The meeting in Washington between Mexican Foreign Minister Roberto Velasco and United States (US) Secretary of State Marco Rubio points to a new search for normalization in Mexico–US relations after a period of serious political tension. However, the meeting is seen not as a broad political rapprochement between the two countries, but as a controlled and pragmatic dialogue made necessary by mutual dependence. Issues such as migration, drug trafficking, organized crime, border security, and economic relations make it difficult for the two countries to act independently. At the same time, sovereignty, US involvement in Mexican domestic politics, and the situation of Mexican citizens in the US remain the main areas of tension in bilateral relations.[i]
One of the most notable features of the Velasco–Rubio meeting is that the two governments presented the same meeting in different ways. Mexico’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs highlights progress in security, especially the fight against drugs, arms trafficking, and transnational organized crime. The US side, however, does not view current cooperation as a completed or sufficient success and asks Mexico to take further measures. Rubio’s demands to end irregular migration, prevent fentanyl and other illegal substances from entering the US, and disarm the cartels show that Washington evaluates the relationship mainly through the obligations it expects Mexico to meet rather than through the results already achieved. Therefore, although both sides share the same security agenda, there is an important difference in how they define it.
This difference also reflects the asymmetric relationship between the two countries. The US administration can continue to demand more action from Mexico on security and migration, while the Mexican government tries to maintain cooperation with Washington without allowing it to become a one-sided relationship of dependence. For this reason, the Claudia Sheinbaum administration’s repeated emphasis on “cooperation, but cooperation without subordination” is important. For Mexico, the main question is not whether security cooperation with the US is necessary, but within which political and legal limits this cooperation should take place.[ii]
Migration is one of the most visible areas of this asymmetry. Although irregular crossings at the Mexico–US border have fallen to historically low levels, the Trump administration continues to put migration-related pressure on Mexico. This shows that migration is not only a technical issue of border management, but also a foreign policy tool that Washington can use to create political pressure on Mexico. By increasing security measures at its own borders and using major resources to control migration flows, Mexico is becoming, from Washington’s perspective, one of the external border managers of US migration policy.
However, for Mexico, migration is not limited to migrants who enter the country or try to reach the US through Mexican territory. The legal status of Mexican citizens living in the US and the treatment they face during immigration enforcement are also important parts of bilateral relations. Operations by US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), conditions in immigration detention centers, and the deaths of Mexican citizens increase domestic political pressure on the Sheinbaum government. Therefore, while the Mexican government responds to US demands to limit irregular migration, it also takes diplomatic and legal steps to protect the rights of Mexican citizens in the US. As a result, migration is both an area of cooperation and a source of debate over human rights and sovereignty between the two countries.
The Sheinbaum administration’s response to these pressures can be described as “strategic restraint” rather than direct confrontation. Mexico does not break relations with the Trump administration and continues cooperation on security and migration, but it strengthens its language of sovereignty against unilateral US action on Mexican territory or in Mexican domestic politics. After meeting Rubio, Velasco emphasized the principles of “respect for sovereignty and territorial integrity,” “shared responsibility,” “mutual trust,” and especially “cooperation without subordination.” These statements clearly show this strategy.[iii]
This approach does not aim to completely end Mexico’s structural dependence on the US. Geographic proximity, trade, border security, migration, energy, production chains, and the fact that millions of Mexicans live in the US create a very strong mutual dependence between the two countries. Therefore, a harsh and continuous diplomatic conflict with Washington could create high economic and political costs for Mexico. At the same time, the US also appears unable to solve issues such as border security, irregular migration, drug trafficking, and organized crime on its own without Mexico’s active support. This relationship of mutual need makes it necessary to reopen diplomatic channels despite political crises.
Sheinbaum’s invitation to the G20 Summit to be held in Miami in December also suggests that controlled normalization may move to the level of high-level political dialogue. Although phone diplomacy between Sheinbaum and Trump has been intense, face-to-face meetings have remained limited, showing that the relationship between the two leaders is not yet fully institutionalized. The G20 Summit may therefore become not only a multilateral meeting, but also a new diplomatic setting that could influence the direction of political relations between the two countries.
In conclusion, the Velasco–Rubio meeting does not show that the problems between Mexico and the US have been solved. Instead, it shows that both countries are trying to keep their relationship manageable despite these problems. The emerging picture can be described as controlled normalization rather than a classic “diplomatic thaw.” Washington continues to pressure Mexico on security, fentanyl, and migration, while Mexico does not reject cooperation but emphasizes sovereignty, reciprocity, and the rejection of subordination. For this reason, the relationship is neither a full alliance nor an open conflict.
In the coming period, the main factor shaping Mexico–US relations will be how far the two countries can separate necessary security cooperation from debates over sovereignty. If the Trump administration increases sanctions, visa cancellations, or unilateral security actions against Mexican political actors, new crises are likely to emerge. On the other hand, deeper institutional cooperation in areas such as technology, semiconductors, artificial intelligence, and supply chains may prevent the relationship from being defined only by migration and drugs. Therefore, the Velasco–Rubio meeting is not the start of a period in which problems have disappeared. Rather, it is a sign of a new form of pragmatic diplomacy in which mutual dependence forces the two countries to negotiate even during crises.
[i] Guillén, Beatriz. “México y Estados Unidos avanzan en el deshielo con una reunión entre Roberto Velasco y Marco Rubio”, El País, https://elpais.com/mexico/2026-08-26/mexico-y-estados-unidos-avanzan-en-el-deshielo-con-una-reunion-entre-roberto-velasco-y-marco-rubio.html, (Accessed: 30.08.2026).
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Ibid.
