Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
Constitutional changes target regulatory agencies in Mexico
The lower house of Mexico’s Congress approved the text of a constitutional proposal to scrap oversight bodies on Wednesday, a first step in the ruling Morena party’s goal of eliminating autonomous institutions and consolidating power.
The change is just the latest in a series of reforms begun under former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador and carried out by his successor, Claudia Sheinbaum. Plans include overhauling the energy sector and judicial system, and guaranteeing a minimum wage that stays above inflation.
The bill passed by the lower house moves agencies overseeing government transparency, telecommunications, antitrust, energy, education, social policy, and other regulators under the jurisdiction of the executive branch, removing their institutional autonomy. It passed 347–148 and only needs one vote to pass the Senate before the legislative period ends on Dec. 15.
Sheinbaum backs the proposal, arguing that regulators are inefficient and that eliminating them will save taxpayer dollars. But her party has put forward a compromise to appease critics: decentralized agencies to ensure that antitrust and communications regulators remain independent, even as they are absorbed under the executive’s umbrella. The compromise is also meant to ensure the constitutional changes don’t contradict the terms of the trade deal with the US and Canada — which requires Mexico to have independent oversight bodies — ahead of renegotiations in 2026.
Trudeau’s former right-hand man thinks Trump 2.0 ‘will be harder’
When Donald Trump shocked the world by getting himself elected in 2016, Gerald Butts was the principal secretary to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. He was also a key member of the Canadian team that managed the tumultuous but ultimately successful negotiation of the USMCA, sitting across the table from Trump, Peter Navarro, Steve Bannon, and Robert Lighthizer. He is now vice chairman and a senior advisor at Eurasia Group, which is the parent company of GZERO Media.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
You were in the Office of the Prime Minister the last time Trump was elected. How is this different?
Butts: On the positive side, it’s not as much of a shock. The most salient fact of the first Trump presidency was that it happened. So everybody had to have a plan for it happening again. That’s the upside. The downside is you’re going to be dealing with a much more emboldened Trump who’s got a broader electoral mandate and whose ambitions on the economy are much more comprehensive than they were the first go-round. He campaigned in 2016 basically saying to the Great Lakes blue-collar worker that he was going to bring their jobs back from Mexico, the jobs that the Clintons sold to Mexico. And this time he’s got a much more ambitious agenda. It’s rebalancing global trade and a mass deportation plan that will make labor more expensive in the United States.
If you add those two things together, along with probably increased defense spending on an already large deficit, it’s hard to see how those things don’t cause inflation.
It seems odd that inflation is what eroded Biden’s brand, but Trump’s two key promises are both inflationary.
They don’t see it that way, of course. I think that that’s the conventional economic view. And I do think that what will inevitably be an inflated defense budget beyond the PBO’s 3% estimate is also going to be part of this, part of the inflationary pressure that Trump brings to bear.
As policymakers have learned over the past couple of years, because most of them had never had to deal with it before, inflation is a government killer. It’s the grim reaper for incumbents, and it’s mowed down governments of all political stripes all over the world.
Speaking of which, the Trudeau government generally gets good marks for handling Trump the first time, which you had something to do with. A lot of people are worried that it’s going to be a little harder this time, in part because of the relationship between the president and the prime minister. Do you think that that’s important?
Its importance is overblown. I think you’re right that it will be harder. I think that has more to do with the relative political standing of the government and the time of the mandate. If you’re dealing with Trump at the end of your first year, when you’re in the 40s in the polls, with almost a 50% approval rating, that’s one thing, because those two things add up to political capital that you have to invest.
If you’re dealing with it in year 10, when you don’t enjoy those polling numbers, that means you have less political capital to invest. And by definition, Trump is a problem that requires political capital to solve.
They have a very difficult task ahead of them, don’t they?
They really do. I never like to tell my former colleagues how to do their job, because the truth is, when you don’t have all the information they have, it’s hard to make judicious calls. Only they know how prepared they are to deal with undocumented people showing up at a Canadian border point. I don’t know that. Unless you do, it’s hard to say how you would deal with that issue either in the public or in bilateral negotiations with the Trump administration.
