Relations between Mexico and the United States are currently marked by a notable yet unsettling calm, especially considering the recent tensions and the impending tariffs set to take effect on July 9th.
Fortunately, there has been a significant reduction in the tax on remittances, which was previously set at 3.5%. This change, lowering the tax to 1% specifically for cash remittances from migrants, alleviates concerns about a potential economic crisis stemming from excessive taxation.
Additionally, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has announced the gradual resumption of livestock exports, which had been halted due to the screwworm fly plague. Though these developments are positive, experts suggest they do not provide a clear resolution to the ongoing issues affecting bilateral relations.
International analyst Aribel Contreras highlights that these agreements appear more a result of negotiations among various stakeholders on both sides of the border rather than a coordinated and effective diplomatic effort by national teams. She points out that the key players in these small agreements are not necessarily political figures but rather businesspeople, legislators, and other non-political actors who have managed to communicate across borders.
Contreras asserts, “Diplomacy is falling short.” She believes the Mexican government has achieved only limited gains, describing the relationship’s current state as one of “major failures” that do not effectively mitigate tariff threats, despite the existing trade agreements. She also notes that the brief period of calm can be attributed to President Donald Trump’s shifting focus toward other pressing issues, such as conflicts in the Middle East and tensions with China.
Historically, Mexico and the United States have maintained significant relations, owing to the nearly 2,000-mile shared border. Over decades, both nations have developed numerous agreements governing their relationship, particularly in commercial matters. For example, the Sonora-Arizona Commission has been negotiating border issues for over 60 years, while local municipalities have engaged in their own legal agreements to address cross-border challenges.
Roberto Zepeda from the Center for Research on North America (CISAN) at UNAM underscores this notion of “paradiplomacy,” suggesting that these smaller diplomatic efforts could effectively navigate issues like the livestock export halt due to the screwworm crisis.
He points to other small agreements, such as a labor deal benefiting Mexican day laborers in U.S. agriculture, which reflects the ongoing complaints from farm owners. However, Zepeda notes that President Trump has complicated matters by grouping these various agreements together, making it harder to address each issue in isolation.
Zepeda expresses concern over the limited diplomatic channels available, urging for increased flexibility and a more proactive approach from the Mexican government. He indicates a desire for high-level communication similar to what existed during Trump’s first term with Jared Kushner, suggesting that current communications lack the depth and proactivity required.
Arturo Rocha, who was the Mexican coordinator for the North American Strategy during the previous administration, offers a different perspective, believing that Mexico is gradually making progress. He acknowledges the weight of domestic politics affecting foreign policy decisions and praises Sheinbaum’s cool-headed approach, noting notable achievements in resolving issues related to livestock exports and water supply agreements with Texas.
However, consensus among experts reveals that high-level diplomacy still possesses significant “areas of opportunity.” With the current Mexican ambassador, Esteban Moctezuma, remaining stationed in the U.S. amid ongoing tensions, Contreras suggests this represents a diplomatic shortfall. She advocates for a change in leadership that could better address the commercial emphasis needed in the current negotiations.
Further complicating matters, the Mexican Foreign Ministry’s teams and the structure overseeing relations with North America have undergone downgrades, causing concern among diplomats and analysts regarding Mexico’s ability to engage meaningfully with the United States.
Zepeda emphasizes that the frequency of phone calls between President Trump and Sheinbaum illustrates a lack of advanced planning and diplomatic smoothness, even absent a strong ambassador presence.
As ongoing evaluations point to low staffing and resource challenges at Mexican consulates in the United States, Rocha identifies the necessity for reinforcements in this area, not just in terms of numbers but in terms of expertise and funding. He argues that bolstering Mexico’s lobbying efforts with Republicans is critical, particularly regarding trade and economic negotiations.
Despite these concerns, a continuation of diplomatic silence may only serve to amplify uncertainties in Mexico-U.S. relations. As tariffs loom and discussions around the Trade Agreement between the two countries and Canada remain unresolved, the stakes are high.
With the diplomatic landscape shifting and growing criticisms against the current strategies, observers remain vigilant, understanding that the lull in tensions may merely be a precursor to another storm ahead.
image source from：english
