Despite talk of historic cooperation, the divide between Mexico City & DC is deepening
October 9, 2025
Mexico’s Foreign PolicyMexico and Trump
9 Oct
by Luis Rubio, political analyst and Chair of México Evalúa.
Mexico City and Washington are the capitals of two neighboring nations whose interactions are among the most dynamic and complex in the world —yet whose leaderships could hardly be more distant or contrasting. Both countries are about to begin negotiations to review their existing trade agreement, but their perspectives are so different that, if current trends continue, it is hard to imagine a successful outcome.
For nearly two centuries, Mexico and the United States maintained a relationship that fluctuated between closeness and distance, conflict and limited cooperation. The border evolved significantly over time — most notably through Texas’s independence and the U.S. invasion of 1847 — while the Mexican Revolution of 1910 further strained relations as Mexico sought US recognition of the new revolutionary regime. The relationship was functional but tense, full of ups and downs.
In the 1980s, Mexico decided to change its economic strategy to attract foreign investment and raise productivity. These changes required a new way of engaging with the US, and a recognition that the northern neighbor could be part of Mexico’s solution rather than its problem. For its part, the US faced challenges that required Mexico’s cooperation. Out of that convergence was born the era of closeness and collaboration that defined the bilateral relationship in recent decades.
In practice, both countries focused on solving problems rather than assigning blame. This approach accelerated economic integration even as they tackled longstanding and circumstantial issues — though not always successfully. Yet the growing dynamism of economic ties masked a widening political gap. From Washington’s perspective, the expectation that Mexico was on a steady path toward development gradually faded. The US retreated into managing its own concerns, seeking above all to keep Mexico’s problems from crossing the shared border. Meanwhile, Mexico abandoned reform efforts and relied on migration and the existing free trade agreement to preserve the status quo.
The arrival of Donald Trump to the US presidency in early 2017 and Andrés Manuel López Obrador to Mexico’s at the end of 2018 made the underlying distance unmistakable. Trump blamed Mexico for many of the ills he saw in his country, while López Obrador sought to reduce the importance of the bilateral relationship. Both leaders might have preferred to change geography itself to solve their problems. In the end, pragmatism prevailed and the North American Free Trade Agreement was renegotiated as the USMCA.
Now, the landscape has shifted dramatically with the second Morena government in Mexico and Trump’s second term in the US. Mexico is governed by a president far more ideological and dogmatic than López Obrador, surrounded by a team that not only lacks understanding of US politics but which fails to grasp the need to engage with its northern neighbor. Virtually no one in President Sheinbaum’s administration seems to appreciate how Washington works, how much it has changed, or why that matters.
On the US side, two radical shifts have occurred. First, the Trump administration no longer accepts the premise that it should limit its focus to the border. It now views Mexico’s problems as challenges to US national security. Consequently, the driver of its policy toward Mexico has moved from the State Department to the Department of Homeland Security — an agency guided by principles entirely different from traditional diplomacy.
Within the US government, pragmatic officials and ideological ones coexist uneasily. The pragmatists seek solutions; the ideologues act on prejudice. This tension is visible in the immigration debate and in discussions about whether to act unilaterally — with drones or special forces — or in coordination with Mexico.
South of the border, there is little evidence that the Mexican government understands the depth or implications of Washington’s evolving stance. Nor does it seem to grasp how these shifts could affect trade negotiations — the very foundation of Mexico’s economic growth. In other words, whatever plans or initiatives Mexico may have devised are not necessarily aligned with the political reality of its counterpart.
Even more troubling is that Morena’s ideological dogmas prevent it from recognizing the power asymmetry that defines the bilateral relationship. Morena’s rhetoric emphasizes sovereignty, human rights, and legality when speaking about the United States. Yet the reality is that the US is a superpower with deep and direct interests in Mexico, and the Mexican government’s room for maneuver depends on how well it positions itself within that balance of power. Sovereignty may sound noble, but it does not operate in an interaction led by officials for whom diplomatic nuance is largely irrelevant.
Listening recently to officials from both countries reminded me of an anecdote recounted by Martin Indyk, former US ambassador to Israel, about a visit by Prime Minister Netanyahu to President Clinton in the 1990s. After a lengthy monologue that left Clinton unable to get a word in, the president burst into laughter and said: “I wonder whether you understand who the superpower is here.”
That, in essence, is the Sheinbaum government today.