I do think that’s potentially the biggest problem they’re going to have to deal with because I wouldn’t say the cross-partisan consensus on immigration in Canada is gone, but it has been weakened by recent events.
On trade, what’s the best guess on whether Trump is going to exempt Canada from a new tariff policy?
I think if the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, then he will only grant exemptions in return for something. The question is, what can the government offer that he wants that will get that exemption? And I have no idea.
Cross-border trade is high frequency and very large. We’d feel the impact of tariffs sooner, and they’d cover more of our economy than any country except maybe Mexico.
Traditionally in Canada, all governments are afraid — because of the strength of our dairy lobby — to do much about the supply-managed dairy industry. (Canada’s politically powerful dairy farmers have long exerted political pressure to protect their industry from American imports.) In this situation, do you think that that’s the kind of thing the politicians may have to think about in a new way?
That’s definitely possible. I mean, my view is if you’re going to take that kind of risk, get some bigger economic reward for it. We’ve been simultaneously having this conversation yet again about Canadian productivity. And one of the big problems with Canadian productivity is that our firms and sectors like digital services face no competition. So the companies are big, bloated bureaucracies that deliver some of the most expensive services in the world. I’d be tempted to use the crisis presented by the Trump administration to fix some things about the structure of the Canadian economy that badly need fixing.
On the energy transition, all of these big bets on battery plants in the United States are legislated tax credits that Trump cannot get rid of, but the whole managed auto manufacturing sector is losing an enthusiastic ally for EVs in Biden. What does that do to the enormous subsidies Trudeau and Champagne have put on the table for EV manufacturers?
I think that may be literally a trillion-dollar question. That’s going to be a super-challenging file to manage with Trump. It’s coming at a time where the global industry is electrifying, and that process is being led by the Chinese. The Americans think the proper response to that is to create large tariffs that will keep the Chinese out of the American market because they’re kind of running the 1970s playbook. I think the response from the Chinese is going to be: “We don’t need to be in the American market. China is twice the size of the United States auto market, and we’ll take the rest of the world while you guys double down on inferior technology that the rest of the world is turning away from.”
It’s a very complicated situation. They’re already losing out to Chinese and Korean producers, and this could just accelerate that process.
So I’d be very worried if I were working on this part of industrial policy in North America because the companies have a weaker hand to deal with than the government seems to think they do.
And for Canada, there’s an extra challenge in that the Canadian economy is so integrated with the American economy that it may not be possible to set a different course.
That’s right. It may be that the American automotive market, like the American economy itself, is so large that subnational economies like California and New York — which together are larger than Canada — can keep going the way they’ve been going, and the Canadian industry basically follows them. But I think that’s challenging. It’s super challenging for a small but important producer like Canada, especially on the parts side.
Let’s close with a little optimism. What do you see as an upside of this election for Canada?
I think it’s the persistent structural problems in the Canadian economy that are not going to be solved in the absence of a crisis. Maybe Trump is the crisis that the Canadian economy needs to solve those problems.
Trump 2.0 is set to upend US-Canada relations
Donald Trump is returning to the White House. Winning the presidency, along with control of the Senate and possibly the House of Representatives, means Republicans have a long runway for policy reform — which is making Canada nervous as the Trudeau government stares down possible challenges from the next administration on trade, defense, immigration, and more.
Trump’s tariff threat looms large
Sitting atop Canada’s pile of worries is Trump’s threat to impose a minimum 10% tariff — and possibly as high as 20% — across the board on US imports, which would drive consumer prices higher in the US and could cost Canadian trade partners billions. Canada will try to finagle an exemption, but there is no guarantee it’ll succeed.
If slapped with tariffs, Canada may be forced to retaliate with its own protectionist measures, ensuring a trade war. Roughly CA$3.6 billion in goods move across the border daily, and nearly 80% of Canada’s exports go stateside.
But tariffs aren’t the only trade concern. Trump, who views trade agreements through the lens of zero-sum power politics, says he will (once again) negotiate the US-Mexico-Canada free trade agreement, which comes up for review in 2026. During his first term, the Republican leader replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement with USMCA, which caused considerable headaches for the Trudeau government. Canada made concessions during the renegotiation, including increased market access for the US to Canadian dairy and stricter rules of origin for automobiles — criteria to determine if enough North American production has gone into a vehicle to grant it preferential tariff treatment. During the process, Trump called Justin Trudeau “two-faced” and a “far-left lunatic.”
