Trump’s New Tariff Pivot Opens a Window for Mexico, but Pressure Will Continue Until the USMCA Review
Washington’s shift to a different legal tool preserves Mexico’s advantages through the USMCA, but it also signals a phase of tighter scrutiny and sector-specific adjustments.
Donald Trump’s attempt to shore up his trade offensive by using emergency powers ultimately headed to the U.S. Supreme Court—an episode that didn’t kill the tariff agenda, but did force it to be reworked. The practical outcome is a change in instrument: instead of relying on extraordinary authority, Washington is looking to sustain pressure through mechanisms that already exist in U.S. law. In that transition, Mexico is relatively better positioned than most U.S. trading partners, though meaningful risks remain in strategic sectors.
After the ruling, the administration activated a temporary global tariff under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 and raised the general rate to 15%. The move is seen as a “bridge” to keep signaling a tougher stance while longer, more technically grounded processes move forward. For Mexico, the nuance matters: the biggest impact falls on trade flows not covered by the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA), not on the core export engine that does meet rules-of-origin requirements.
Mexico’s Ministry of Economy has noted that about 85% of Mexican exports to the United States comply with USMCA rules and remain duty-free. That means that, unlike countries without an agreement, Mexico retains preferential access to the world’s largest market for a broad share of its export basket. Even for shipments outside the agreement, the new framework implies—relatively speaking—a smaller levy than the higher tariffs previously applied under an emergency-based approach.
Still, the relief is limited. Tariffs and restrictions justified on “national security” grounds and industrial policy under Section 232 remain in place, and they have already hit industries such as metals and segments tied to advanced manufacturing. In practice, regional trade will continue to face more friction; the issue won’t just be the tariff level, but regulatory stability for planning investment, inventories, and supply chains.
In the short run, predictability matters as much as the tax. For a Mexican economy that is highly integrated with the United States—especially in autos and auto parts, electronics, machinery, and agribusiness—the risk of sudden shifts can translate into logistical and financial costs, from the need for additional working capital to changes in sourcing routes. Even so, the fact that a large share of trade remains under the USMCA umbrella cushions the blow relative to competitors in Asia and Europe, which would face the new global tariff more uniformly.
The 2026 USMCA Review: The Real Clock for the Export Economy
The overlap in timelines raises the stakes: the Section 122 tariff, with an initial 150-day horizon, coincides with the USMCA review scheduled for July 2026. Politically and economically, this could become a negotiating lever to demand changes to rules of origin, compliance verification, and sensitive chapters such as autos, energy, and labor practices. For Mexico, the priority will be to preserve investment certainty tied to nearshoring—which has boosted demand for industrial parks, electricity, and logistics—without losing competitiveness to higher compliance costs or internal bottlenecks (infrastructure, security, permitting, and energy availability).
The reshuffle also needs to be read in light of Mexico’s current macroeconomic moment. With an economy that has shown resilience thanks to export momentum and domestic consumption supported by remittances and employment, the external front remains decisive. Any sustained tightening of access to the U.S. market could weigh on investment expectations, especially for export-oriented manufacturing projects. At the same time, Mexico retains a structural advantage: geographic proximity, established supplier networks, and a treaty that—although up for review—remains the main institutional backstop for regional trade.
Going forward, the signal is twofold. On one hand, Mexico gains relative breathing room versus countries without preferential agreements with the United States; on the other, trade will rely less on emergency decisions and more on formal investigations, with clearer economic and sector-specific criteria. That points to an environment of continuous negotiation, where Mexico’s challenge will be to increase regional content, strengthen origin traceability, and accelerate domestic conditions—energy, infrastructure, and security—to seize the opportunity without being exposed to new rounds of trade pressure.
In short, the tariff pivot in the United States doesn’t eliminate Mexico’s risk, but it does reaffirm the value of the USMCA as a competitiveness shield. The window is there, but how long it stays open will depend on Mexico’s ability to comply with the rules, defend key sectors, and maintain an attractive climate for investment heading into 2026.
