The recent measures taken by the United States government against Mexico—cancelling visas for officials, threatening to tax remittances, and blocking livestock exports due to the alleged screwworm—continue a long history of political coercion and reproduce the interventionist nature of US foreign policy.
Under the Trump administration in 2025, these actions, justified in part by fentanyl trafficking, are tactical maneuvers to pressure Claudia Sheinbaum’s government to subordinate Mexico to US economic and political interests.
The revocation of visas for Mexican politicians and their families is a humiliating tactic aimed at the ruling elite to force concessions on issues such as migration and fentanyl. It is a reminder that the United States can selectively punish those who do not align with its demands. The proposal to tax remittances, which represented $63 billion for Mexico in 2024, is a direct attack on Mexican working families in the US, using their livelihoods as a political weapon. This measure not only seeks to pressure the Mexican government but also to appease Trump’s electoral base, fueled by xenophobic rhetoric.
The suspension of Mexican cattle imports, under the pretext of the screwworm, is dubious. Mexico argues that the US has limited the supply of sterile flies needed to control the pest, suggesting that the blockade is a protectionist maneuver to favor US ranchers. This is in addition to the 25% tariffs on Mexican imports, which could reduce Mexican GDP by 3 percentage points by 2026 (Fitch Ratings), while making goods more expensive for US consumers.
These measures are not just responses to fentanyl or trade; They are tools of an empire that uses its economic power to subjugate a weaker neighbor, prioritizing its national and electoral interests over Mexican sovereignty.
History of Coercion and Interventionism
The relationship between the US and Mexico has been marked by coercion since the 19th century, when US expansionism stripped Mexico of more than half of its territory following the 1846-1848 war. This founding act of imperialism laid the groundwork for an unequal dynamic that persists.
During the Mexican Revolution (1910-1920), the US supported factions that suited it and occupied Veracruz in 1914. Later, during the Cold War, it pressured Mexico to align itself against communism, often interfering in its domestic politics through the CIA.
The imposition of NAFTA in 1994, presented as a “free trade” agreement, disproportionately benefited US corporations, devastating small Mexican farmers and deepening economic dependence. The USMCA, although renegotiated, continues to reflect this asymmetry: Mexico exported $466 billion to the US in 2024, but tariffs and sanctions show that “free trade” is conditional on submission.
The US has outsourced its immigration enforcement to Mexico, as in 2019, when Trump threatened tariffs to force Mexico to stop migrant caravans. The “war on drugs,” financed and directed from Washington, has militarized Mexico, leaving more than 400,000 dead since 2006.
Trump’s rhetoric about fentanyl ignores the fact that the opioid crisis in the US is fueled by its own demand and by the US pharmaceutical companies that have legally promoted opioids for decades.
Under Sheinbaum, Mexico has attempted to resist this pressure with calls for dialogue, rejection of US military operations on its territory, and efforts to diversify trading partners. However, economic interdependence—74% of Mexican vehicle inputs come from the US—limits its room for maneuver.
True sovereignty requires breaking with this model, strengthening the internal economy and alliances with the global South.