Deterioration

September 7, 2025

Luis Rubio

In his novel A Canticle for Leibowitz, Walter Miller presents a paradox that time itself naturally elevates: “Isn’t it funny that day by day nothing changes, but when you look back, everything is different?” The recent visit of the U.S. Secretary of State vividly illustrated just how much the priorities of both governments have shifted since the bilateral relationship began to deepen some four decades ago.

In the 1980s, Mexico was stuck. The country was going through a severe economic and political crisis, largely the product of the polarizing strategies pursued by the two governments of the 1970s, but also because the prevailing economic model had reached its limits. The nationalization of the banks had shaken the country; foreign debt was suffocating it; incipient economic reforms were forcing a redefinition of economic activity; unemployment remained high; inflation showed no signs of easing; and trade disputes with the United States were multiplying. The outlook was bleak, forcing the country to redefine its path to the future.

The change that followed was profound in many dimensions. David Konzevik captured it with his usual clarity and exuberance: Mexico was moving from looking inward and backward to looking outward and toward the future. The shift was momentous and, over time, transformed not only the structure of the economy but also the way the entire population thought. Not everyone welcomed the shift, to be sure, but as the process advanced, all Mexicans came to understand the new course that, little by little, reshaped Mexican society in its political, social, and cultural dimensions. Perhaps the clearest evidence of this is the systematic defense of the trilateral trade treaty undertaken by both Morena administrations, fully aware of its importance for Mexico’s present and future.

That said, one must acknowledge that the bilateral relationship is undergoing severe changes, not only as a result of the aggressive activism coming from the north. I do not know if the border separating Mexico and the United States is the most complex in the world, as some claim, but it is certainly extraordinarily active, diverse, conflict-ridden, multifaceted, and prone to crises of all kinds. Long before the era of rapprochement that began in the 1980s, historical, cultural, and economic differences had fostered permanent tension that manifested itself at every level, generating quarrels, disputes, and arguments over even the most trivial matters.

The era of rapprochement that began in 1988 changed the tenor of the relationship, not only because of the sudden surge in bilateral activity, border crossings, and commercial and other exchanges, but above all because both nations agreed to focus on resolving their differences instead of stoking sources of conflict. The great political and cultural shift that took place at that moment was precisely that both nations—each with its own logic, internal political constraints, and priorities—agreed (at least de facto) to concentrate on resolving disputes rather than seeking culprits. Even in the most difficult moments thereafter, the governments of the two countries devoted themselves to solving problems, avoiding outbursts, and smoothing over difficulties.

The recent visit of Secretary Marco Rubio vividly demonstrated the extent of the change in the relationship and the way both governments now perceive each other. The Trump administration has persisted in using aggressive rhetoric and in accusing the Mexican government of corruption and of ties to drug trafficking—even in the hours immediately preceding the Secretary of State’s arrival. The Mexican government has been more restrained in form, but it has not stopped undermining the foundations of USMCA and of the bilateral relationship, to the point of deploying its media cavalry in the days leading up to the visit in order to create a negative atmosphere in anticipation of the meetings. The fact is that the bilateral relationship has shifted from one devoted to capitalizing on the advantages of proximity, with a clear conviction of the need to resolve disputes and eliminate points of collision, to one that is quarrelsome, distant, and, in my view, oblivious to the inexorable dynamics of integration—above all economic, but also labor, cultural, and social.

Both nations, each driven by its own ideological, political, and partisan impulses, are becoming locked into a dangerous estrangement that will not only prove unproductive but will also diminish opportunities for development for both. Analytically, the rationale behind each government’s posture is clear, but it seems equally clear that neither appreciates the enormous risks that such quarrelsomeness—and the strident, absurd decisions that accompany it, such as tariffs—pose for the region and, therefore, for each of the three nations involved. Let us hope that the high-level group proposed for creation takes on this risk as its mission.

As Dean Rusk once said of the French, “With allies one disagrees, but one never militates against them.”