By Daniel Moser
* Political analyst and editor, Argentine and Mexican, Director of HELIOS Comunicación (heliosmx.org) Member of the Center for National Strategic Studies, A. C., in Mexico.
Those who know Donald Trump well say that he is a good poker player and, if we observe how he conducts himself when facing confrontations, particularly in relation to Mexico, it seems that he applies the tactics of that card game to politics: Bluffing to see what he catches.
For her part, Claudia Sheinbaum is usually as measured as she is direct. In Mexico it is said that she has a “heavy hand” (that she acts with severity and rigor), and this became evident, for example, when she responded to Trump about the controversy of tariffs, fentanyl and migration: a short, forceful and firm letter.
Beyond personal styles, Donald Trump and Claudia Sheinbaum share nationalism politically, and protectionism economically; this is, precisely and paradoxically, what – among other factors, but this one being essential – causes the divergences between the two.
Both are firm in their positions, but the difference is that, while Donald Trump has a provocative attitude, Claudia Sheinbaum is firm and conciliatory.
Donald Trump’s position, which may be a threat in certain aspects, generates an opportunity for the Mexican government to consider, with a medium- and long-term strategic vision, based on history and the current situation, not only the pros, as is currently the case, but also the cons in relations with the United States.
In his arrogant and improvised proposals, Trump involuntarily makes evident the disadvantages for Mexico of its relationship with the United States, particularly in economic matters.
Tariffs and USMCA
The main victim of the possible application of the 25% tariff threatened by Donald Trump on products of origin in Mexico will be the United States, since it would cause inflation that it will not be able to control. It will not affect Mexico, since Mexico sells 80% of its production, including oil, to the United States, while the United States sells just over 20% of its production to Mexico.
The fact that more than 80% of Mexico’s trade is with its northern neighbor necessarily implies a relationship of dependence, especially if we assume that between two economies that are overwhelmingly different in volume (US GDP 27.36 trillion USD; Mexico’s GDP 1.78 trillion USD, in 2023), the U.S. economy is 15 times that of Mexico, so talking about “society among peers” is illusory, misleading.
Obviously, it is neither possible nor convenient for Mexico in the short and medium term to propose a substantial reduction in economic dependence on the United States, but to maintain it… Worse still: considering it positive to maintain and expand it, as the Mexican government’s discourse reveals, is a serious mistake. It is putting all your eggs in one basket.
Between cancelling this dependent relationship and consolidating it, there are intermediate options that can and should be considered as soon as possible. Beyond ideological issues, the first and essential thing is to generate a space, organization, dependence on the government… A multidisciplinary team that, far from the current urgencies – but considering them – that the government must deal with, analyzes with a strategic vision, thinking about the future of the new generations of Mexicans.
It is urgent to generate proposals for economic linkages with all the countries of the world according to convenience, without prejudices or ties such as free trade agreements, which generate conditions for peripheral countries and in favor of central ones.
The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (now USMCA) entered into force on July 1, 2020. At the time, it was proposed that it would transform Mexico into an industrial power, but instead it only became a maquiladora country, with little or no integration of national content, depending on the economic sectors.
The statistical information for the period January-October 1993-2024 reveals that in this period of 32 years Mexico’s trade balance presents a deficit, in 27 of those years, for a total of 172,602 million dollars, a more than convincing argument to at least analyze the situation, draw conclusions and consider alternatives.
“With NAFTA, today USMCA, the Mexican State’s stewardship over development, and of the internal market as a driver of economic growth, was canceled for a political economy that guarantees profits to global companies, both national and foreign capital, oriented to foreign trade, which led the nation to strategic dependencies on the U.S. and global economy,” Alberto Montoya points out in a recent conference.
“Public, private and social companies were subjected to irrational, unjust and immensely asymmetrical conditions of economic competition, in the face of global corporations supported by financial, legal and subsidy resources from the powers.”
The importance of Mexicans in the U.S.
Annually, the 37.3 million Mexicans residing in the U.S. contribute 324 billion dollars. Each Mexican living in the United States pays about $1.38 in taxes for every dollar of U.S. government social spending, a substantial difference from the $0.69 contributed by U.S. citizens. The sectors in which the participation of Mexicans predominates are agriculture, services and construction.
Even with this multimillion-dollar contribution to the U.S. economy, Mexicans living there send remittances to their relatives in Mexico for more than 60 billion dollars a year.
What’s more, seven out of 10 farmworkers in the U.S. are of Mexican origin. Who will take care of this work with the “mass deportations” that Trump promises?
