Sheinbaum Knows That Mexico Can't Count on Trump ‘Chickening Out'
What has come to be referred to on Wall Street as the 'TACO' trade has gathered attention in recent weeks. The acronym stands for 'Trump Always Chickens Out' because traders have noticed a pattern whereby U.S. President Donald announces aggressive tariffs and markets tumble, but then Trump backs down when faced with the economic and political repercussions of his own announcements and markets subsequently rally.
Financial Times columnist Robert Armstrong used the term in print in early May, writing that 'the administration does not have a very high tolerance for market and economic pressure, and will be quick to back off when tariffs cause pain.'
While that analysis has become the conventional wisdom over the past month, it was far less clear to markets during the first 100 days of Trump's term. Stocks plummeted and currencies became volatile as the U.S. president announced various strict tariff measures. Despite the market rebound, damage has still been done. Some tariffs have been implemented, the threats of severe taxes on international trade remain and the uncertainty created by those threats is harming many countries' financial outlooks.
Yet, amid the global panic over trade that began as Trump took office, one world leader appeared to take every announcement with calm and strategic patience even though Trump's global trade war threatened her country's economy more than most. While other world leaders reacted in the moment, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum consistently emphasized the need for a measured and diplomatic approach to Trump's tariffs rather than immediate retaliation. Sheinbaum was confident that Trump could be convinced to back down on a regular basis, and she has been rewarded for that approach.
To get more in-depth news and expert analysis on global affairs from WPR, sign up for our free Daily Review newsletter.
Early in his term, Trump announced large tariffs on Mexico and Canada. During a key February phone call, Sheinbaum surprised Trump by speaking in English and proposed deploying 10,000 troops to the U.S.-Mexico border, even though those Mexican troops were largely already in place. 'You're tough,' Trump reportedly told her, and he paused planned tariff hikes. The pauses keep coming, with Trump backing down from his initial threats repeatedly over the first four months of his term. Immediately after the 'Liberation Day' announcement of extensive global tariffs on April 2, Sheinbaum highlighted to her domestic audience the fact that Mexico had not been on the list of tariffed countries and territories. Canada and Russia were the only two other countries to escape tariffs that day, even as islands inhabited only by penguins made the list. As recently as two weeks ago, Sheinbaum highlighted how she got on a call with the U.S. president and convinced him to back down on steel and aluminum tariffs on Mexico yet again.
Mexico's currency has held relatively steady across the course of this year, and the Mexican stock market has held up quite well despite predictions that the global economic environment would drive the country into a recession. Opinion polls show Sheinbaum is wildly popular, with some putting her approval rating at more than 80 percent, largely driven by a rally around the flag effect as most Mexicans, even many who didn't vote for her, support her efforts to fend off the worst damage from Trump's policies toward the United States' southern neighbor.
At least three key pieces of Sheinbaum's biography have shaped her response to Trump. First, she is an academic and a technocrat more than a populist. This means she cares more about policy outcomes than some personalistic leaders, such as Colombian President Gustavo Petro, do. That doesn't mean she hasn't benefitted politically or used her victories in this dispute to bolster her image, but she also doesn't pick fights for the sake of public disagreement. Second, Sheinbaum followed another populist, Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador, or AMLO, in office and in fact worked with AMLO to convince him to hand off the presidency to her. Because AMLO and Trump are similar in the way they approach politics and disputes, Sheinbaum's relationship and experience with her predecessor likely allowed her to hone her negotiating skills so that she could effectively deal with the U.S. president. Third, she has continued AMLO's tradition of holding a televised morning press conference, la mañanera, which allows her to control Mexico's media narrative on a daily basis and get ahead of whatever stories might sidetrack her negotiations with the United States.
But unlike Wall Street investors executing the TACO trade, Sheinbaum understands that she can't always count on Trump backing down of his own accord—she must put in some work on her end to make it happen. Trump's withdrawal of threats has come after sustained diplomatic engagement, regular high level phone calls and meetings, and a willingness to concede on some details to maintain the broader relationship. While it's quite possible that economic damage would eventually force Trump to back down from his threats, Sheinbaum has let him save face at every turn, even as she has outmaneuvered him in negotiations. Though it's not possible to know what Mexican officials say and think privately, Sheinbaum would never openly say that Trump 'chickens out,' because she knows that the U.S. president's ego matters if she is to be successful in playing this game over and over again across Trump's second term.
On the other hand, market analysts have pushed too far in gloating about the president's surrenders on trade issues. When asked about the TACO trade at a recent press conference, Trump disputed the characterization that he has backed down, saying that he has been negotiating tough deals worldwide, and he appeared offended at the suggestion that he 'chickens out.' It could turn out that the publicity garnered by the TACO trade is its own undoing because the president may be less willing to back down in the future.
