Claudia Sheinbaum’s stoic diplomacy faces its limits
Mexico’s President Claudia Sheinbaum at her morning press conference in Mexico City. Image credit: Presidency of Mexico.
by Andrés Rozental.
Much has been written and said about how Mexico’s President, Claudia Sheinbaum, has managed to avoid the kind of treatment Donald Trump has often reserved for countries with which he has grievances. Some analysts have compared her approach to that of former Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, who took a more combative stance. Trudeau responded to Trump’s provocations - like his comments about making Canada the 51st state and imposing tariffs on Canadian exports - with reciprocal actions and direct criticism. In contrast, Sheinbaum has never explicitly threatened retaliation. Nor has she directly confronted Trump on major bilateral issues such as migration and drug trafficking - topics Trump campaigned on and has made central to his administration.
Her relatively low-key approach to dealing with Trump, calling for patience and delay before responding to the US President’s constant assaults on Mexico, was seen by a majority of Mexicans, and many international pundits, as a model for how to “manage” a relationship with the author of The Art of the Deal.
Notwithstanding generalized applause for her stoicism and her high popularity, I believe it important to judge whether Sheinbaum’s strategy of accommodation has actually benefitted Mexico more than Chinese, European or Canadian reactions in dealing with Trump.
Once political niceties are discounted, with Trump praising Mexico’s President as a “wonderful woman with whom I can do business” and Sheinbaum repeating in her morning mañaneras that she has an “excellent and respectful” rapport with Trump, the reality of his first 100 days in office paints a rather different picture.
Despite weekly trips to Washington by Marcelo Ebrard, Mexico’s Economy Minister, Mexico so far has not been able to get any more favorable tariff treatment than Canada. Mexico hasn’t been exempted from the 10% across-the-board tax that Trump applied to all countries. And neither Mexico has escaped the 25% global levy on steel and aluminum.
Granted that Mexico, together with Canada, was given more favorable treatment on sales to the US that comply with, and are exported under, USMCA regional content provisions. But in the case of the automotive sector, the tariff exemption only applies to US content, not to any of the other parts of vehicles that are either manufactured in the other two North American economies, or that are part of the international content from the sector’s foreign supply chains.
Tariffs aside, Mexico has faced pressure from the Trump administration on several other fronts during his first three months. These include threats to designate Mexican drug cartels as “Foreign Terrorist Organizations,” a move that could criminalize even incidental contact with anyone linked to them. Trump officials have also floated the idea of US military intervention in Mexico. This has been accompanied by increased surveillance by US naval ships, aircraft, and drones along Mexico’s western border.
Moreover, US officials have accused the Mexican government of colluding with organized crime. One Trump statement claimed Mexico “has afforded safe havens for the cartels to engage in the manufacturing and transportation of dangerous narcotics,” contributing to hundreds of thousands of American overdose deaths. The administration continues to highlight the “unstoppable” flow of fentanyl into the US, despite clear efforts by Sheinbaum’s government to dismantle drug labs and arrest traffickers.
Other points of friction include Mexico’s struggle to control its southern border and stop migrants from reaching the US; its failure to meet water-sharing obligations under the 1944 treaty due to a severe, decade-long drought in the north; and renewed US complaints about sewage discharges from Tijuana polluting California’s beaches.
These bilateral issues, some of which are long-standing in Mexico’s relationship with the United States, have been used by President Trump in his second term to bully Mexico into complying with his demands. He has done this mainly through economic threats that clearly violate the terms of the USMCA, and are certainly not examples of a privileged partnership.
My conclusion is that, notwithstanding the condescending attitude that Sheinbaum has adopted towards Trump, Mexico has not received any more favorable treatment from the US President than other countries that have been victims of economic sanctions, territorial claims or other measures applied by Washington as a means to achieve the mostly unilateral intentions Trump is pursuing as part of a redesign of his country’s foreign and domestic policies.
Mexican presidents tend to play to their domestic audiences when performing on the international stage. Sheinbaum is no exception. Her reluctance to travel abroad, with the excuse that “too much needs to be addressed within Mexico,” has also made her lose opportunities for face-to-face meetings with President Trump. Even her decision not to attend Pope Francis’ funeral in Rome last week seems to have been based on avoiding an encounter with Trump. Time will tell if this strategy will have been any more successful than what other heads of state or government have been attempting in their relationships with the American president.
Editor’s Note: Ambassador Andrés Rozental is a retired career diplomat who served as Mexico’s Deputy Foreign Minister from 1988 - 1994.