Background on Mexico-US Airline Relations and Trade Agreements
For decades, the airline relationship between Mexico and the United States symbolized the success of an openness model that, despite its imperfections, supported Mexico’s economic growth. Now, what has structurally saved Mexico are the free trade agreements signed by Presidents Carlos Salinas and Ernesto Zedillo with the US and Europe. Despite nationalist rhetoric, this model has proven its capabilities as well as its weaknesses.
US Regulatory Actions Against Mexico
This week, the US Department of Transportation decided to cancel 13 routes of Mexican airlines, cargo operations from Mexico City’s International Airport (AICM), and freeze expansion at Santa Lucía International Airport (AIFA), President López Obrador’s prized project. This is not an isolated incident but part of a broader agenda by the Trump administration, which uses regulation as an economic and political power tool.
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy argues that Mexico violated the 2015 bilateral agreement by restricting US flights and transferring cargo operations to AIFA. Behind this statement lies a deeper logic: in just a few months, the new Republican administration has launched a regulatory offensive that goes beyond aviation. This includes financial sanctions against Mexican banks under the FEND Off Fentanyl Act, energy control measures, and trade warnings to strategic partners.
Paradox of Mexico’s Nationlist Rhetoric vs. Openness Dependence
Ironically, while the US applies economic nationalism through regulation, Mexico insists on rhetorical nationalism that depends on openness for survival, criticizing the very trade agreements it relies on. The government wants to have its cake and eat it too – maintaining a nationalist discourse while attracting private investments.
Implications of the New Regulatory Agenda
- Asymmetric: The US can escalate regulatory measures in aviation, banking, or energy with minimal political cost. Mexico lacks equivalent tools and resorts to a narrative appealing to outdated nationalism.
- Systemic: Washington is setting precedents that could be replicated across Latin America, especially in sectors with weak regulatory compliance.
- Structural: The US trade policy no longer aims to open markets but control them.
Mexico needs fewer declarations and more regulatory defense strategies, institutional coordination, and scenario anticipation. In the 21st century, power lies not in tariffs or duties but in designing rules and ensuring others follow them. Without strengthening its economic diplomacy and technical capabilities, Mexico risks being trapped in its nationalism.
Historical Context and Moving Forward
In the 1990s, openness was Mexico’s lifeline. Today, the challenge is more complex: preserving global insertion without falling into empty rhetoric or silent submission.
In this new era of regulatory power, countries don’t lose sovereignty by signing treaties but by failing to understand the rules governing them.