Mass deportation of immigrants
Donald Trump accuses Mexico of allowing millions of immigrants to cross the border into the U.S. and threatens “mass deportations,” but his claims are unsubstantiated. Due to the policies of the Mexican government, caravans of migrants no longer arrive at the border between Mexico and the United States; arrivals have been reduced by 75% from December 2023 to November 2024, and the fact that half of those who arrive do so by attending an appointment legally granted by the US program called CBP1 stands out.
The chances of carrying out Donald Trump’s threats are almost nil if his government conducts a basic, elementary investigation of the costs and damages to the U.S. economy. We have already mentioned the economic impact above; let’s add here the cost of Trump’s proposed mass deportation plan: $88 billion a year would cost his government, according to the study Mass deportation: Devastating costs to America, its budget and economy, conducted by the American Immigration Council, dedicated to immigrant rights research and policy.
To the above are added – according to this study – losses of 46 billion dollars in taxes, 29 billion dollars in state and local taxes, 22 billion dollars in social security and between 4.2 and 6.8% in the gross domestic product of that country.
The figure is even higher when considering the 10-year deportation plan. “The total cost over 10 years (assuming an annual inflation rate of 2.5%) would be $967.9 billion.” The same study indicates that most of this cost would go towards the construction of detention camps. It would take “more than 10 years and the construction of hundreds or thousands of new detention centers to arrest, detain, process and expel the 13.3 million immigrants.”
Drugs and weapons
Claudia Sheinbaum was clear in her response to Donald Trump on this issue: “[regarding] Mexico’s role in the fentanyl epidemic in the United States, which is a consumer and public health problem in your country, so far this year the Mexican armed forces and prosecutors’ offices have seized tons of different types of drugs and 10,340 weapons, and arrested 15,640 people for violence related to drug trafficking.”
According to data from the National Center for Health Statistics, the U.S. Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, fentanyl claimed the lives of 107,500 people in 2023. The U.S. governments limit themselves to blaming Colombian and Mexican cartels, and do nothing to combat traffickers and launderers of the money derived from trafficking, which in their own territory reaches 100,000,000,000 dollars, according to the current Secretary of the Treasury of the United States, Janet Yellen.
On arms trafficking from the US to Mexico, Claudia Sheinbaum pointed out to Donald Trump: “You must also be aware of the illegal arms trafficking that arrives in my country from the United States; 70% of the illegal weapons seized from criminals in Mexico come from their country. We do not produce weapons; synthetic drugs are not consumed by us; those killed by crime to respond to the demand for drugs in their country, unfortunately, are provided by us.”
In politics
An erroneous approach of the government of Andrés Manuel López Obrador – which Claudia Sheinbaum repeats – is to consider that in the global arena what predominates is an economic competition between the US and China. In reality, this is one aspect – relevant, but one more – of the main phenomenon: the redefinition of a new world order that is characterized by the slow but unfailing loss of US hegemony in the face of the multipolarity promoted by China and Russia through the BRICS+.
The government of Mexico raises the need to extend the USMCA to the entire American continent, as an expression of desire that has no basis in history or in the current situation.
With the degree of cynicism that characterizes U.S. officials and politicians, who in the face of the impunity they still enjoy are not afraid of ridicule, General Laura J. Richardson – until recently head of the U.S. Southern Command – pointed out: “We see this, right here in our own hemisphere: that certain external malign actors such as the People’s Republic of China and Russia are aggressively exerting influence on our Democratic neighbors.
“Today,” he added, “the People’s Republic of China has both the ability and the interest to set aside international norms, to support its own brand of authoritarianism, to amass all power and capacity for influence, at the expense of nation states with emerging democracies in our hemisphere.”
The agreements of the BRICS countries, which are periodically joined by more nations to abandon the US dollar in their transactions in an accelerated manner, will have a decisive impact on the loss of US hegemony, greater than any number of atomic bombs. But it is not only the dollar factor, but some data also certify the forcefulness of the change in the global scenario, particularly in economic matters: while in 1960 the share of world GDP was 39% for the US and 4% for China, in 2024 for the US it is 24% and for China 18%
In the case of comparing the share of world GDP between the G7 (United States, Japan, Germany, United Kingdom, France, Italy, Canada) with 35% in 2010 and 29% in 2024, and BRICS+ (Brazil, China, India, Russia, South Africa, Ethiopia, United Arab Emirates, Iran and Egypt, and more than 14 countries that have shown interest), with 25% in 2010 and 39% in 2024.
If the Mexican government, with the necessary prudence, does not change its approach with a strategic vision on how to position itself on the world stage, without submitting to free trade agreements limiting sovereignty, and acts accordingly, it will end up tying Mexico to the inevitable fall of the U.S. empire. It will not be tomorrow or in a few years, but it will happen.