In 1975, the renowned historian Rafael Segovia published a survey called The Politicization of Mexican Children in which schoolkids were asked which country inspired the least sympathy in them, and the majority responded: the United States. Another question asked them if they had to live outside of Mexico, which place would they choose. The answer: the United States.

Mexico continues to engage in this kind of tightrope walk in its relations — whether diplomatic, cultural, migratory, gastronomic or commercial — with its neighbor to the north. But those children are now witnessing a conversation unseen at least since World War II, in which U.S. President Donald Trump is wielding a baton that is shattering the trust built between two nations with a history fraught with quarrels and agreements. International experts call it a new paradigm, alluding to the intrusion of opportunistic politics into trade agreements that had been proceeding without any major setbacks.

Trump’s first term already shook the pillars that supported a decades-long understanding, but the current version of the same president is dramatically rocking the boat. With only a few days left until the president’s 100th day in office, the waters are choppy around the world, but Mexico, America’s largest trading partner, is already looking for domestic economic solutions to overcome a crisis that threatens to completely change bilateral relations. The 1,954-mile border separating both countries has witnessed territorial wars, but also multiple commercial and human exchanges that continue today with different overtones.

What was once viewed as a labor force is now seen as undesirable immigration by the Trump administration; the same goes for drug trafficking, once promoted for use by soldiers in armed conflicts and now transformed into a many-headed hydra that leaves thousands of victims of fentanyl in the U.S. and deaths from violence in Mexico. “But the trade agreements that were reached [NAFTA in 1994, now converted into USMCA, between Mexico, the United States, and Canada] left out political disputes, which were dealt with separately,” explains Erika Pani, a professor at the Colegio de México. “That was a diplomatic achievement for Mexico, compartmentalizing the problems.

But now the conversation is tainted, and the negotiation of tariffs is based on either fentanyl or migration.” “They are tools that mobilize people politically, and that complicates the matter extraordinarily,” she continues. “The story between the two countries has always been complex, involving many actors, but we must be clear about the fact that this isn’t just a matter between Washington and Mexico City.” Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has cautiously and efficiently handled 100 days of an uncertainty that is far from over. Mexico has sidestepped the onerous tariffs imposed in other regions of the world and, for now, faces only the 25% tariffs on steel and aluminum, as well as on certain products outside the trade agreement.

The country still has its head above water, but auto parts are its big concern and a major problem for its big business, vehicle assembly, which keeps the production lines of major auto brands in Mexico. A 25% tariff has been planned for these components, which will be gradually reduced as they become American products rather than Chinese, for example. But the criteria to measure this before implementing the tariff are missing.

“If you break the integration of the automotive sector, you break the very reason for the USMCA,” the trade agreement between the three North American countries, says diplomat Martha Bárcena, who served as Mexico’s ambassador to the United States during the last two years of Trump’s first term. The Republican president’s whims have Mexico in a state of turmoil, waking up one day with threats to tomato exports and the next with controversy over water sharing for border agriculture. Protesters in Chicago, Illinois, on April 23, 2025.

Jacek Boczarski (Getty Images) The economic and diplomatic teams are sleeping on their heels, while at the same time, curious political windows are opening, such as the worldwide fame Claudia Sheinbaum has gained with her “cool-headed” strategy to confront the insatiable blond-haired magnate. All of Mexico is preparing to stand up to the American president, following their own leader’s rhetoric upholding the dignity and sovereignty of its people. The opposition is closing ranks against the danger from the north, and governors from all parties are joining forces in the capital’s great square to make a show of unity and strength.

However, no one can ignore the fact that the asymmetry in relations between the two countries remains unchanged: the south is the weak partner. “Mexico has protected us to a certain extent, but the USMCA is in intensive care; in reality, they have been yielding on everything. It is also true that Trump is being more drastic and chaotic than we expected and is undoing the international order inherited from World War II and dismantling the security of global trade,” says Bárcena.

