Ricardo Pascoe Pierce
The meeting between President Sheinbaum and the US Secretary of Homeland Security, Kristi Noem, set off alarm bells in the federal government and Morena. It is now perfectly clear that tariffs are the political instrument chosen by the Trump administration to pressure the Mexican government to cut the umbilical cord linking politics to drug trafficking in Mexico.
While Ebrard said he was in Washington, D.C., negotiating “preferential tariffs” (whatever that means), the actual negotiations took place in Mexico. And it is a political negotiation, not simply a commercial one. For a commercial negotiation, governments and businesspeople must have the text of the USMCA in front of them. For political negotiation, leaders with the capacity for decision-making must be seated. For that reason, President Sheinbaum was accompanied by her people and the supporters of Andrés Manuel López Obrador, so everyone knows where they stand.
We are becoming subtle and paranoid readers of the messages sent to us by the Trump administration. These messages are designed to provoke confusion, uncertainty, and nervousness, and responses that sometimes say more about their sender than the intended recipient. The harsh reactions to Trump are read differently from the evaluation of the soft responses to his outbursts.
Donald Trump has said that April 2, 2025, is America’s “Day of Liberation.” He is referring to next Tuesday, April 2, when, he says, the United States will impose tariffs on all countries that “unduly” take advantage of the trade deficit they have with his country. Trump sees imposing tariffs on many countries as an act of liberation. And of aggression.
He immediately nuances his words and says that once the tariffs have been decreed, the United States plans to sit down with all the affected countries to assess their impact and “reach new agreements”. New agreements? For example, according to the current USMCA signed between the United States, Canada, and Mexico, its content will be reviewed in 2026. So what is the point of tariffs to put pressure on us to review what we are going to review, by law, next year?
Nuances are the sign of the times. Kristi Noem’s statement in Mexico danced on the nuance she made in her only comment on X about the meeting. It is true that she acknowledged Mexico’s efforts on migration. But she nuanced: Mexico has to do much more on security issues. That nuance was much more important than congratulating Mexico.
Let’s look at their X: “The deployment of National Guard troops on the border and Mexico’s acceptance of deportation flights is a positive step, but much remains to be done to stem the flow of drugs and illegal immigrants into our country. Our alliance will help make the United States and the Central American region safe again.”
Another way of putting it would be to say that they are not satisfied with the handing over of 29 drug lords, nor with all the seizures of drugs and weapons that the Mexican government has made recently. They want more. And if we extrapolate their thinking from what they have said in meetings with the US Congress, what they expect from Sheinbaum is that she cut the umbilical cord that ties the Mexican government and politics to drug trafficking.
We know that breaking with drug trafficking represents an extremely difficult decision for President Sheinbaum. Firstly, we don’t know if she wants to or can do it. And secondly, if she tries, it means attacking important elements of her own party. Does she have the political strength to succeed in this undertaking? Thirdly, she risks losing the presidency and her life if she doesn’t do it well and forcefully. Does she have that strategic and pragmatic thinking?
The legacy of her government will depend on the decisions she makes. It is clear that the cards are already on the table after last Friday’s visit. There is no way to avoid the crossroads. That is the essence of Noem’s nuance. It is a warning that the clock is ticking. April 2nd is just around the corner.
@rpascoep
Further Reading: