Since his campaign, President Trump promised a series of tariff increases that would violate current trade precedent, potentially stirring trade issues along the southernmost border with Mexico. Trump’s proposed trade policy threatens the Texas economy and the livelihoods of over 17 million laborers whose jobs depend on importing and exporting goods from Mexico. 

In Texas, a state that relies heavily on trade with Mexico, Trump won the vote by 16 percentage points. For Texas, the economic relationship with Mexico is essential to the state’s economy, significantly affecting manufacturing, agriculture, and energy industries. Texas relies on trade with Mexico more than any other state, with billions of dollars in goods flowing across the U.S.-Mexico border each year. 

Broad tariffs on Mexican imports would disrupt trade flows and harm the economic integration developed over decades between Texas and its southern neighbor. Such tariffs challenge past negotiated trade agreements like the USMCA and strain political and diplomatic relationships. These tariffs would lead to extensive consequences for industries and workers in Texas who rely on access to Mexican imports and exports. 

Trump’s threats are short-term solutions and could exacerbate long-term issues such as immigration and future trade negotiations. Such impulsive actions would likely harm Texans more than they resolve problems, undermining political and diplomatic cooperation on shared concerns like border security, immigration, and regional trade. Ultimately, they risk destabilizing the interdependence that sustains both States’ economies.  

The Reciprocal Trade Agreements Act (RTAA) of 1934 shifted trade policy-making power from the legislative branch of Congress to the President’s executive branch, thus facilitating quicker trade agreements. In combination with the transformations in trade negotiating power, the 20th century redefined how the United States engaged in trade practices.

 The United States diverted from its past trade model as a restriction to trade as reciprocity, engaging in multilateral trading systems and international trade organizations. In 1995, the World Trade Organization (WTO) replaced the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) system, which had headed international trade since 1947. The organization —now composed of 166 member states— was designed to provide the framework for negotiating trade agreements, added a dispute resolution body, and promoted free trade. Because the WTO is an agreement, it lacks any enforcement power. 

Additionally, since the 1940s, the United States trade policy has focused on creating and maintaining a multilateral trading system and negotiating multilateral trade agreements. The Trump administration renegotiated the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 2020, transforming it into the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) to reduce trade barriers between the U.S., Mexico, and Canada. The USMCA introduced updated labor standards, 21st-century intellectual property protections, and improved rules of origin requirements. This agreement shaped the trade and foreign policy relationship between the United States and Mexico, reinforcing economic ties. 

The state of Texas’ largest market is Mexico; in 2023, it exported 129.5 billion dollars, roughly four times larger than the next state, Canada, at 35.9 billion (USTR). Donald Trump’s proposed tariffs on imports from Mexico could alter supply chains, harming not only Texans but anyone relying on imported goods from Mexico. 

According to the Texas Economic Development and Tourism Office, in 2023, trade between Mexico and Texas alone totaled 272.3 billion dollars, making Mexico the number one trading partner for the largest exporting state in the country (EDT, 2023). With Texas being the largest exporting state in the U.S., any disruption would have far-reaching economic effects on countless industries. 

Donald Trump’s “America First” model opposes the historical approach of the U.S. participation in international trade organizations and regulatory bodies. In Trump’s first term in 2016, there was a departure from traditional methods, bypassing international regulating institutions and relying on clauses of domestic law to implement tariffs. He used classes such as Section 232 and Section 301 to implement his previous steel tariffs, which bypassed the WTO regulations based on a national security threat and unfair trade practices. 

These actions drew global criticism from historical United States allies and other international leaders who claimed that his decisions undermined international trade norms and disrespected government allyship by claiming historical partners were threats to national security. The campaign proposed a comprehensive 25 percent tariff on all imported Mexican products “unless these countries control the flow of illegal drugs, especially fentanyl, and illegal immigrants” (Meltzer, 2024). He would likely have to employ a similar strategy, bypassing the WTO to accomplish this.

 The proposed tariffs would violate the USMCA agreement, which Trump designed to create a fairer trade field between the two countries in 2020. While the specifics of how Trump would implement such tariffs remain unclear, on his social media site Truth Social, he stated that he would enact the tariff through an executive order, bypassing congressional approval (Swanson et al., 2024). His past actions show a willingness to circumvent established rules to achieve his policy goals (Morland et al., 2024). By bypassing international trade agreements, Trump risks retaliatory actions from the nation of Mexico that would further harm Texans in many different forms. 

Since Trump’s comments, Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has warned of the adverse effects a 25 percent tariff would have on both economies and alluded to retaliatory tariffs: “One tariff will follow another in response and so on, until we put our common businesses at risk” (Sheinbaum, 2024). The Mexican President has been vocal in her confusion with the proposed tariffs, underscoring how they would negatively impact both economies. 

A 25 percent tariff would significantly increase the cost of all imported foods, creating barriers for businesses that depend on materials and products from Mexico. Mexico is a major supplier of manufacturing equipment, machinery parts, automobiles, and produce; a tariff would drive up the cost of these essential products. Texas economists are apprehensive about the impact a tariff would cause: “While the entire country would feel impacts of tariffs, Texas would be disproportionately affected based on the amount of trade the state conducts with Mexico. 