Pressure to spend, border woes, freshwater demands — oh my!
Canada will also face growing pressure from the Trump administration to increase its defense spending and NATO commitments.
Days ago, former US Ambassador to Canada Kelly Craft gave a sense of just how urgent the spending boost might have to be. This summer, Canada released a plan to grow its share of defense spending to the NATO target of 2% of GDP by 2032. Craft says that’s not fast enough. But to hit that target, Canada would have to doubleits defense spending in the next seven to eight years, which might be tricky if the country is hurting from a trade war with its biggest trading partner.
During the election, Trump also said he would begin a program of mass deportations. The costly idea is a stretch, but as the CBC’s Evan Dyer argued in July, even the notion of such a program could cause problems for Canada, with concerned migrants in the US moving north ahead of a possible deportation blitz.
During the first Trump administration, and into the Biden administration, a growing number of irregular crossings were a challenge, leading to a renegotiated border deal in 2023, which tightened border security.
Trump has also talked about going after Canadian freshwater to solve US water shortages. Canada is one of the world’s largest sources of freshwater — with roughly 20% of the global total. Trump has floated the idea of diverting Canadian water to the US, particularly to drought-prone California.
The president-elect recently touted the idea on Joe Rogan’s podcast, and in September, he said British Columbia has “essentially a very large faucet” that could be turned on “one day” to divert water flows south to California. But there isn’t that much spare water to divert, and the flows are already governed by the Columbia River Treaty — another deal that might be up for (further) review.
All public smiles and reassurances, for now
The first Trump administration was rough for Canada, and the Trump-Trudeau relationship was … not warm. In January, Trudeau warned that a second Trump presidency would be “a step back” for Canada. “It wasn’t easy the first time, and if there is a second time, it won’t be easy either,” the prime minister said.
Indeed it won’t. Some in Canada may be hoping the pain won’t arrive until the 2026 free trade renegotiations, but that’s probably wishful thinking.
“The headaches may come much sooner than the USMCA negotiations," says Gerry Butts, vice chairman and senior adviser at Eurasia Group. “Trump’s immigration and tariff policies will put pressure on an already strained Canadian consensus about immigration and cause swift damage to the economy.”
Nonetheless, Trudeau was quick to congratulate Trump on his second win, emphasizing that the relationship between the US and Canada is “the envy of the world,” and saying, perhaps more in hope than in anticipation, that he knows he and Trump “will work together to create more opportunity, prosperity, and security for both of our nations.”
Canadian Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly noted that Canada has been preparing for either a Democrat or Republican “for months” through networks in the US and globally. She was joined by several Cabinet ministers who at least feigned hope that things would work out given the deep ties between the two countries.
Graeme Thompson, a senior analyst with Eurasia Group’s global macro-geopolitics practice, isn’t convinced the rosy picture the Canadian government is painting reflects reality. “Trump doesn’t care about historic ties; he couldn’t care less.”
Thompson says the relationship between the US and Canada is now as fraught as it has been in a century. But, he notes, Canada is still better off vis-à-vis the US than every other country in the world, which is something at least.
How to manage a forever crisis
The challenge for Canada now is navigating the second Trump administration, particularly as the Trudeau government, down in the polls, faces its own election a year from now — if not sooner.
Canadians prefer the Conservative Party leader over Trudeau when it comes to handling Trump, but for now, the job is Trudeau’s. The plan this time seems to be similar to last time: Rather than going all-in on the White House itself, Canada will work with the Trump administration by lobbying statehouses and governors, especially along the border states, along with Capitol Hill and industry. The government has also reestablished its Cabinet committee on US-Canada relations, chaired by Finance Minister Chrystia Freeland.
Thompson says Canada has an advantage in managing the Trump administration because of the country’s deep familiarity with the US and close connections nationally and at the state level. But history and expertise aside, there’s no guarantee there won’t be challenges and pain for Canada — especially on trade and defense — despite the rhetoric.
