The article talks about Mexico’s economy minister Marcelo Ebrard saying that he expects Mexico to reach trade understandings with the United States that are similar in many aspects to the ones being discussed between the United States and Canada. He also said that Mexico does not see Canada’s negotiations as a competitive process and that Mexico would need to see the final published terms before making a full assessment. This comes after Trump paused planned 50% tariffs on Canadian goods. In July the Trump administration declined to extend the USMCA for another 16 years, which triggered annual reviews.
Considering that Ebrard has already said he expects terms similar to Canada’s, it is likely that Mexico has given up leverage before the negotiations have even finished. By accepting Canada’s deal as the standard before the terms are published, Mexico loses the ability to ask for more than Canada received. The refusal to extend the USMCA for another 16 years also means the agreement will be reviewed every year, which gives the United States a chance to apply pressure annually instead of once. I believe Mexico will likely sign an interim deal by early 2027 that closely mirrors whatever Canada agrees to.
The three major players are the United States, Mexico and Canada. The United States should continue to negotiate separately with each country because the annual reviews give it repeated leverage and separate talks stop the two countries from forming a united front. Mexico is likely to hold its own track and accept terms close to Canada’s, although it could try to coordinate with Canada to resist being negotiated with individually. Canada will likely finalize its deal quickly to make the tariff pause permanent, even though moving quickly weakens any shared position with Mexico.
This article connects to Power because the United States is able to use tariffs and annual reviews to force outcomes that Mexico and Canada would not choose on their own. Both countries depend heavily on trade with the United States, so the threat of tariffs affects them far more than it affects Washington. It also connects to realism because the United States refused to extend a treaty that no longer benefits it as much as it used to, which shows that agreements only hold while they serve the interests of the strongest country involved.