Along the U.S.-Mexico border, from Laredo to El Paso, free trade has fueled job growth and improved the standard of living for residents” (Salhotra, 2024). Many industries, like the produce industry, rely on free and fast trade facilitation to support the flow of imports. Any barriers could hinder their ability to transport produce, hurting the growing market. Currently, imports from Mexico through the Lower Rio Grande Valley of Texas total 18.7 billion dollars.

Produce imports shipped 590,906 forty-thousand-pound truckloads in 2023, according to linear trends, and they are only expected to grow by 2030 (CNAS, 2023). Additionally, international organizations like the International Fresh Produce Association have historically advocated against implementing trade barriers along the border of Texas and Mexico in the Rio Grande Valley. Fast and free movement of produce along Texas’ port of entry is necessary to reduce the loss of product and drive costs down for consumers and producers alike (IFPA, 2022). 

The organization has also advocated in the interest of workers and companies whose jobs may not seem explicitly tied to importing but whose jobs depend on imports to survive. Truck drivers, warehousing, and resellers are among those who would feel the impact. In Texas, an estimated 1 in 5 total jobs in the state, or 3.6 million, are directly reliant on the export and import of goods and services; nearly 40,500 companies exported products in 2022, and 97% of these companies are small to medium-sized enterprises (USCC, 2024). These businesses form the backbone of local economies, supporting essential jobs. An increased tariff would strain these enterprises financially and lead to widespread job losses and economic instability across the state.

Most of the imported products from Mexico are intermediary goods for manufacturing firms; thus, the price increases would be much broader than just price increases on imported goods. Manufactured goods are often sent back and forth between four and eight times over the border during the manufacturing process; a tariff would substantially raise the cost of the final product, making it more expensive and less competitive in the international market (Salhotra, 2024). 

There would be many difficulties along the supply chain for retailers, manufacturers, and consumers. Many Texas businesses rely on the just-in-time supply chain model, which depends on the smooth flow of goods across the border. Any delay due to the tariffs would disrupt production and lead to even higher consumer prices and more considerable losses for the manufacturers. 

Trump is currently citing the ongoing immigration and drug crisis as justification for enacting tariffs on the southern border. He claims that Mexico has the power to stop the flow of drugs, in particular fentanyl, and undocumented migrants, but until they choose to use such power, they will “pay a very big price!” (Trump, 2024). 

The effectiveness of this proposal is highly questionable. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has publicly countered Trump’s claims, emphasizing that Mexico has already taken significant steps to address migrant issues. In July 2024, United States Customs and Border Patrol agents recorded the fewest monthly migrant apprehensions since 2021, a sign that Mexico is taking action (CBP, 2024). Illegal border crossings are already at an all-time low; compared to 2023, they have fallen by 169,000 apprehensions per month, demonstrating a significant improvement in controlling migration flows. 

President Sheinbaum and lower house leader Ricardo Monreal have gone to significant lengths to reduce the number of illegal border crossings, as shown by the statistics. However, they pointed out that Mexico does not have the power to control the United States’ demand for drugs, which is the primary driver of the drug trade. She stated, “Mexico does not produce weapons. We do not consume synthetic drugs. Unfortunately, what we do have is the people who are being killed by the crime that is responding to the demand in your country” (Morland & O’Boyle, 2024). 

As expressed by the Mexican President, Trump’s tariff solution is punitive and does not tackle the complexities of the drug crisis. Mexican government officials are urging the Trump administration to engage in bilateral, institutional mechanisms to combat drug trafficking (Pitas, 2024). Employing broad tariffs while pushing Mexico to solve a primarily American problem ignores the issue’s complexities by offering simplistic solutions that would be met with retaliatory economic actions. 

In the 2024 United States Presidential Election, Donald Trump saw massive gains in Texas, winning the state by 14 percentage points. Although he was projected to win Texas, his support grew; in 2020, he only beat President Biden by six percentage points. The Republican party flipped 16 counties by focusing much of its energy on the Rio Grande Valley, an area that has historically supported Democrats and is mainly Hispanic (Blaise, 2024). 

In the election, Trump won the most votes from Texas counties, which were over 25% Hispanic (Bloch et al., 2024). The shift aligns with national trends for many reasons, but one of the key factors is the diminishing role of race as a driving factor for voters to support the democratic party. In South Texas, Hispanics in the Valley identified strongly with their status as working class. 

Across the country, there were massive shifts of working-class voters to the republican party, a group historically the backbone of the democratic party. However, in the Valley — partially because of Trump’s populist rhetoric and lies about his proposed solutions to aid working-class members’ economic struggles— the democratic party was not seen as supporting the working class. Instead, they were depicted as the party of the college-educated elite. 

Tariffs pushed themselves to the forefront of the 2024 presidential election, appealing across political and economic demographics for their perceived role in protecting domestic workers. However, broad tariffs threaten the economic and political relationship between border states like Texas and Mexico. Where Kamala Harris’s policy would have strengthened international ties and maintained the stipulations of the USMCA agreement, protecting workers and ensuring access to free trade, Donald Trump’s policy accomplishes the opposite, especially hurting Hispanics along the border who voted for him. 