“It’s really hard to see how this is not more challenging than at any other time,” Thompson says. “I think that for the next four years, we can expect that any grievance or opportunity to take a hard line to gain something that presents itself, that’s the line the Trump administration will take.”
Supply management showdown: Canadian politics complicates 2026 trade talks
The precarious nature of domestic politics in the Canadian House of Commons looks set to have implications for the mandated renegotiation of the Canada-US-Mexico trade agreement in 2026.
The governing Liberals need the support of the left-wing NDP or separatist Bloc Québecois to survive the barrage of no-confidence votes being brought forward by members of the opposition Conservative Party, who are ahead in the polls and want to send the country to an election.
The price the Bloc has put on its support are two pieces of legislation sponsored by its members – one, to increase old-age security payments for seniors aged 64-75, and two, a bill that would forbid Canada’s trade negotiators from making concessions on the country’s protected dairy, chicken, and egg sectors, known as supply management.
The latter was passed recently by all parties in the House of Commons, despite concerns about grocery prices. But it is currently being held up in the Senate, the unelected upper chamber. There are a number of senators who used to be senior diplomats and who point out that ring-fencing supply management, predominantly based in the eastern provinces of Ontario and Quebec, will inflame trading partners and tie the hands of trade negotiators, who will be forced to give ground in other agricultural sectors like beef, pork, and canola, which are all based in the West of Canada.
Veteran trade negotiators say making supply management untouchable would be a big mistake as we approach the renegotiation in two years, particularly if Donald Trump becomes president.
Supply management was a major irritant to the Americans in the 2017/18 negotiations, and Canada was forced to grant the US more access to its dairy market, in return for keeping the production and pricing control system in place. There are legitimate fears that this time the US will seek to kill supply management.
The unelected Canadian Senate can only obstruct the democratic will of the House of Commons for so long, and it seems inevitable the Bloc bill will pass into law.
Canada had expected the 2026 renegotiation to be a formality. But it had best not count its chickens.
Should Canada give three F’s?
You’re leaving your role as president of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce after 17 years, which has been a transformative time. What is the biggest economic challenge facing Canada's trade with the US?
Perrin: The politics of trade has undergone a sea change in the US under the last two presidents. Previous presidents, from Ronald Reagan on, viewed America's interactions in the global economy as an opportunity to foster American prosperity, and they saw an integrated North American economy as a source of strength. More recently, however, US politicians have started to turn inward, increasingly viewing their country as a victim, and not as the primary beneficiary of international engagement. This change has led them to increasingly align themselves with domestic protectionists who want to build economic walls along the US border.
Unfortunately, this turn inward has coincided with a complacency here in Canada about our most important bilateral relationship. Even the best of friends can't afford to take each other for granted, or they will soon drift apart.
As Canada's relationship with the US has moved from being strategic to being transactional, American leaders are increasingly looking at each issue as a standalone, and they are making their decisions, not on what is in America's long-term best interest, but on where they can find immediate political advantage at home.
We need to rebuild that strategic relationship. It's vital for Canada to be seen as bringing solutions to the major problems confronting the United States, as opposed to simply pleading to be exempted from the latest punitive measure. We need to demonstrate, both in Washington and far away from it that Canada should be treated not as a problem, but as a partner.
Perrin Beatty, outgoing president and CEO of Canadian Chamber of Commerce. REUTERS/Rebecca Cook
You recently said: “Canada is increasingly being viewed by our partners in the region as a well-meaning but unserious player on the international stage." In what ways has Canada become an "unserious player," and what needs to happen to change that reputation?
Perrin: Unfortunately, we have come to see ourselves as a moral superpower whose job is to tell everyone else what they are doing wrong. And we expect them to be grateful to us for it. Too often, we are driven more by a desire for good feelings than for good results. In contrast, other countries are both faster-moving and more engaged in the issues their interlocutors consider most important. The consequence is that, where the US and other countries used to ask, “How do we get the Canadians involved?” their question is now, “Should we inform the Canadians?” The fact that we learned about the AUKUS agreement at the same time as everyone else is just one example.