Four months into Trump's term, for both Mexico and Wall Street, what has worked so far is not guaranteed to work for the next four years. And ongoing uncertainty over U.S. trade policy carries its own significant risks. The constant tariff threats, even as they have been withdrawn repeatedly, have stalled foreign investments in Mexico, as businesses fear financially backing projects in the country when they are uncertain about whether tariffs will be imposed.
That's why Sheinbaum's next move must be an effort to convince Trump to engage in a sustained dialogue to secure guarantees about the future of tariffs and the USMCA trade deal. If she can successfully pull that off, she'll lead her country well beyond whatever trendy trade catches Wall Street's fancy next.
James Bosworth is the founder of Hxagon, a firm that does political risk analysis and bespoke research in emerging and frontier markets, as well as a global fellow at the Wilson Center's Latin America Program. He has two decades of experience analyzing politics, economics and security in Latin America and the Caribbean.
The post Sheinbaum Knows That Mexico Can't Count on Trump 'Chickening Out' appeared first on World Politics Review.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Politico
13 minutes ago
- Politico
Ahead of 2028, Vance, Rubio offer up a vision to the future of the GOP
Vice President JD Vance and Secretary of State Marco Rubio offered a preview of a post-Trump Republican Party on Tuesday at a gathering of many of those who in the coming years will be responsible for running it. No one at the black-tie conservative gathering mentioned '2028,' though it was an unmistakable undercurrent as the two featured speakers, who both hope to carry the Trump legacy into the future, laid out their respective visions. The affair was ostensibly a celebration of the brand of economic populism that's taken hold in the Republican Party under President Donald Trump. But American Compass' 'New World Gala' at Washington's National Building Museum was really a forum for laying the intellectual groundwork for a MAGA movement once the president leaves office. 'This is not a five, a 10 — this is a 20-year project to actually get America back to common-sense economic policy,' Vance said. Rubio, who spoke first, noted that that the country was in the 'midst of an important and long overdue realignment.' 'This is going to be the work of a generation,' he told the relatively young audience. 'There's still much work to be done.' Vance and Rubio — who lavished praise on one another — offered similar assessments of the current state of the country and where they hope to take it. Both spoke of reindustrialization, of an America First approach to economic and foreign policy and the role the next generation will play. The two men — who Trump has said would both make good successors — used their time to outline a break from the pre-Trump era they argued did not focus enough on middle-class needs and neglected the nation's manufacturing sector, leaving the country reliant on foreign adversaries and vulnerable to national security risks. 'You can never be secure as a nation unless you're able to feed your people, and unless you're able to make the things that your economy needs in order to function and ultimately to defend yourself,' Rubio said. Vance said it's why Trump was elected, adding that the president is the 'first mainstream American politician to come along and say, 'this isn't working.'' Their remarks were filled with appeals to GOP voters who will in the coming years choose a new standard-bearer for the America First movement. And while the Republican candidates will likely embrace an era of conservatism shaped by Trump, they will spend the next several years working to bring long-lasting structure to the party and unity among intellectually diverse factions. Neither mentioned the GOP megabill, the top legislative priority for the administration, some of which is at odds with the brand of economic populism espoused by American Compass. The legislation, which already passed the House, could cause millions of low-income Americans to lose their health insurance and cut funding for food assistance programs. It also offers tax breaks to top earners, while American Compass and others in the movement have unsuccessfully urged the administration to raise rates on corporations and high-earners. Vance, who sat for a Q&A with Oren Cass, founder of American Compass, sought to unify intellectually diverse factions inside the Republican party, a feat of coalition building that has helped Trump win three successive nominations. Vance did much the same in March when he spoke at a high-profile gathering of right-leaning tech figures to bring together the tech right and the populist right. And he leaned into populist rhetoric, as he said he wants 'normal people who work hard and play by the rules to have a good life.' 'Most of our fellow Americans, they're not nearly as dumb as Washington, D.C., assumes they are,' Vance said. 'They are actually very smart.' Rubio's speech had a more academic flare as he argued that the Cold War resulted in countries, including the United States, abandoning nationhood — across economic, immigration and foreign policy. 'Every single nation state we interact with prioritizes their national interest in their interactions with us,' Rubio said. 'And we need to begin to do that again. And we're beginning to do that again.' Vance is seen by many in the America First movement as the heir to MAGA, a position he's solidified with his full-throated backing of the president and his policies. In the Conservative Political Action Conference's annual straw poll earlier this year, Vance captured over 60 percent of the vote. And in a YouGov poll from April, among Republicans, 69 percent said Vance was someone they would consider voting for in the 2028 primary. Rubio polled at 34 percent.


