Antonio Ocaranza
In recent days, the US government designated three Mexican financial institutions as potentially responsible for money laundering for organized crime. Although the Mexican government had been alerted weeks earlier, the announcement was not coordinated, but presented as a fait accompli. Shortly before, it had canceled visas for public officials, including the governor of Baja California, her husband, and the mayor of Puerto Peñasco. And months earlier, it imposed tariffs on Mexican steel and aluminum exports and closed the border to livestock exports. These actions are part of a pattern: the United States does not wait for dialogue, it acts first to force it on its own terms.
The United States has made the use of amplified pressure—that is, pressure exerted by multiple government agencies—a central element of its policy toward Mexico. Tariff threats, unilateral sanctions, and immigration restrictions do not always seek to end a conflict or resolve a problem, but rather to open negotiations from a position of strength. Washington assumes that its ability to exert pressure is a legitimate part of its diplomatic toolbox.
US actions appear to have four fundamental components: 1. unilateral actions as a starting point, 2. punishment or threats as a negotiating tool, 3. surprise as a tactical advantage, and 4. distributed pressure as an integral strategy.
- Unilateral actions as a starting point, not as a last resort.
The United States often provokes negotiations through specific measures—sanctions, tariffs, visa cancellations, or trade restrictions. There is no prior warning or dialogue: the measure is imposed as a fait accompli to force a quick reaction, which creates a new scenario favorable to Washington due to the urgency with which the affected country needs to resolve the dispute
- Punishment or threats as a negotiating tool.
Far from seeking definitive punishment, economic sanctions, visa restrictions, and trade blockades are intended to open negotiations on terms favorable to the United States. Similarly, the inclusion of Mexican financial institutions on “high-risk” lists for alleged money laundering is not only a punitive measure, but also a clear message to the Mexican government: in order to advance cooperation and access to financial markets, it must align itself with Washington’s expectations on issues such as combating fentanyl trafficking and organized crime.
- Surprise as a tactical advantage.
In U.S. diplomacy, the element of surprise is used to set the pace and terms of negotiations with a counterpart who is already at a disadvantage, forced to react rather than propose. Washington sets the pace and stage for the talks. Mexico, forced to respond to faits accomplis, loses room for maneuver and the opportunity to construct its own political narrative in an orderly manner.
- Distributed pressure as a comprehensive strategy.
Traditionally, US policy toward Mexico was coordinated by the White House and the State Department. There was a single point of contact for Mexican affairs, which then opened access to other actors. Today, however, pressure is distributed among multiple actors: the Treasury Department, the Attorney General’s Office, the Department of Commerce, the Department of Homeland Security (including ICE), the Department of Agriculture, the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR), and other federal agencies. Each one sends signals—lists of financial sanctions, restrictions on agri-food imports, tariffs, criminal investigations, immigration controls, or announcements of border operations—which, although fragmented in origin, converge to intensify pressure on Mexico. This multipolar approach creates a network of levers that is difficult to counter with a single diplomatic response.
Together, these four elements constitute a systemic and coherent pressure approach in US foreign policy. Far from being isolated measures, they operate in synergy to force Mexico to negotiate under criteria established by Washington.
In the Mexico-United States game, there are multiple goals, each with a U.S. team trained to score, while Mexico lacks enough goalkeepers and defenders to stop them. Recognizing this multilevel and multitemporal logic is essential for our country to develop effective counterweights, diversify its alliances, and anticipate the diplomatic moves that shape the bilateral relationship. If it does not understand that the adversary is playing on multiple fronts, with different rules and at different speeds, Mexican diplomacy will remain trapped in a game it does not control, and in diplomacy, the one who always responds… is already losing.
