Mexico’s USA problem

View of the border wall from the Puerto Anapra neighborhood in Ciudad Juarez, across from Sunland Park, New Mexico, on March 19, 2025. The graffiti reads: "We're not criminals or illegals, we're international workers." Photo © David Peinado.

Opinion • Ramón I. Centeno • May 1, 2025 • Leer en castellano

Donald Trump is on a rampage. His second presidency is off to an even more explosive start than the first. Much of Trump’s approach consists of trial and error, feeling out where he’ll encounter more or less resistance. There isn’t always a plan, but there is a goal: to protect the United States from a hostile world and cleanse its government of liberal vice.

Claudia Sheinbaum's government has several options for responding to this. Thus far, it has done so in a way that has satisfied Trump, but that will further erode Mexico’s position over time.

Intertwined politics

US foreign policy has historically swung between the extremes of isolationism on the one hand and interventionism on the other. Trump has prompted a particularly dramatic pendulum swing this time around, ushering in a new isolationist era and attempting to separate the United States from a world that he considers irredeemable.

From this perspective, it does not make sense to get involved in a conflict on the other side of the world—in Ukraine, for example— when you could send troops, militarize and build new obstacles along the south border.

In the view of Trump and his government, “democracy” is no longer a banner to uphold or fight for. Foreign policy will no longer be justified with reference to the utopia of liberal democracy, rather under an imperial logic of raw power, without ideological pretenses. The US will use its power to exact tribute, as always—but this time it will do so without rhetoric about saving the world. Since not everyone can pay up, some battles are simply not worth it.

Mexico, on the other hand, has maintained a defensive foreign policy since its independence. Mexican anti-imperialism, whether proactive or more passive, has served primarily as a way to protect self-determination. The trauma of 19th-century invasions by Spain, France and the United States left its mark.

Since the presidency of Porfirio Díaz (1876–1911), ensuring a good relationship with the United States and building ties with other countries has been a pillar of Mexican foreign policy.  This allowed Mexico to diversify its diplomatic relations, which made the bilateral relationship between it and the United States less asymmetrical and even conflicted at times. It’s easier to negotiate when your counterpart is convinced that you’re not under their thumb.

Mexico's foreign policy changed dramatically with the rise of neoliberalism, particularly after the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994. In that agreement, the Mexican elite broke with national tradition.

From there forward, the Mexican government shifted its focus from protecting the nation against its powerful neighbor to merging into a single “North America.” If the goal of the earlier strategy was to negotiate differences, after 1994 the goal was to eliminate differences and converge.

During Andrés Manuel López Obrador’s presidency (2018–2024) and now with Sheinbaum, the Mexican pendulum began to swing away from integrationism and back toward old-fashioned nationalism. However, this happens at a time of unprecedented integration between the US and Mexican economies.

The old rhetoric and symbols returned, as did the gap between what the office of the president says and does. At the same time, from Mexico we saw Trump swing back toward traditional US nationalism—more interested in its “backyard” than in leading other continents.

View of the border wall from the Puerto Anapra neighborhood in Ciudad Juarez, across from Sunland Park, New Mexico, on March 19, 2025. The graffiti reads: "We're not criminals or illegals, we're international workers." Photo © David Peinado.

A fragile understanding

To date, Sheinbaum and Trump have gotten on better than most expected. She can tell Mexicans that she countered the worst of the US’s protectionist turn. Trump can say he got an extra 10,000 Mexican soldiers at the border to hunt migrants on his behalf. In addition, Mexico sent 29 cartel members to US prisons, bolstering Trump’s claim that he’s fighting the opioid epidemic.

So far, it's win-win for both, politically speaking. But this is just getting started. Trump wants more. 

The backdrop is simple enough: the U.S. senses—rightly so—that China could displace it as the world's leading power. Trump and his team are testing ways to prevent that. Imposing tariffs on the rest of the world is a partial return to economic protectionism.

Washington championed free trade as long as it was the dominant player. But now that China could get the upper hand, the US is abandoning it. 

Trump wants to annex Canada and take over Greenland. He means it and, like a typical bully, he’s having a good time watching it play out. But behind the scenes of the whole pantomime, something more serious is lurking. 

For some time now, focusing on North America has been a little-noticed priority for U.S. military ideologues.

Former General and CIA head David H. Petraeus and ex-World Bank President Robert B. Zoellick summed up the central idea: “North America is the ‘continental base’ for the United States; it should be the starting point for its geopolitical and geoeconomic perspectives.” In this vision, as China grows stronger in Southeast Asia, Russia in its southwest, Brazil in South America and so on, the United States must prioritize, guarantee and reinforce its continental base: North America.

Trump has added his outsized passions and phobias to this outlook. He expanded the vision to include the island of Greenland, which is sparsely inhabited, mainly by Indigenous Kalaallit (Inuit) people. Thawing induced by climate change means that their territory will likely yield new oil drilling and mining opportunities. He’s also added the desire to annex Canada, nixing Petraeus and Zoellick's proposal for a deeper strategic alliance. 

But Mexico is off the table: it is to be kept out of this project because of its non-white majority, at the same time as it is dominated to keep the southern border in check. The racism of Trump and his allies has, for now, exempted Mexicans from the desire for annexation—at least of the entire territory.

National Guard for the US?

Claudia Sheinbaum and the Mexican military leadership have placed their bets on placating Trump. They have turned the Mexican National Guard into an extension of the American Border Patrol, which no longer seems to surprise anyone. Filling the Zócalo, Mexico City’s central square, with supporters of the president—as took place most recently on March 9—cannot erase this humiliation. Instead of playing Trump's game, it may be a good time to remember two facts that make Mexico stronger than it thinks.

First, there are more Mexicans living in the US than people from any other country, and their identity could serve as the basis for mobilization. In fact, a version of that took place spontaneously at the beginning of the year.

Neither Russia nor China nor any European country could fill the streets of the United States with millions of their own. Of course, meddling in domestic politics is anathema to Mexico’s relationship with the US. The US can interfere in Mexican affairs, but not the other way around. But in this era of taboo-breaking, it would be irresponsible not to diversify the arsenal. In any case, thinking beyond the state, it’s vital to start implementing the logic of transnational solidarity among and between Mexicans.

Second is a fact that few mention: the largest concentration of U.S. citizens outside their country live in Mexico.

There are currently 1.6 million US citizens on this side of the border.

The worst thing would be to treat them the same way Trump treats Mexicans. The most sensible strategy is to regularize their migration status and integrate them into the country that welcomed them. This could enlist them in the battle against Trump’s attacks on Mexico.

The three nations of North America are deeply entwined, and the most influential among them has begun its decline. In its retreat, Washington is building new fences. It may no longer seek to be the world’s imperial power, but it does want to rule like one in the Americas—as an empire in its crude and carnivorous form, stripped of the trappings of democratic language.

Mexico is at a crossroads: treat Trump with the naivety of Moctezuma with Hernán Cortés or start preparing for worst-case scenarios. Only then will it be able to avoid them.