“May they know that the president of the republic will always defend Mexico, above all else,” proclaimed Mexican president Claudia Sheinabaum shortly after Donald Trump’s inauguration. In the short month since Trump was reinstated into the White House, he has already experienced strong pushback from the countries with which the United States had long allied itself. The mass deportations under Trump’s regime seek to send thousands of migrants back to recipient countries like Mexico, El Salvador, Colombia, Guatemala, and Honduras. The different nations had a diversity of responses. Mexico, intertwined with the US economy, carefully balanced resistance and concessions. Guatemala readily accepted Trump’s deportation flights, while Colombia compromised only after defying his policies, and Honduras sought to diversify its economic interests. Conversely, El Salvador jumped at the opportunity to strengthen its ties with Trump.
Trump threatened Mexico with 25% tariffs soon after he sat in his office; indeed, he sought to force Mexico to crack down on drug trafficking and illegal immigration. However, on February 3, Trump agreed to stave off tariff impositions on Canada and Mexico on the condition that Mexico deploy 10,000 additional troops to increase border security. Mexico deployed its National Guard, which it had already been doing, thus conceding less than initially thought. Namely, political analyst Carlos Bravo Regidor emphasized how he had not predicted it would “be so cheap or so easy for Mexico.”
However, the deal is set to end in 30 days when Trump will re-evaluate the United States’ position vis-à-vis Mexico and the United States. Deportations remain at the top of Trump’s agenda, and his recent attempt to pass an executive order to remove birthright citizenship foreshadows the pressure that Mexico will experience in the coming months. Birthright citizenship is a right enshrined in the Constitution, which grants automatic citizenship to any individual born in the United States, even if born to illegal parents. Although the attempt to revoke birthright citizenship has not been approved yet, it represents the magnitude of Trump’s deportation plans and, thus, the potential social and economic crises which might challenge Mexico. Viridiana Ríos, a political analyst in Mexico, shared her concerns about Trump’s ambitious plans: “His threats will only continue, and my fear is that there will be a moment when we don’t find a way to satisfy him.” Such statements illustrate Donald Trump’s tactic of using tariffs as a leveraging tool, especially with other countries in the Americas seeking to avoid a devastating trade war. On Monday, February 3, the president said, “tariffs are very powerful, both economically and in getting everything else you want.” It is yet to be determined if Trump realizes how little Mexico conceded or if he has a long-term vision of incremental demands using the same leveraging tactic.
The Mexican economy has been deeply integrated with the United States since, at the very least, the establishment of the North American Free Trade Agreement in 1994, which became the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) under Trump in 2020. These trade agreements decreased Mexican self-sufficiency, such as with corn production, a food staple, and decreased Mexican control over its own labour. In 2022 alone, 80% of Mexican exports went to the US. High tariffs would reduce the willingness of producers in the United States to use Mexican products, which would hurt its GDP; it could drop up to 2% in the next 5 years. The possibility of such high tariffs threatens the livelihood and survival of millions of Mexicans.
On the other hand, on Friday, January 24, Guatemala accepted two military jets carrying deportees. While the country also accepted deportation flights under President Joe Biden, President Bernardo Arevalo, alongside US Secretary of State Marco Rubio, announced that Guatemala would increase the number of permitted flights by 40%, regardless of whether the passengers were Guatemalan deportees or not. Colombia did not go the same route. On January 26, Colombia refused entry to two US military jets transporting Colombian migrants. President Gustavo Petro subsequently denounced the treatment of the Colombians on the planes, stating that they were being treated like criminals and that he would allow migrants back in as long as they were treated with human decency. Trump jumped on the opportunity to wield his favourite weapon with a statement made on TruthSocial; he declared, among other things, the imposition of 25% tariffs on all Colombian goods coming into the United States, as well as a promise to raise them to 50% after a week. He further characterized the Colombian deportees as criminals, claiming that Gustavo’s refusal to accept the flights in Colombia posed a threat to the United States’ national security. This incident captures one way Latin American countries might react or stand in opposition to Trump. Gustavo is not the only one; many other Latin American leaders and politicians expressed their concerns on the respect of all the deportees’ human rights, including President Sheinbaum. However, the issue was resolved that same Sunday and Colombia agreed to receive deportation flights, including flights on military planes. It remains that in a world as globalized as ours, both parties had small short-term gains from this standoff, with Colombia being a critical trading partner for the US, as well as a strategic ally.
Honduras similarly distanced itself from the United States. Honduras’ foreign prime minister, Enrique Reina, stated that while the Hondurans should maintain civil ties with the United States, they will also not shy away from getting closer to other countries and economies, such as China. Ultimately, Reina explained how their country’s trajectory would depend on whatever policies Trump might install, and their priority was diversifying their collaborations to ensure their nation’s development.
Other countries were not so reticent to open their doors to Trump. Indeed, Nayib Bukele, the president of El Salvador, offered to share his prison for US criminals and illegal immigrants. Bukele made quite an impression on the world following his declaration of a state of emergency, which suspended certain constitutional rights of the Salvadoran population in his war against gangs. In 2022 only, he made over 70,000 arrests, many of which had no formal judicial process. Bukele’s proposition would entail imprisoning illegal immigrants with MS-13 gang members who have a reputation for brutal, extreme violence. Trump is enthusiastic about the idea: “If we had the legal right to do it, I would do it in a heartbeat.” Bukele proposed to send the US deportees to his Terrorism Confinement Center, which is suited for 40,000 people.
Unsurprisingly, many human rights organizations, such as Amnesty International and Cristosal, have expressed concern over overcrowding and abuse, especially concerning the degree of crimes committed. This new outsourcing method would also charge a fee for each individual jailed. The blooming friendship between the United States and El Salvador illustrates how both leaders are defining themselves through each other. In other words, Bukele wants to ameliorate El Salvador’s reputation in terms of the United States, while Trump is leaning toward Bukele’s authoritarian, hard-hand style. Bukele stands out strikingly compared to other Latin American countries regarding their stance as Trump re-enters the White House.
As the new president of the United States undertakes his second term, the rest of the world looks avidly to their leaders. Will they succumb to threats and hawkish behaviour? Or will they make their own path? Latin America provides a small case study in different reactions to expect. Mexico serves as an example of willingness to collaborate under certain terms. Others, like Colombia, had their hand slightly forced by domestic and international pressure. However, it does not stop countries like Honduras from diversifying their interests with China. Some, like El Salvador and Guatemala, did not shy away from the new regime, and gladly embarked on a friendship with the returning president. It stands to reason, however, that each and every leader is somewhat restrained by economic, domestic and international pressure; in an era as unpredictable as ours, coalition-building might be the only way to stabilize the international order.
This is an article written by a Staff Writer. Catalyst is a student-led platform that fosters engagement with global issues from a learning perspective. The opinions expressed above do not necessarily reflect the views of the publication.
Edited by Zoé Pelen
Amélie Garneau-Daigneault is currently in her second year at McGill University. She is completing her bachelor’s in international development studies, along with minors in gender studies and history. Amélie is especially interested in researching health disparities and the global transmission of diseases. Moreover, she examines the cultural and social consequences of global health. Amélie aspires to attend law school after her B.A. and to apply her learnings to engage in international law.