“Why is a YouTuber holding this? … Don’t tell anybody. ”
A joke in a video—but in the days that followed, those words suddenly sounded less like humor and more like foreshadowing.

🔥⚡ The internet didn’t expect a cultural exploration video to erupt into international controversy, agency statements, political involvement, and a full-blown lawsuit.

Yet in May 2025, that’s exactly what happened when MrBeast stepped inside one of Mexico’s most sacred archaeological zones.

What began as an educational adventure quickly spiraled into accusations of exploitation, unauthorized commercial use, and violations of cultural heritage laws.

But who is actually at fault?
Did MrBeast really break the rules—or is the outrage misplaced?

For a creator as universally recognizable as MrBeast, controversy often finds him even when he doesn’t go looking for it.

But few could have predicted that a video about ancient Mayan temples—framed as part adventure, part cultural tribute—would ignite a political dispute, a national investigation, and a lawsuit involving Mexico’s cultural authorities.

Yet that’s exactly what unfolded in May 2025.

MrBeast’s video titled “I Explored 2,000-Year-Old Ancient Temples” took viewers deep inside Chichén Itzá and multiple other archaeological sites.

These are places where access is so restricted that even many archaeologists never get the privilege of entering certain chambers.

But MrBeast and his crew—camera rigs, guides, and all—were granted behind-the-scenes access few outsiders ever see.

In the video, Jimmy’s tone was appropriately awestruck:

“I can’t believe the government’s letting us do this. ”

The episode mixed humor, reverence, jokes about cursed artifacts, and educational storytelling.

It was perhaps one of his most culturally respectful videos to date.

His team avoided restricted zones, highlighted sacred traditions, and made it clear when something was too sensitive to touch.

Yet the backlash wasn’t far behind.

On May 15, Mexico’s National Institute of Anthropology and History (INAH) released a sharp public statement criticizing the production.

They praised global interest in Mayan heritage—but condemned what they called “abuses” and “distortions” in the video.

Among their grievances:

False claims that the crew slept inside the archaeological zone
Incorrect suggestions that a drone flew inside the pyramid
The implication that MrBeast held real artifacts
Scenes implying helicopter access
Use of archaeological sites in a video containing private brand promotion

These, they argued, violated the intent of the filming permit issued to Full Circle Media, the production company behind MrBeast’s video.

They announced they were filing an administrative lawsuit against the company.

This moment kicked off a frenzy of speculation. Had MrBeast broken cultural laws?
Was he being sued?
Was the video filmed illegally?

But the situation was far more complicated.

Before the outrage spread, INAH had already released a press statement confirming:

All filming was authorized
Multiple government agencies requested and approved the shoots
INAH officials were present during filming

Furthermore, the Governor of Campeche went on record stating:

“MrBeast’s team acted respectfully and followed all procedures. ”

So what changed?

The answer appears to lie in how the video was edited and presented—especially the inclusion of Feastables and other brand mentions.

Although the ad scenes were filmed offsite, INAH argues that placing them within the same video constitutes a misuse of national heritage for commercial profit.

In Mexico, the General Law of National Assets restricts commercial exploitation of cultural sites—even indirectly.

So while MrBeast followed every on-site rule, the dispute evolved into a debate over context, presentation, and branding.

With headlines escalating, Jimmy posted a clarifying statement on May 18: “We are not and never have been sued. ”

He emphasized:

All permits were obtained legitimately
All ads were filmed away from national monuments
Government agencies reviewed the footage
Archaeologists assisted throughout filming
The team had state representatives supervising

He even revealed something he hadn’t planned to make public:

“Behind the scenes, we funded wells and water projects in the region. ”

Additionally, he’s working with INAH on a fund to support archaeological preservation—again, something he only disclosed because the narrative turned accusatory.

Screenshots of government statements backing Jimmy were included in his post, reinforcing that he personally was not the target of any legal action.

INAH clarified the following:

The lawsuit is filed only against Full Circle Media
The lawsuit concerns misuse of the filming permit
MrBeast himself is not a defendant
No sanctions are being leveled against Jimmy directly

Their specific grievance:

Full Circle Media used the archaeological footage in a production that included private brand promotion, which was not permitted.

This is a regulatory issue—not a criminal one, and not a personal accusation against MrBeast.

But the internet rarely cares about nuance.

Some Mexican tour guides and locals voiced frustration—not because MrBeast broke rules, but because they felt his privileged access highlighted a double standard.

They argued:

Local creators don’t receive the same treatment
Foreign influencers get priority over domestic educators
Sacred spaces shouldn’t be used in YouTube content at all, even if legally permitted

It became less about MrBeast and more about broader cultural tension.

Then came the political angle: Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum personally requested clarification on how the access was granted, amplifying national scrutiny.

In other words…
MrBeast walked into a cultural powder keg he didn’t know existed.

Legally? No. Ethically? It depends who you ask. Politically? He became collateral damage.

The video followed all procedures.

His jokes were light and respectful.

His team operated under supervision.

He contributed to local communities.

He promoted interest in Mayan culture globally.

But none of that protected him from the storm that followed.

This controversy reveals something deeper:

Even when a creator follows every rule—
even when the intent is respectful—
even when government agencies approve every step—

public perception can still turn a harmless video into a geopolitical flashpoint.

When you’re MrBeast-sized, your footprint is too big to move without leaving marks.

His fame empowers him—but it also magnifies every misstep, real or perceived.

The lawsuit against his production company may drag on.

The political debate will likely continue.

And MrBeast’s name—fairly or unfairly—will remain attached to it.

Whether this impacts his brand long-term remains to be seen.

But one thing is certain:

This is the most unexpected controversy of his career.

And it wasn’t even his fault.