Antonio Ocaranza
The bilateral relationship between Mexico and the United States is marked by a profound asymmetry, not only in terms of economic or military power, but also in terms of strategic vision. While Washington uses pressure—economic, political, even symbolic—as a negotiating tool, Mexico relies on institutional dialogue and consensus building. This clash of styles leads to frustration and reveals a disparate interpretation of how diplomacy is exercised in practice.
Mexico continues to operate with a more traditional logic, based on mutual respect, non-intervention, and the institutionalization of dialogue. When faced with unilateral actions by the United States, the Mexican government responds with letters from President Sheinbaum to President Trump, diplomatic protests, calls for understanding, or, on occasion, silence. Timidly, it seeks to respond with symbolic pressure, such as when it asked Mexicans in the United States to protest against the tax on remittances, which ended up becoming a risk and a new front with part of the Trump administration, which mistakenly accused Claudia Sheinbaum of inciting demonstrations in California. But at all times, the Mexican government favors keeping the channel open, hoping that dialogue will prevail.
Mexico’s diplomatic strategy with the United States is based on three principles: 1. sovereignty and non-intervention, 2. institutional dialogue, and 3. containment based on legal arguments.
- Sovereignty and non-intervention as a rhetorical banner. In response to actions it perceives as interventionist—tariffs, border closures to products, or unilateral sanctions—Mexico invokes the principle of non-intervention and defense of its sovereignty. The government’s diplomatic protests, formal notes from the SRE, and statements at the morning press conference reiterate that any measures must be agreed upon and respect preexisting norms. This rhetorical device reinforces Mexico’s image as a respectful actor in international law, but its real deterrent power is limited given the asymmetry with the United States.
- Institutional dialogue and multilateralism as the first option. Mexico prioritizes access to formal negotiation channels: from bilateral meetings to multilateral forums. Before taking any countermeasures, President Sheinbaum calls on the United States to engage in dialogue and collaborative work. This emphasis on formal dialogue seeks to legitimize discussions, but often comes after the other party has already imposed favorable conditions, reducing the effect of Mexican pronouncements.
- Containment and recourse to legal mechanisms. Instead of responding with economic or political pressure, Mexico tends to “contain” the crisis through legal advice and recourse to administrative bodies such as USMCA compliance. This strategy seeks to decouple the dispute from the purely political arena, forcing any imposition to be evaluated under trade rules and treaties. However, the complexity and duration of these processes mean that an effective response comes too late, and in the meantime, the unilateral measures have already taken effect.
This contrast creates a constant disconnect. When Mexico expects negotiations between equals, Washington has already made a decision. When Mexico wants to open a channel, the United States has already closed it with an announcement. The difference in styles reflects not only an asymmetry of power, but also a different reading of the same game. The United States negotiates like in poker: it hides cards, bluffs, and pressures its opponent. Mexico does so like in chess: with clear rules, predictable moves, and a long-term vision. One plays to gain advantage, the other to maintain balance.
This means that Mexico must have a keener understanding of the political and diplomatic codes of its northern neighbor. Negotiating with the United States means understanding that pressure does not break dialogue: it initiates it. To counter this style, Mexico needs to anticipate, diversify its channels of influence, strengthen its networks in Congress, federal agencies, and state governments, and prepare to react, not just explain.
Mexico’s response, articulated around institutional dialogue, invoking the principle of non-intervention, and resorting to legal and multilateral mechanisms, reflects a diplomatic tradition rooted in respect for international law and the search for orderly solutions. But Mexico cannot continue to play chess at a poker table because the result is arriving late and in a bad position at the negotiating table. Either Mexico develops a more sophisticated, versatile, and offensive diplomacy, or it will remain trapped in the role of respectful victim while its fate and margins are decided in Washington.
