Republicans and Mexico

Opinion for The Latino Newsletter

Editor’s Note: The Mexico Political Economist covers Mexican politics for global readers. It is a reader-supported Substack newsletter. You can subscribe here. The following is an edited version of a piece published by the site.

Last week, Donald Trump won the United States presidential election by a substantial Electoral College margin. His vision of the world will now take hold of politics in that country and beyond for the foreseeable future. One of those idiosyncrasies is that the world has cheated the U.S. when it comes to international trade. 

Of course, the U.S. could (eventually) cut itself off from the world trade system and become an economic island where it produces and consumes everything locally. An unlikely proposition perhaps, but never in living memory has U.S. politics been so keen on economic nationalism. 

Large sections of the Republican and Democratic parties —especially demographics crucial to Trump’s win— are fed up with what they see as an unfair global economic system. The U.S. has responded accordingly, with “de-globalization” well underway beyond any single Trump administration. 

The U.S. could become an economic island, but that would leave it poorer, weaker, and less safe than it would otherwise.  

Cars made entirely in the United States? Only if you’re willing to pay eye-watering prices for the cheapest sedan. Retaliating countries would respond by putting up their own walls, no longer buying U.S.-made goods.

The list of downsides is long, but the solution has somehow been elusive. Perhaps it is not politically advantageous to propose a plan to support more open relations with other countries, but one bipartisan group of U.S. lawmakers has taken that gamble—and Mexico lies at its center. 

The Americas Act

Without knowing it, every day, places far removed from Mexico —whether physically or in the popular imagination— experience the boom of bilateral trade. Just ask Bill Cassidy, a Republican Senator for Louisiana. He quoted the importance of Mexico not just as a destination for Louisiana rice —the state’s top international buyer— but as a source of foreign direct investment.  

A lot of nearshoring talk revolves around U.S. investment in cheap factories in Mexico. In St. Gabriel, Louisiana, the story is the opposite, with Mexico’s Orbia building a factory to contribute to the local creation of an EV-battery supply chain. Across the state, in 2021, Ternium —a steel company based in Monterrey— invested close to $100 million in a Shreveport plant. 

That’s why Cassidy cosponsored The Americas Act, along with three other Republican and Democratic senators, to strengthen regional relations with a clear-eyed understanding of what drives their constituents. As opposed to the pure trade logic of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), Cassidy’s proposal can be broken down into different prisms: some touting the benefits of trade, others migration, and others national security. 

“Each prism is equally valid,” Cassidy told The Mexico Political Economist. “So, my hope is that whatever prism is most important to the person I am speaking to, that he or she understands that and sees this as a solution.” 

The Trade Game

The economic aspect of the Americas Act is reminiscent of the aspirations of the late 20th century—namely, trade and development as forces for good. 

“The beauty of capitalism is that all boats rise with the tide,” Cassidy said.  

But it also accepts the stark realities of a 21st-century economy. 

“I am very bullish on Mexico and Latin America,” Cassidy noted, because “there are some things that are not going to be produced in the United States. Period. End of story. There are a lot of agricultural products that flow north. People have learned to enjoy berries all year round. There is going to be this trade.” 

The Americas Act proposes that democratic countries across the continent, playing by the rules, should be integrated into the USMCA.

To some Mexicans, this might seem like a dilution of Mexico’s special trade relationship with the U.S., but Cassidy believes the opposite.

“Imagine Costa Rica joining the USMCA. That would do nothing to hurt Mexico,” he said.

Instead, Cassidy underscored how this policy of Central American integration coincided with the Mexican government’s interest in developing the Northern Triangle (Guatemala, Honduras, and El Salvador) within their framework of advancing the economic interests of the poorer Mexican southeast.  

Like John F. Kennedy’s Alliance for Progress and Franklin Roosevelt’s Good Neighbor Policy, the Americas Act links development, trade, and democracy in the region and seeks to incentivize it. 

But there is another, more hard-nosed, logic in this iteration of a pan-American deal. 

Regional Trade Hawks 

There is a less liberal prism that binds Democrats and Republicans more than any issue: The perceived threat of China. 