So much so that the Mexican government wants to reorganize its basket, given that 83% of its exports go to the same destination: the United States, where it sent goods worth more than $505 billion in 2024. No other country in the world sells more to Uncle Sam, not China and not Canada. The dependence appears mutual, but it is unequal, and Sheinbaum has rallied the national business community around a strategy that seeks to increase domestic production for its own internal market.

Mexico has 126 million inhabitants; it’s not a bad deal if production and consumption are focused on domestic products. But a dramatic shift is needed to achieve this. “In the face of certain crises, it was previously easy to know how the United States would behave, and Mexico tended to adapt to decisions made there, but Trump has placed the government on a reactive policy.

The president is aware that we’ve spent a century developing a model of cooperation with the United States, and that doesn’t change overnight, but we must look for opportunities in this context,” says Estefanía Cruz Lera of the Center for North American Research at UNAM. “We must seek to rebuild ourselves in some way and rethink long-term relations.” Strengthening Mexico’s economic sovereignty doesn’t mean abandoning the United States, not now or ever; that seems impossible. Moreover, some of the changes being proposed today arise from demands made by Trump, who imposes penalties on those who negotiate with other countries beyond what he prescribes, such as auto parts with China or oil with Venezuela.

In Mexico, one of the major changes in these 100 days has come in the area of security, with Trump making tariffs conditional on combating drug trafficking and the presence of fentanyl in his country. Sheinbaum’s administration has deployed a completely new security strategy, distinct from that of her predecessor, and attacks on drug lords are occurring daily. In recent months, more than 18,000 people have been arrested for high-impact crimes, 144 tons of drugs have been seized, including two million fentanyl pills, and 839 clandestine laboratories have been destroyed.

Immigration, the other issue on which the Republican president demands results, is, however, a constant point of contention, given the supremacist drift and contempt displayed by the current U.S. administration, in a country that is home to millions of Mexicans. It is on this point that Sheinbaum has raised her voice somewhat, most recently to order a change to the law that allows foreign countries to broadcast political propaganda on Mexican television stations, where Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem has deployed a racist anti-immigrant campaign. But she hasn’t had the support of the opposition or the major television networks, who faced multimillion-dollar fines and have halted the initiative.

Despite this, Sheinbaum wraps herself in the Mexican flag and enjoys high national recognition. Mexicans are very nationalistic, and this only inflames their positions. “The United States is once again using the trade relationship as a political weapon, and in Mexico they appeal to Mexican sentiment.

All of this could undermine a pragmatic relationship for both,” says Cruz Lera. Kristi Noem during a televised campaign in Mexico. Gobierno de Estados Unidos Trump has traded the common destiny of both nations for Manifest Destiny, that 19th-century political doctrine that relied on the United States’s inherent letter of marque for territorial expansion.

Mexico then lost a large portion of its territory, but geopolitics eventually restored good relations between the neighbors, based on trade that solidified significantly during the Porfiriato and collapsed with the Revolution. General Lázaro Cárdenas and President Roosevelt established a “special relationship” that, after the end of World War II, implanted in the consciences “the mutual need” that both countries share, although it will always be asymmetrical, says historian Pani. “It became clear that they had to maintain a friendly and stable relationship, free from political ups and downs.” Trump has shattered this balance by frequently alluding to “historical aberrations” in his speeches, says Bárcena.

It’s worth remembering the change from the Gulf of Mexico to the Gulf of America, or his return to expansionist ambitions toward Canada, Iceland, or the Panama Canal. “He’s gone back to the 19th century without seeing the gray areas of history,” adds the diplomat Bárcena, but behind the historical curtain lurk the economic and imperialist interests of a ruler who wants to recover the United States’ lost greatness, she says. “Trump’s actions will undo years in which the population was changing the psychological relationship between the two countries, from seeing the United States as an invader to treating it as a trading partner and investor,” Bárcena laments.

Pani believes that “the mechanisms for conflict resolution are broken at the moment,” but, although very different, they are neighbors and are destined to understand each other. She adds: “There has always been a relationship of love and hate. It remains to be seen whether this lasts or remains a mere flash in the pan.” Sign up for our weekly newsletter to get more English-language news coverage from EL PAÍS USA Edition