Ricardo Pascoe Pierce
Trump’s recipe for governing is not overly complex. It bears striking similarities to López Obrador’s proposal of 90% loyalty and 10% efficiency. For Trump, loyalty is blind and does not allow for questioning. He does not care much about the efficiency or suitability of his subordinates. That is why they have made so many mistakes in the few months they have been in office.
Mexico regularly faces Trump’s aggression and flattery. We need to figure out where the US president is headed to assess the usefulness, or futility, of giving him everything he asks for, or whether we should put up a barrier of resistance to Washington’s growing pressure on our country.
Let’s evaluate how his government works to understand its effectiveness when it puts pressure on actors inside or outside the country. For example, officials from his administration sent a letter to Harvard University with demands related to the government’s desire to control and direct the selection of faculty members to ensure their “loyalty” to American values, to define criteria for expelling faculty members who do not agree with these “Judeo-Christian” values, including foreign students considered “pernicious.”
The reaction of Harvard University’s leadership was to reject the Trump administration’s demands outright. In response to the university’s refusal, the White House announced the cancellation of billions of dollars in federal funding for research projects and programs that Harvard conducts in collaboration with multiple federal agencies and universities worldwide.
That was the situation when Trump administration officials acknowledged that they had sent the letter by mistake. They claimed that they were in negotiations with Harvard and “did not know” who had sent the letter. In response to the information published in the New York Times about the acknowledgment of the mistaken mailing, Harvard officials now doubt the veracity of the denial. They claimed that the Trump administration’s practice is to attack, assault, intimidate, and then talk nicely to try to reach some agreement. In this case, they say, the White House wanted to threaten to withdraw $2 billion in support for the university to make clear how far the administration would go to subdue the American intellectual space.
The purest example of Trump’s method is Trump’s own behavior. In everything he proposes, he begins by threatening. When he offered to negotiate “peace” in Ukraine, his method was to initially exclude Kyiv from the negotiations, assuming that the Trump-Putin axis would resolve everything. He publicly disparaged Zelensky, calling him a “dictator.” He withdrew military and intelligence support from the Ukrainians to pressure them into accepting Moscow’s terms. The threats against Ukraine failed, and peace in that region seems far off. Threats and blackmail, followed by flattery toward Zelensky, achieved nothing, even less so with Putin.
In the case of Gaza, Trump demanded that Hamas agree to a deal with Israel or see “hell” break loose in their country. This was even after offering to turn Gaza into the “most beautiful” resort in the world, transporting all the millions of Gazans to a “promised land” in a location that was never specified. All we know is that the massacre of civilians continues unabated and, obviously, without a solution.
In a move that surprised everyone, including the Israelis, Trump offered to open negotiations with Iran on the conditions for regulating the development of a nuclear capability. It seemed like a new era was dawning, but Trump finished by saying that if they did not agree to a deal, the United States would bomb their country without mercy. To this end, he used apocalyptic imagery that would be familiar to a regular Bible reader. In other words, the call for dialogue was accompanied by a warning that if the negotiations were not heeded, the consequence would be that a merciless bombardment would fall on their heads, their cities, and their citizens.
Of course, this act, which was not a military but a highly disruptive one, was a declaration of trade war, imposing tariffs on the entire world, especially China. He had been announcing them, even during the election campaign. All analysts thought he would apply tariffs selectively, not generally. And by applying them generally, he caused turmoil in the global economy. Since Trump took office, there has been talk of recession, inflation, unemployment, and disruptions to value chains in much of the world’s economy. In short, there is talk of a trade war, which has the potential to escalate into a world war, with confrontations in various parts of the globe. Today, it is Ukraine, Gaza, and parts of Africa. Tomorrow it could be Canada. Greenland, the Arctic, oil wells in Saudi Arabia and the Gulf of Oman, Venezuela, Colombia, Ecuador, Panama.
Trump has applied the same tactic with Mexico. The most recent example is water. He threatened to take action against Mexico if it did not deliver water to Texas. Mexico obediently delivered the water, without a word. But there are several examples: the most notable is how the federal government has rushed its security forces to combat organized crime. Suddenly, arsenals and drugs appear everywhere. The government picks them up with a spatula and raises them high in the air as a sign of contrition.
The migrant caravans have disappeared. Or, to put it another way, federal forces have deliberately dispersed them to lessen their psychological impact on the White House, and Mexico has accepted the returnees without uttering a word.
At the same time, the president and Trump are holding increasingly enthusiastic and fruitful telephone conversations, according to the assessment of both leaders. It is worth remembering that these conversations are taking place amid tariffs imposed by the United States on the automotive industry, steel, aluminum, and tomatoes. All of these tariffs are illegal, according to the body of the trade agreement between Mexico, Canada, and the United States. While the president agrees with Trump on “fruitful” things, he imposes illegal tariffs on us. The high note in all of this is that Mexico has not responded by imposing tariffs on the United States, in line with our policy of prudence.
Trump always speaks very highly of Claudia Sheinbaum, even while threatening her and Mexico. It is his method of government. And the questions pile up. What does Mexico gain from its prudence? What does it receive in exchange for such complacency? What are we giving up to win Trump’s applause? We obviously need more information and clarity from our government.
@rpascoep
Further Reading: