The fact that the United States’ policy toward Latin America has taken on a more interventionist character during Donald Trump’s second presidential term is reshaping the balance of power in the region. Washington’s simultaneous use of various tools such as trade, security, visa policies, and military cooperation is taking US-Latin American relations beyond traditional diplomatic negotiations and placing them squarely at the center of a debate over sovereignty and strategic autonomy. In this context, the increasing frequency of contacts between Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum reflects not only an ideological convergence between the two left-wing governments but also the efforts of the region’s two largest economies to expand their room for maneuver in the face of Washington.
The economic and political clout that Brazil and Mexico wield in this process clearly sets the two countries apart from other nations in Latin America. The fact that these two countries which account for a significant portion of the region’s population and economic output are facing pressure from Washington at the same time underscores the strategic nature of their bilateral relations. The efforts of the Lula and Sheinbaum administrations to strengthen commercial and diplomatic ties are aimed at creating alternative avenues for maneuver in foreign policy rather than provoking a direct bloc confrontation with the US Consequently, the Brazil-Mexico rapprochement is taking shape not so much as a new ideological alliance but rather as a pragmatic collaboration aimed at preserving strategic autonomy in the face of a shifting regional balance of power.
However, it cannot be said that the two countries have the same level of resilience in the face of Washington. The relationships Brazil has developed with various economic partners particularly China provide the country with greater room for maneuver vis-à-vis the United States. Brazil’s position within BRICS, its large domestic market, its natural resource capacity, and the diplomatic ties it has established with countries of the Global South also support this capacity for autonomy. Mexico, on the other hand, is in a much deeper relationship of mutual dependence with the US economy due to its production chains, export markets, and geographic location. Consequently, the policy developed by the Sheinbaum administration toward Washington requires a more carefully balanced strategy than the one pursued by the Lula administration.
The similarity in the tools used by the Trump administration against both countries is striking. The threat of trade sanctions or additional tariffs, visa restrictions, the designation of organized crime groups as terrorist organizations, and the raising of the possibility of direct intervention on security grounds demonstrate that economic and military pressure have become complementary elements. In particular, the classification of criminal organizations as terrorist groups is not merely a matter of security policy for Brazil and Mexico. The possibility that such a designation could be used in the future as a legal and political justification for cross-border military operations heightens both governments’ sensitivities regarding sovereignty.
Lula’s more pronounced emphasis on the rhetoric of national sovereignty in this context is also significant for Brazil’s domestic politics. Lula, who argues that Brazil’s defense capabilities must be strengthened, has emphasized the production of unmanned aerial vehicles to protect the country’s borders, demonstrating that foreign policy and defense policy are becoming increasingly integrated. Lula’s statement that Brazil must possess a defense capability that will not allow “anyone to invade this country and kidnap the president” reveals that the example of Venezuela has directly influenced Brazil’s perception of security.[i] Thus, the concept of sovereignty is no longer merely an abstract diplomatic principle but is being given concrete form through defense investments, border security, and technological capabilities.
These developments are also turning the elections to be held in Brazil in October 2026 into a contest with international implications. The fact that the race between Lula and Flavio Bolsonaro is extremely close heightens the significance of tensions between Washington and Brazil in domestic politics. The political ties forged by the Trump administration with the Bolsonaro family make it difficult to view the Brazilian elections solely as a contest among domestic political actors. The Lula administration is therefore making national sovereignty a central element of its election campaign and linking the debate over foreign interference to the issue of political independence.
From Mexico’s perspective, the fundamental issue differs because the cost of a confrontation with Washington is much higher than it is for Brazil. While the Sheinbaum administration seeks to maintain cooperation with the US on security and trade issues, it is also drawing a line against demands that could infringe upon the country’s sovereignty. The integration of the Mexican economy into US supply chains makes Washington’s trade pressure tools extremely effective. For this reason, the Sheinbaum administration’s efforts to keep diplomatic channels open and avoid direct personal conflict represent a balancing policy implemented within the structural constraints created by economic dependence, rather than a sign of weakness.
This is also where the significance of the growing rapprochement between Brazil and Mexico comes to the fore. Neither government aims to sever ties with Washington or form a direct anti-US front. On the contrary, both countries are striving to establish a model of relations with the US one in which unilateral pressure will not be accepted while maintaining their economic and diplomatic ties with the US This approach points to a concept of strategic autonomy in Latin America that differs from the bloc logic of the Cold War era. Countries can continue to cooperate with Washington while simultaneously developing relations with alternative economic partners, such as China, and strengthening their regional partnerships.
In this context, rather than whether the Brazil-Mexico rapprochement will evolve into an institutional alliance in the future, what is gaining importance is the extent to which the two countries can enhance each other’s capacity for strategic autonomy. The cooperation developed between Petrobras and Pemex in the energy sector demonstrates that economic ties can provide a concrete foundation for political rapprochement. Trade diversification, energy cooperation, diplomatic coordination, and the development of a common stance on regional issues are emerging as tools that could enhance the two countries’ bargaining power vis-à-vis Washington. However, particularly due to Mexico’s dependence on the US economy, it does not appear feasible in the short term for this rapprochement to create an alternative bloc capable of countering American influence.
Consequently, the fundamental challenge facing the Lula and Sheinbaum administrations is to develop a foreign policy that can limit Washington’s capacity for unilateral pressure without severing ties with the US While Brazil seeks to achieve this through economic diversification, relations with China, enhanced defense capabilities, and the principle of reciprocity, Mexico constrained by the limitations imposed by economic integration has adopted a strategy of diplomacy, controlled cooperation, and establishing clear red lines regarding sovereignty. Rather than driving the two countries apart, this difference holds the potential to make their distinct power elements complementary.
[i] Galarraga Gortázar, Naiara, and Carlos S. Maldonado. “Brasil y México plantan cara a la hostilidad y las injerencias de Trump y las derechas latinoamericanas.” El País, https://elpais.com/america/2026-08-16/brasil-y-mexico-plantan-cara-a-la-hostilidad-y-las-injerencias-de-trump-y-las-derechas-latinoamericanas.html, (Date of Access: 16.08.2026).