The Russian invasion of Ukraine two years ago should have been seen by Canada as world-changing, and our response should have been both meaningful and swift, with us marshaling what we have to offer in defense of the democracies. For example, Canada has an abundance of the “three F’s” – food, fuel, and fertilizer – and critical minerals that are essential to global stability. What we lack is the infrastructure, the vision, and the will to bring them to global markets to give countries an alternative to sending dollars to despots. This could be Canada's moment, but only if we are prepared to seize it.
You were a former defense minister under Mr. Mulroney, so you know about dealing with a dangerous world. But now, everyone is looking at the impact of the US election. Are we headed into a period of instability, conflict, and the dismantling of both trade and defense alliances that have been built since World War II?
Perrin: The problems we face, from global poverty to pandemics to wars to global climate change, all require an effective, coordinated international response. Instead of that, we are witnessing countries turning inward on themselves, as well as the increasing ineffectiveness of global institutions like the UN, the World Trade Organization, and the WHO in actually resolving issues that go to our very survival.
When I was privileged to be in government, there was a sense that, when the leaders of the G7 – leaders who included Reagan, Thatcher, Mitterrand, Kohl, and Mulroney – came together, problems would be resolved. Today, when international meetings take place, you get the feeling that our problems are bigger than our leaders. In fairness, the world is a much more complex and dangerous place today, but that's precisely why we need leaders whose vision, determination, and morality are up to the challenge. As your question suggests, we're at a crossroads that will determine whether we will be able to maintain the institutions and strategies that have guaranteed democracy, peace, and prosperity since the Second World War. The stakes have never been higher.
AI is both a transformative opportunity and a destabilizing threat. What is your view of how will impact business?
Perrin: Like businesses the world over, Canadian businesses will be transformed either for the better or for the worse by AI. AI, like the nuclear genie, can't be put back into the bottle. Our challenge is first to understand it, then to decide how to mitigate its potential bad effects, and then to determine how to unleash its positive aspects. In this instance, the technology is developing at a pace that far outstrips our capacity to understand it and manage it well. However, calls to initiate some sort of a standstill until we have thought these things through are naïve and unworkable; all that would happen is that the unscrupulous players would widen their lead.
The challenge for Canadian policymakers is how to successfully work with others on coordinated policies that limit the dangerous aspects of AI without denying its benefits to our industry and our society.
If there is a second Trump Presidency, what should Canada expect from the 2026 review/renegotiation of USMCA trade deal?
Perrin: Many Canadians expected that when Joe Biden became president, he would reverse the Trump protectionist measures. However, that assumption overlooked the fact that, in the past, Republicans were more in favor of free trade, while Democrats were more protectionist. In fact, the Biden administration has actually deepened some of the protectionist policies initiated by Donald Trump.
The danger is that the election will be a contest between two candidates trying to demonstrate who is more protectionist. Canadians must respect the right of US voters to determine their own government, just as we would insist on the Americans respecting our rights, but we need to demonstrate that it is in Americans' self-interest to foster a stronger relationship with their closest neighbor and best friend. And we must do that, not by special pleading, but by coming up with solutions to problems.
Finally, what is the best-case scenario for the US-Canada relationship in terms of economic prosperity and security? Is there a way to slalom through the protectionism, AI disruptions, political polarization, climate challenges, and conflicts and see a time of increased joint prosperity?
Perrin: The best-case scenario is that we restore a strategic partnership with the world's greatest superpower. We've let the relationship slide for too long, and it won't be easy to regain that position. But I believe it can be done if we muster the vision and the will to make it happen.
Last thing: You worked for Brian Mulroney, who recently passed away. He was the architect of the North American Free Trade Agreement and worked closely with Ronald Reagan. What lesson can today’s leaders learn from that time?
Perrin: As Canadians commemorate Brian Mulroney, our leaders should ask what they can learn from Canada's last great transformative prime minister. Brian Mulroney understood that governments don't create jobs and prosperity, businesses do. He also knew that the best way to solve problems was not to shut people out but to bring them in.
It's impossible to say exactly what policies a different government would follow, but what we do know is that our economy and our country are under severe strain today. The leader history will remember best will be the one who brings people together again in what remains the most fortunate country on the face of the globe.