“If you look at what’s being discussed on the right and the left,” Cassidy said, “it’s the need to have a coherent policy vis-à-vis China and the recognition that China is making inroads in the Western Hemisphere.” 

Cassidy and other policymakers worry that China is seeking to monopolize the extraction, production, and sale of commodities crucial to U.S. trade. It holds stakes in strategic areas, like the Panama Canal, oil investments in Guyana, and deep-water ports in Peru. 

“If China controls those resources, that would be problematic for us,” Cassidy said.

Moreover, 60% of every dollar invested in Mexico comes back to the U.S. economy, while only 15% returns from China. That, according to Cassidy, is 85 cents on the dollar being used against U.S. interests. 

“Even when people aren’t thinking about trade, when you present them with the fact that, with China, they use the profits of trade with the United States to build up their military, which then threatens the U.S. That begins to put Mexico in the light of: ‘What a great alternative! What a great partner!’” Cassidy explained. 

Two to Tango

There are still many issues that no expansion of the USMCA into the rest of the Americas will fix. The fentanyl trade and migration —though actually global issues— really come into focus when they reach U.S.-Mexico bilateral relations. While China might seem like a distant threat, tensions among neighbors can often boil over, as they have in recent months, with several Republican politicians threatening to bomb cartel members on Mexican soil if Mexico doesn't take care of them. 

“The Republican Party did not threaten to bomb Mexico,” replied Cassidy when The Mexico Political Economist put the issue to him. “There were some Republican lawmakers who were frustrated by the flow of fentanyl into the United States.… This is something the United States government and the Mexican government should find common cause on.” 

Though the polarization of the U.S. election seems to make common causes a distant prospect, the bipartisan proposal led by this Republican senator might show the pragmatic way forward.

About the Author

The Mexico Political Economist: Mexican politics without the politicking.

Statement from Principal of American Electorate Poll

Editor’s Note: On the Tuesday press call about Latino voter findings, The Latino Newsletter asked some principals of the American Electorate Poll (AEP) if a firewall existed with one of the co-founders of BSP Research, the firm that conducted the Latino portion of the AEP. Dr. Matt Barreto of BSP Research was a senior advisor to the Harris-Walz campaign. On Wednesday morning, The Latino Newsletter received the following statement from Henry Fernandez, CEO of the African American Research Collaborative, the poll’s principal. We are publishing the complete statement:

“Our polling team was led by five pollsters and two polling firms. Matt Barreto was one of those pollsters. Like virtually every other pollster working for both presidential campaigns, Dr. Barreto has other clients and works on other projects, including this one. There was no overlap between his work for the Harris campaign and the 2024 American Electorate Voter Poll.

“It’s important to note that this is an exit poll. No data was compiled or released prior to the election. We didn’t report our results publicly until yesterday [November 12], so there was no opportunity for this research to be influenced by or to influence any campaign activities.

“We have run this same research every two years with many of the same clients for a decade. Our commitment is to give those clients the best and most accurate results possible and to offer people a clearer view of the vote choices and motivations of voters of color—something that the traditional exit polls have historically done a poor job of capturing.”

UnidosUS, the organization that hosted Tuesday’s Latino findings AEP press call, sent an email on Wednesday, saying the following: “The presidential vote distribution for Hispanic men is 56% Harris-43% Trump. The previously cited percentage pertained to Hispanic men between ages 18-39 (51%-48%).”

In addition, The Latino Newsletter incorrectly reported that the AEP poll went from October 18-November 14. The poll actually ended on November 4. We apologize for this error sent out to our email subscribers and have since corrected the story.

What We’re Reading

Gallego Is Arizona’s First Latino Senator: With news that Ruben Gallego is officially Arizona’s first Latino senator, he offered some advice to Democrats about Latino men in a Tuesday interview with Ed O’Keefe of CBS News.

“Talk to them. And talk to them as often as possible,” Gallego said. “And don't expect you to be able to talk to them one way through TV.”

_{The Latino Newsletter welcomes opinion pieces in English and/or Spanish from community voices. You can email our founder, Julio Ricardo Varela. The views expressed by outside opinion contributors do not necessarily reflect the editorial views of this outlet.}