Did President-elect Donald Trump really win on immigration after his phone call with Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, or is his latest claim just another political spin? While Trump declares victory over illegal immigration, Sheinbaum’s response raises the question: Is Mexico doing more, or is this just the same old story?
In a social media post on Wednesday, Trump asserted that Sheinbaum had agreed to “stop migration through Mexico,” framing it as a major diplomatic breakthrough. Yet Sheinbaum clarified that Mexico’s position has not changed: while she called the conversation “excellent,” she emphasized that Mexico has no intention of closing its borders. Instead, she reaffirmed Mexico’s role in addressing migration through coordinated efforts, particularly around migrant caravans, which she says are being handled well before reaching the U.S. border.
So, what really happened during that call? Did Trump’s threats of tariffs push Mexico into action, or is Sheinbaum simply reiterating policies that have been in place for years?
Trump’s assertion that the conversation was “very productive” appears to hinge on his belief that Mexico is doing enough to stem the flow of migrants northward. He also declared that the conversation was effectively “closing our Southern Border,” a statement that seems to be as much about his ongoing tariff threat as it is about actual border policies.
Sheinbaum, however, made it clear that Mexico is not about to “close” its borders but seeks to build bridges, emphasizing cooperation with the U.S. while respecting national sovereignty. Her social media posts suggested that Mexico’s policies on migration, which include preventing caravans from reaching the northern border, are already working as intended.
But if Mexico is already taking action, why continue focusing on tariffs and border threats? Is this just a diplomatic game, or is there a real shift in strategy?
The backdrop to this diplomatic exchange is the looming threat of Trump’s proposed tariffs on Mexico and Canada. While the specifics of these tariffs remain unclear, Trump has made it known that he intends to impose a 25% tax on imports from these countries as part of his broader strategy to curb illegal immigration and the flow of fentanyl into the U.S.
However, the reality is more complicated. Illegal migration has decreased by 40% since the peak in December, partly due to Mexico’s increased vigilance in areas like rail yards and highway checkpoints. Experts point out that this approach, while effective, often involves harsh tactics, such as rounding up migrants and sending them back to southern Mexico. These policies are not without their criticism. So, is Trump’s praise of Mexico’s efforts warranted, or is it simply a political victory for his campaign?
Additionally, the potential tariffs could have serious consequences for trade between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico, as well as for the U.S. economy. Higher tariffs might increase consumer prices and disrupt trade, threatening the USMCA agreement, which was finalized in 2020. In this context, Trump’s tariff threats may be more about leveraging political capital than substantively addressing immigration.
The question remains: Is the threat of tariffs an effective tool for achieving immigration reform, or does it risk escalating tensions and damaging economic ties with neighboring countries? More importantly, what does this really mean for the millions of migrants, families, and workers caught in the crossfire of these diplomatic negotiations?
As both Trump and Sheinbaum try to frame the conversation in their favor, the real answers about immigration and trade may still be far off. The call may have been “productive,” but will it lead to real change or more posturing on the world stage?
