Tariffs Are a Bluff That Risks Long-term Harm to U.S. Relations in North America

Eduardo A. Gamarra


President-elect Donald Trump’s proposal to impose 25% tariffs on Mexican goods and unspecified measures on Canada has sparked outrage across North America. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has already warned of retaliatory tariffs, while a Canadian official expressed indignation at being compared to Mexico. Supporters of President Trump argue that these threats are a negotiating tactic aimed at pressuring both countries into adopting stricter migration and counterdrug policies.

While this strategy may allow Trump to claim victory without imposing tariffs, it risks long-term damage to U.S. relationships with its closest neighbors. Even as Mexico and Canada are compelled to respond, this approach does little to address the underlying issues of migration and fentanyl trafficking, and it undermines the spirit of cooperation that is essential for solving these complex challenges.

Trump’s strategy of using tariffs as leverage has a precedent. In 2018, a similar threat against Mexico led to heightened border enforcement and a temporary reduction in migration flows. Supporters argue that by announcing these tariffs, Trump has already forced both Mexico and Canada to respond, demonstrating the effectiveness of his negotiating approach.

President Sheinbaum has reaffirmed her government’s actions to stem migration, noting that “caravans of migrants no longer reach the border.” While she also acknowledged weakening efforts against fentanyl trafficking, her government may offer symbolic gestures to appease U.S. demands without making substantial changes to its policies.

The Canadian government has expressed frustration with the tariffs and signaled its willingness to defend its interests. However, Canada may offer minor concessions to avoid escalating tensions as a close ally with deeply integrated trade ties.

Trump will likely claim victory by pointing to these responses and arguing that his tough stance forced compliance from both countries. Yet, any concessions will be superficial, doing little to solve the underlying issues.

While Trump’s negotiating tactics may yield short-term political wins, they come at a high cost to U.S. interests:

Threatening tariffs against Mexico and Canada undermines the cooperative framework established by the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). This damages trust among the three nations and weakens the foundation of North American economic integration.

The policy changes that Mexico and Canada might adopt are unlikely to result in significant progress on migration or fentanyl trafficking. Symbolic gestures will be framed as victories, but the systemic issues driving these crises still need to be addressed.

Rather than fostering collaboration on shared challenges, the U.S. risks alienating its closest neighbors, creating opportunities for other global powers—particularly China—to expand their regional influence.

Even if Trump does not impose these tariffs, the threat itself has significant consequences:

  1. The announcement of potential tariffs creates market instability and disrupts supply chains. Businesses in the U.S., Mexico, and Canada need more certainty about future trade policies, making it harder to plan and invest.
  2. If tariffs were imposed, Mexico and Canada would retaliate, targeting politically sensitive sectors like agriculture and manufacturing. This would harm American farmers and workers who rely on these export markets.
  3. The U.S. undermines its credibility as a regional leader by using threats rather than collaboration. Mexico and Canada may comply in the short term, but this approach weakens the long-term relationships needed to address shared challenges effectively.

The crises of migration and fentanyl trafficking are too complex to be resolved through threats or symbolic concessions. Meaningful progress requires sustained, cooperative efforts that address the root causes of these problems.  Authoritarianism, poverty, violence, and lack of opportunity in Central America, Mexico, and Venezuela are the primary drivers of migration. Rather than focusing on punitive measures, the U.S. should invest in economic development, infrastructure, and governance reforms that create opportunities for people to thrive in their home countries.

The fentanyl crisis demands a multi-pronged strategy that includes regulating precursor chemicals, enhancing law enforcement collaboration, and reducing demand in the U.S. These measures require strong partnerships with both Mexico and China, which cannot be achieved through threats alone.

While Trump’s supporters may celebrate the perceived success of his negotiating tactics, the U.S. cannot afford to rely on bluffs and brinkmanship as its primary tools for diplomacy. Instead, the U.S. should pursue a strategy that strengthens its relationships with Mexico and Canada while addressing the root causes of migration and drug trafficking.

  • Programs like the bipartisan Americas Act, championed by Senators Bill Cassidy and Michael Bennet, offer a framework for addressing these challenges through infrastructure investment, economic development, and regional cooperation.
  • The U.S. should work with Mexico and Canada to develop joint strategies for managing migration and combating drug trafficking rather than imposing unilateral tariffs.
  •  The USMCA provides a platform for deeper economic integration and collaboration. Strengthening this agreement, rather than undermining it with tariff threats, is the key to long-term stability and prosperity in North America.

 President Trump’s tariff threats may allow him to claim a tactical victory, but they do not address the underlying issues of migration and fentanyl trafficking. Worse, they risk long-term harm to U.S. relationships with its closest neighbors and create opportunities for rival powers like China to expand their regional influence.

The U.S. needs a strategy that goes beyond bluffs and symbolic gestures. It can achieve real progress on these critical issues by investing in regional stability, fostering collaboration, and strengthening trade relationships while maintaining its leadership in North America.  

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Image
 The Youth Vote and Latin America: A Missed Opportunity at Last Night's Debate Last night at Florida International University (FIU), we held a debate watch session sponsored by Pi Sigma Alpha and the Latino Public Opinion Forum. We've done this before, but this time was different. Typically, our turnout is modest—between 15 and 20 students, reflecting the general apathy that permeates political engagement among younger voters. But last night, something shifted. Crammed into SIPA 100 were approximately 90 students, a crowd representing the rich diversity of our student body and a palpable hunger to engage with the political moment. Before the debate began, we asked the students who they thought would win. The result was divided, with many still on the fence, reflecting the ambivalence that often marks younger voters. However, once the debate started, the engagement was undeniable. The students remained glued to their seats for the entire event. Ultimately, the vast majority said...
Read more
Timing is Everything: Biden's Missteps in Florida Politics Eduardo A. Gamarra   Biden's reelection campaign ignores two fundamental principles of politics. The first is that in politics, timing is everything. Equally important is the old adage by Thomas "Tip" O'Neill that "all politics is local." These principles are crucial in the delicate dance of political strategy and public perception.  Niccolò Machiavelli's insights in "The Prince" emphasize the importance of recognizing and seizing opportunities, suggesting that political success is determined by strategy and the ability to exploit favorable circumstances. A more contemporary view comes from Steven L. Taylor, whose "Outside the Beltway” articles repeatedly emphasize the critical role of timing in political strategy and decision-making. The Biden administration's recent actions in Florida, particularly concerning Cuban policy, exemplify a disregard for these insights, jeopard...
Read more
A Dark Echo: How Scapegoating Immigrants is Shaping U.S. Elections and Undermining Democracy Eduardo A. Gamarra  As we witness the 2024 American electoral campaign, it is impossible to ignore the parallels to one of the darkest chapters in human history. In a chilling echo of the tactics used by the Nazis, one political party in the United States has increasingly resorted to scapegoating immigrants—especially undocumented ones. Just as Adolf Hitler's regime blamed the Jews for every conceivable problem plaguing Germany, from economic crises to political instability, today, specific American political figures are directing fear and anger at immigrants, particularly those from Haiti, Venezuela, and other Latin American countries. They are portrayed as drug traffickers, rapists, murderers, gang members, and even as threats to public health and safety, despite the lack of evidence supporting such generalizations. The disturbing rhetoric recalls how the Nazis vilified Jews by labeling t...
Read more