Politico
13 minutes ago
- Politico
Trump officials delayed farm trade report over deficit forecast
Trump administration officials delayed and redacted a government forecast because it predicts an increase in the nation's trade deficit in farm goods later this year, according to two people familiar with the matter. The numbers run counter to President Donald Trump's messaging that his economic policies, including tariffs, will reduce U.S. trade imbalances. The politically inconvenient data prompted administration officials to block publication of the written analysis normally attached to the report because they disliked what it said about the deficit. The published report, released Monday but dated May 29, includes numbers that are unchanged from how they would've read in the unredacted report, said the people, who were granted anonymity to discuss internal decision-making. Policymakers, farm groups and commodities traders rely on the closely watched report, which the Agriculture Department issues quarterly, for its analysis of imports and exports of major farm commodities including cotton and livestock. The highly unusual rollout could raise questions about potential political meddling with government reports that have traditionally been trusted for decades. 'Objectivity is really key here and the public depends on it,' said Joe Glauber, a former USDA chief economist. 'To lose that trust would be terrible.' A USDA spokesperson blamed the delay on an internal review. 'The report was hung up in internal clearance process and was not finalized in time for its typical deadline,' said USDA spokesperson Alec Varsamis in a statement. 'Given this report is not statutory as with many other reports USDA does, the Department is undergoing a review of all of its non-statutory reports, including this one, to determine next steps.' It's not clear when or if the written analysis portion will be released. The previous forecast, published in February, projected a deficit of $49 billion for the current fiscal year, an increase from the November 2024 report. The new analysis revises the projection to a record $49.5 billion, beating the previous record of $31.8 billion in fiscal 2024. Republicans used the quarterly report's rising trade deficit projections during the Biden administration to accuse then-Secretary Tom Vilsack of not doing enough to promote U.S. farm exports. Agriculture secretaries historically have used the forecasts to promote policy initiatives. The May report reflects Trump's on-again, off-again tariffs, the people said. The president has announced sharply higher tariffs on China and 'reciprocal' levies of at least 10 percent on most U.S. trading partners. Tariffs are not the only contributing factor to any trade deficit or surplus, Glauber said. Americans' love for blueberries year-round, loyalty to French wines and addiction to goods like coffees — which the U.S. largely does not produce — also contribute. A strong dollar can also widen the deficit. 'What we're importing is largely not what we're exporting,' he said, noting that prices for common U.S. agricultural imports, such as wine and liquor, are not as volatile as the nation's agricultural exports like soybeans. Two federal courts last week halted and then allowed the reciprocal tariffs to proceed, a back-and-forth that only added to the uncertainty for farmers and businesses. Farmers are facing a more difficult economic outlook than they did during Trump's first term: Some foreign markets have permanently shrunk and higher inflation has crimped farmers' bottom lines. Agriculture Secretary Brooke Rollins has strongly defended Trump's tariffs, arguing that imposing them is essential to removing barriers to U.S. exports, including non-tariff barriers. She is leading a trade delegation to Italy this week, and has several more trips planned later this year to promote American agricultural commodities. Doug Palmer contributed to this story


Newsweek
15 minutes ago
- Newsweek
How To Ruin a Country's Image, Economy, and Global Standing in Six Easy Steps
President Donald Trump's first four months in office have brought a whirlwind of unprecedented actions. There have been so many missteps, fumblings, cruel implementations, and pure folly, it would take an entire column to list them all. While this column has often analyzed methodologically precise polling data, today I set out to synthesize, very unscientifically, what I've been hearing from business and legal colleagues, along with social contacts, about the Trump presidency's most consequential—and egregious—actions to date. The following list is by no means exhaustive of this administration's horrendous policies and ridiculous conduct. But these six items are perhaps the most destructive of our country's image, economy, and contributions to the rest of the world. 1. Eliminating USAID For all the chaos it caused, DOGE was unsuccessful in eliminating meaningful amounts of waste, fraud, and abuse from the federal government. Elon Musk went after critical government programs without any recognition of the important roles they play, or any overarching rationale. First among these programs was USAID, which for a tiny slice of the federal budget accomplished a great deal to save lives, fighting disease around the world (in part to prevent maladies from reaching our shores) while projecting a very positive humanitarian image for the U.S. Now we are left with the image of the richest person on Earth cutting off life-saving programs, undoubtedly causing innocent people to die and giving China an opening to enhance its global standing through soft-touch foreign policy of its own. Is there any possible cure? It's a huge long shot, but if Senate Democrats end up with any leverage in the budget reconciliation process, maybe they can restore USAID funding in a way that makes it extremely difficult for the executive branch to cut it again. 