Collection, on view at the recently reopened Museo Dolores Olmedo. The court’s decision may also influence Kahlo’s market, as works in Mexico sell for far less than those abroad. Scarcity is another factor. “Of Kahlo’s 152 known works, only seven paintings are in Mexican state collections,” Berzunza says.
A ruling is pending, but the SCJN considers the issue of “national importance”, because it weighs the right to culture against property rights, as Forbes reports.
“This worrying proceeding is a strange coincidence,” Berzunza says. “But in politics, there are no coincidences.”