Graphic Truth: US trade deficit with Canada & Mexico
The US trade deficit in goods with Canada and Mexico reached an all-time high in 2023 of over $220 billion — and despite what you may hear from certain former US presidents, that’s a good thing. Yes, more money than ever is leaving the US and going to the neighbors. And in exchange, American consumers get more stuff from their neighbors than ever before and for better prices than they can find at home.
Canada braces for a Trump presidency
Canada’s Foreign Minister Mélanie Joly says Justin Trudeau’s government is working on a “game plan” for how it would respond to a right-wing, protectionist government in the United States after the 2024 election – just in case. She said she would work with local and provincial leaders as well as the business community and unions to do so.
Joly also referenced the efforts Canada made the last time, when Trudeau launched a charm offensive in 2016 in a bid to keep Trump sweet. Canadian political and business leaders made an unprecedented push to communicate with different levels of the US government and the business community about the value of the trade relationship. They eventually negotiated a new deal similar to NAFTA, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.
The possibility of a second round with Trump, who forced Canada to renegotiate its crucial trade relationship with the US, is widely seen as a threat to the countries’ trading partnership.
And Trump is not doing anything to calm the waters. The former president met recently with advisers at his Mar-A-Lago compound in Florida to discuss his plans for the 2024 election, according to the Washington Post. They discussed the idea of a “universal baseline tariff” on imports to the US, with Trump interested in putting a “ring around the U.S. economy.” This, Trump told Fox News, could entail a 10% tariff on all imports.
Under the terms of USMCA, most trade between Canada, the US, and Mexico is currently conducted without tariffs. But that deal is due to be reviewed and renewed in 2025-2026.
More than $3 billion in goods and services cross the border each day, everything from auto parts to building supplies to Amazon packages. In 2016, the two countries did $627.8 billion worth of trade. By 2022, it had increased to $1.2 trillion – so any disruption could have cataclysmic effects on the trade-dependent Canadian economy, as well as serious effects on the US economy, particularly in border states.
Why Mexico is a key issue in the 2024 US election
Jon Lieber, head of Eurasia Group's coverage of political and policy developments in Washington, DC shares his perspective on US politics.
I'm here in Mexico City, the capital of Mexico, which is a country that is turning out to be a major potential campaign issue in the US 2024 elections. We've already seen several Republican candidates try to distinguish themselves by painting Mexico as a bad guy. Florida governor Ron DeSantis has said that he wants to militarize the border in order to stop the flow of drugs, guns and crime and illegal immigrants coming over the border. Former President Donald Trump famously renegotiated NAFTA with Mexico and used the threat of additional tariffs to force Mexico to secure its southern border to prevent Central American migrants moving up into the United States. So this is going to be a big issue over the next 12 months in the US.
Both Democrats and Republicans, likely Democrat nominee Joe Biden and potential nominee Donald Trump are vying for the votes of autoworkers inside the US, which means promising to bring more domestic production back home to the US, which could potentially hurt Mexico, which has, of course, a free trade agreement with the United States. There's also a presidential election here in Mexico. So depending on the outcome of that, that could be the opportunity to fundamentally reset relations. One likely candidate has virtually no foreign policy experience, and one likely candidate has a lot of foreign policy experience, having dealt extensively with the United States. And the outcome here is going to be important when the US and Mexico start to renegotiate the USMCA, the trade agreement that binds the three North American countries together in 2026. There is a periodic six-year agreement to revisit details of that. And as the US starts to focus more on industrial policy and production directly in the United States, this could be an issue for Mexico, who counts on the American market for a large segment of its exports, particularly in the automotive industry. The Mexican government has lagged behind a little bit other governments in taking advantage of the opportunity of the trade war between the US and China to create more sourcing opportunities out of Mexico. And that's going to be a major issue to watch over the next several years. So lots of interesting issues here in Mexico that will affect US politics.
- Advantage Mexico ›
- Optimism about Mexico's political and economic future ›
- Mexico pays price for Colorado River deal ›
- Ian Explains: Gaming out the 2024 US election - GZERO Media ›
- Trump trial: How would a conviction hurt his reelection bid? - GZERO Media ›
- Ian Bremmer’s 2024 elections halftime report - GZERO Media ›