2. Medical and Scientific Research The Trump administration has taken a machete to American medical and scientific research, slashing grants to elite universities, disease and biological research funding at the National Institutes of Health, and Food and Drug Administration staffers who conduct cutting-edge therapeutic drug oversight and approval. It is also actively intimidating the best and brightest of international science students away from believing they can make their careers in the United States. There is no meaningful political constituency for any of these actions—they are illogical in the extreme. Not only do they impede vital scientific research; they allow other countries to gain leadership in areas the United States has long dominated. As with USAID funding cuts, unless Senate Democrats end up with some leverage in debt ceiling negotiations and demand that multi-year grants be both reinstated and guaranteed for the future, it is hard to see how this action can be undone. Even if Harvard and other universities win their court actions for previous grants to be reinstated, it would be beyond the reach of those court cases to require future funding. 3. IRS Staff Cuts The Trump administration is planning to lay off about 40,000 IRS workers, or about 40 percent of the agency's entire staff. This move would fully undermine the agency's ability to collect the tax revenue that forms the largest portion of the federal government's budget. Less IRS scrutiny of the largest taxpayers will only amplify the revenue shortfall. Against the backdrop of a treasury market that is already getting more nervous about the creditworthiness of the United States, the recent decision by Moody's to reduce the country's credit rating, and a budget bill which is certain to increase the size of the federal debt, demolishing the IRS is nothing short of fiscal malpractice. Again, there is no policy justification for this decision whatsoever—it just diminishes the government's resources at a time when reducing the budget deficit is a policy goal of Democrats and Republicans alike. The good news is that this one is incredibly easy to fix. The bad news is that Republicans in Congress are very likely to make sure it doesn't happen. President Donald Trump takes questions outside the West Wing of White House in Washington, D.C., on May 8, 2025. President Donald Trump takes questions outside the West Wing of White House in Washington, D.C., on May 8, 2025. JIM WATSON/AFP via Getty Images 4. Ukraine The input I received on this one was pretty unanimous. Trump's stated goal of stopping the killing is one all support—but pursuing it in a way that rewards Russia for disrespecting the borders of a sovereign nation and committing war crimes is absolutely contrary to what the United States stands for. It is very clear that Putin has no interest in a reasonable settlement of the conflict, and that the only way to bring about an end to the war is for Trump to apply enormous pressure by making clear we will maintain military and intelligence support for Ukraine. A world where Russia faces no meaningful restraint on its military aggression is a scary one. Plenty of Republicans in Congress want to see support for Ukraine continue. But it is very unlikely they will force the administration's hand. Failing that, the only restraint on Trump is the specter of a collapse of Ukraine playing out similarly to the way the American withdrawal from Afghanistan damaged perception of the Biden administration. 5. Eliminating Due Process The Trump administration believes students legally in the United States can be plucked off the street by masked men and deported without any kind of due process. Its vision for America reeks of elements of an authoritarian police state where basic civil liberties are not protected. While the cases that have been grabbing headlines so far involve noncitizens, if basic due process protections can be ignored, American citizens' own due process rights will soon come into question. Almost everyone in my informal survey gave Trump credit for closing the U.S.-Mexico border, but strongly suspected that the "cruelty was the point" of the administration's deportations, and that the federal government under Trump desires to create the broad perception that it does not have to be constrained by civil liberties protections. Fortunately, many in my feedback group believed that the Supreme Court will get this one right, and that we will see a rebuke of the Trump administration's actions when these issues are finally substantively addressed by the Court. 6. Tariffs Trump's tariff policies have changed so many times, with so many different rationales, that I heard many different views as to where they might end up. The one consistent thought was that, in the longer term, Trump would impose some remnant of the tariffs on major trading partners, affecting consumer prices for a not-insignificant number of goods. While it is unclear how much inflation tariffs will ultimately cause, this haphazard, seat-of-the-pants approach will surely fuel at least some. The one consistent view was that the economy would have been much stronger if the Trump administration had never imposed tariffs at all, and that we will see no meaningful manufacturing job creation in the U.S. from any of this. There are several ways the tariff damage could be undone. Courts might rule that the emergency authority Trump seized to implement these tariffs is not actually authorized by statute. Also, market reaction to further tariff moves may cause Trump to retreat to the point that the effect of any tariff actions is fairly nominal. It is pretty doubtful that Congress will act to remedy the four problems that it has the ability to cure. It is somewhat more possible we will see reversals in the last two areas—due process and tariffs. The bottom line, however, is that these six massive missteps, if not reversed, may ruin some of the greatest aspects of our country, our image, our economy, and our contributions to the world. Tom Rogers is executive chairman of Claigrid, Inc. (the cloud AI grid company), an editor-at-large for Newsweek, the founder of CNBC and a CNBC contributor. He also established MSNBC, is the former CEO of TiVo, a member of Keep Our Republic (an organization dedicated to preserving the nation's democracy). He is also a member of the American Bar Association Task Force on Democracy. The views expressed in this article are the writer's own.