Texas elected officials support the President in his endeavor, disregarding the potentially detrimental economic impacts that could crush the Texas economy if the tariffs were enacted. A 25 percent tariff would damage Texans by more than just the price of avocados, tequila, and beer. It would have detrimental effects around the state, affecting millions of people whose jobs are dependent on Mexican imports and exports. 

Trump’s proposed 25 percent tariffs on Mexico would be detrimental to the Texas economy, workers, and industries along the border. Issuing the tariffs would also be detrimental to foreign relations with Mexico and other nations around the globe. Imposing a tariff would also undermine the mutually beneficial relationship the two countries have worked towards for decades. 

By contradicting trade agreements like the USMCA, Trump signals that the United States cannot be trusted concerning international diplomacy. The economic effect of the tariff would be devastating as 1 in 5 Texas jobs are reliant on imports and exports from Mexico. The tariff would ripple and increase consumer prices, create job losses, and hurt small and medium businesses. Because Texas relies on trade with Mexico, the harm would disproportionately affect workers in the state. Working-class Hispanic voters –a mass of Trump’s base– would feel these tariffs harder than most other Americans. His policies would harm the interests of those who voted for him, particularly in the Rio Grande Valley. 

As a tool to address drug trafficking and immigration, the tariff is inadequate and would be ineffective. The Mexican government has successfully lowered immigration crossings at the border, but reducing drug trade would require complex solutions that a tariff does not solve. As Trump promises to enact these tariffs on day one, it is vital to acknowledge the harm they will cause. Texas is the second largest state economy in the nation and, if ranked, would be the eighth largest economy globally. The United States must maintain strong diplomatic ties with Mexico to protect the interests of Texas workers and continue fostering mutually beneficial trade relationships. 

Sophia Adams

Amherst College

Works Cited

Bloch, Matthew, et al. “Early Results Show a Red Shift across the U.S.” The New York Times, 6 Nov. 2024, http://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2024/11/06/us/politics/presidential-election-2024-red-shift.html.

Center for North American Studies. Economic Impacts of U.S. Imports of Fresh Produce from Mexico by 2030. Feb. 2023.

Gainey, Blaise. “How Republicans Managed to Flip Texas’ Rio Grande Valley.” Houston Public Media, 7 Nov. 2024, http://www.houstonpublicmedia.org/articles/news/politics/election-2024/2024/11/07/505334/texas-republicans-flip-rio-grande-valley-2024-election/. Accessed 5 Dec. 2024.

International Fresh Produce Association. “IFPA Urges Resolution of Trade Flow at U.S.-Mexico Border.” International Fresh Produce Association, 14 Apr. 2022, http://www.freshproduce.com/who-we-are/press-center/2022/us-mexico-border-trade-flow/. Accessed 5 Dec. 2024.

Meltzer, Joshua P. “Assessing Trump’s Proposed 25% Tariff on Imports from Mexico and Canada.” Brookings, 3 Dec. 2024, http://www.brookings.edu/articles/assessing-trumps-proposed-25-tariff-on-imports-from-mexico-and-canada/.

Morland, Sarah, et al. “Mexico Warns Trump Tariffs Would Kill 400,000 US Jobs, Threatens Retaliation.” Reuters, 28 Nov. 2024, http://www.reuters.com/markets/mexico-warns-trumps-tariff-would-kill-400000-us-jobs-2024-11-27/.

Morland, Sarah, and Brendan O’Boyle. “Mexican President Warns Trump Tariffs Will Kill Jobs, Hints at Retaliation.” Reuters, 27 Nov. 2024, http://www.reuters.com/world/americas/mexican-president-tells-trump-tariffs-will-worsen-inflation-kill-jobs-2024-11-26/.

News, PBS. “Trump’s Tariff Threats Jeopardize Avocados, Tequila and Other Iconic Mexican Products.” PBS News, 28 Nov. 2024, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/trumps-tariff-threats-jeopardize-avocados-tequila-and-other-iconic-mexican-products.

Office of the United States Trade Representative. “Texas | United States Trade Representative.” Ustr.gov, 2023, ustr.gov/map/state-benefits/tx.

Texas Economic Development & Tourism. Texas & Mexico Trade & FDI. 2024.

The Texas Public Radio. “Donald Trump’s Tariffs on Mexico Could Devastate Border Region, Texas Economists Warn.” TPR, 2 Dec. 2024, http://www.tpr.org/economy-and-labor/2024-12-02/donald-trumps-tariffs-on-mexico-could-devastate-border-region-texas-economists-warn.

U.S. Customs and Border Protection. “Southwest Land Border Encounters.” U.S. Customs and Border Protection, 12 Apr. 2024, http://www.cbp.gov/newsroom/stats/southwest-land-border-encounters.

USTR. “United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement.” Ustr.gov, 2020, ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/united-states-mexico-canada-agreement.Wiseman, Paul. “Trump Favors Huge New Tariffs. How Do They Work?” PBS News, 27 Sept. 2024, http://www.pbs.org/newshour/economy/trump-favors-huge-new-tariffs-how-do-they-work