Arturo Sarukhán: It’s not that it necessarily gets him anything. I’ve always said this: I think Claudia is much more ideological than López Obrador. I don't think [AMLO] deeply believes in the Bolívarian revolution. But by advocating the Bolívarian Revolution, and Maduro, and Chávez, and Castro and Cuba, etc… they are ensuring the “Taliban” wing of the Morena movement feels that their issues are top of mind of the President.

AS: Well, I think it's a page from the PRI playbook of the 1960s and 1970s. This was keep the economic and trade relationship close, but on any other issue maintain a distance, and use Latin America as a balance between you and the United States. Those are, coincidentally, the years López Obrador cut his teeth as a politician. So, in his mind it's ideologically balancing. On the one hand he says, “yes the economic trade relationship between Mexico and the United States is essential.” But every time he can, he pokes his finger in the eye of the U.S. He does this when it comes to Cuba, Venezuela, the UN, the OAS, Julian Assange. It's been a constant in López Obrador’s tenure.

AS: There’s a much more ideological bent to Sheinbaum when it comes to these issues. Remember she comes from the left in Mexico, that is truly ideological when it comes to Cuba, the US, Venezuela, Nicaragua. So I think you’ll see some serious push and tug and shove in the Sheinbaum administration as to where it positions itself on foreign policy because they're replicating the same talking points. “Yes” to Nearshoring. “Yes” to the deepening of USMCA and ensuring that USMCA sunset review in 2026 doesn't go off the rails. At the same time, you see these statements regarding Venezuela.

You're likely going to see a foreign policy that continues to provide cover to these regimes. It’s very telling that when foreign leaders were congratulating Sheinbaum on her victory… the Russian Ministry of Foreign Affairs put up a congratulatory tweet. The tweet said, “we congratulate President-Elect Claudia Sheinbaum.” She responded by thanking Vladimir Putin. She brought Putin into the equation when Putin hadn't said a peep about her triumph.

AS: No, they don't understand how toxic this is; they don't get it. Now it would be easy to simply brush this off as a Mexican government that doesn't get it. I say it would be easy because I think at the end of the day it is intended as a provocation. They think they're playing geopolitics, but they're not playing geopolitics; they're creating a very toxic readout and context for Mexico going forward.

Given how [the American] government… has operated in its relationship with Mexico, it was very telling for me that it was the spokesperson of the State Department that reached out to Mexican correspondents, to proactively give them a reaction. It was kosher. But they emphasised that [the inauguration] is a democratic celebration. So it should reflect democratic values. This is the same administration that has been using cotton wool to engage with López Obrador, because of the need to ensure collaboration on immigration controls. Even more telling was the spokesperson of the European Union bluntly saying, “we expect Mexico to comply with its obligations under the International Criminal Court.” I think what you've seen these nearly six years is a drip, drip, drip, drip of deterioration of Mexico's reputation, credibility, and stature in the world.

There’s a belief that the USMCA at the end of the day will provide the sufficient guardrails, and ensure that the crazier stuff doesn't make it through.

Second, I think it's simply bandwidth. With what's going on in the Middle East, in Russia, in the South China Sea… this administration has so much bandwidth.

There’s a third thing, and this is where I think it's very telling. I’ll preface this by saying: I don't think anyone in Washington is happy, either, with Lula's positions on a host of issues. But who does Washington call in the aftermath of the elections to discuss Venezuela? It's not López Obrador; it's Lula. So yes, histrionics, yes, positions we don't like. But there's a sense that Brazil is at least a serious player.

Mexico is [seen as] a buffoon. There is zero trust, zero confidence in their Mexican counterparts. Cienfuegos and now [El Mayo] are proof of the impact of the evisceration of US-Mexico bilateral cooperation in the fight against organized crime. And these are symptoms of a disease. The disease is the destruction of the architecture that was built to enhance law enforcement collaboration, intel sharing.

It’s very scary, the fact that you had eight Uzbeks coming through the border with Mexico and intel spotted potential ties with ISIS-K. You’ve seen the intelligence sharing apparatus completely gutted. The counter-narcotics collaboration with Mexico that we triggered became the midwife of a greater, larger intelligence and security collaboration between Mexico and the United States. So you’re not only destroying whether you go after fentanyl or whether you arrest El Chapo. You’re destroying the muscle tone of intelligence sharing that has been the mainstay of US-Mexico relations since 9-11.

If there is indeed one of these individuals who does cross the border from Mexico into the United States, and is caught in the act of, or does commit, a terrorist attack on US soil… That will be the end of the Mexico-US Relationship as we've known it for the past three decades.

AS: It isn’t about being transactional, it’s about political realities. And I hope she’s elected. But number one, let’s look at the immigration issue. The immigration pressures will still be there because of where the Republicans tragically are. But she will not have the political, electoral pressures that Biden had. So, Mexico's leverage with immigration will tend to diminish. That will allow a presumptive Harris administration to be much more forthcoming and direct on a host of other bilateral issues.

Her past in California as Attorney General, and the role that she played in confronting transnational criminal organizations operating on the California side of the border, means that she will be very direct on law enforcement collaboration, intel sharing, fighting fentanyl.

Three, because of the political reality, she will be much more willing to put pressure on Mexico. This will be around bilateral and domestic policies in Mexico that undermine, challenge, or run contrary to the interests of the United States or the fabric of North American integration. Whereas Trump will be a huge threat, but at the end of the day he just cares about the border. What happens in Mexico, whether its president destroys autonomous bodies, whether he guts the Supreme Court, [Trump] doesn't give a hoot about that. Kamala will.