Relations between the United States and Mexico under former President Donald Trump were often characterized by friction. From the persistent calls for a border wall funded by Mexico to the harsh rhetoric directed at immigrants, the public narrative was one of tension and disagreement. Yet, surprisingly, Mexico’s current President, Andrés Manuel López Obrador (AMLO), has repeatedly offered a significantly different assessment of his relationship with Trump, going as far as to claim that the former US president was **not disrespectful to Mexico**. This statement, counter-intuitive to many observers, warrants a closer look to understand the reasoning behind it and its implications.
The conventional view of the Trump presidency from a Mexican perspective is largely defined by the “wall” promise and the charged language surrounding immigration. Trump’s campaign rhetoric and later policies, including increased deportations, pressure on Mexico to curb migration flows, and the renegotiation of NAFTA (leading to the USMCA), created an environment of uncertainty and, for many, felt inherently disrespectful to Mexico’s sovereignty and its people. The image of a strongman US president demanding concessions and often portraying Mexico in a negative light is deeply ingrained. This makes AMLO’s counter-claim all the more striking and in need of explanation.
However, AMLO’s perspective seems to stem from his direct interactions and the working relationship he cultivated with the Trump administration. Despite the public posturing, AMLO has consistently emphasized that in their private dealings and negotiations, Trump treated him and Mexico with a certain level of respect. AMLO often recounts phone calls and meetings where, he claims, Trump was open to dialogue and negotiation, even on contentious issues like trade and immigration enforcement. This suggests that AMLO distinguishes between Trump’s public rhetoric, often aimed at his domestic political base, and the actual conduct of diplomatic and executive relations behind closed doors.
Furthermore, AMLO’s assessment is likely rooted in pragmatism and his administration’s core foreign policy principle of non-intervention. By focusing on the functional aspects of their relationship and avoiding reciprocal public condemnation, AMLO’s government prioritized maintaining stability, particularly concerning trade and economic ties vital to Mexico. Enduring the rhetoric while securing what he perceived as manageable outcomes on key issues might have been seen as a strategic necessity. Framing Trump as “not disrespectful” could also be a way for AMLO to defend his administration’s approach to dealing with a challenging US president and highlight his own success in navigating those choppy waters without major escalations like widespread tariffs.
The political context of AMLO’s statements is also crucial. His comments about Trump often surface during periods of heightened US-Mexico political discourse, sometimes coinciding with US election cycles. By speaking relatively favorably of Trump, AMLO might be subtly signaling his preference or simply reflecting on a past relationship he found, in his specific experience, productive on a personal level, despite the broader controversies. In Mexico, this view is not without its critics, who argue that it downplays the very real impact of Trump’s policies and rhetoric on Mexican migrants and the national psyche.
In conclusion, President López Obrador’s claim that Donald Trump was not disrespectful to Mexico, while jarring against the backdrop of Trump’s public persona and policies, appears to be based on AMLO’s specific experience in directly negotiating and interacting with the former US president. It highlights a distinction between Trump’s fiery rhetoric aimed at his base and the transactional, arguably pragmatic, relationship AMLO believes they shared at the executive level. This perspective, though controversial, underscores the complex nature of international diplomacy, where personal rapport and national interest can sometimes lead leaders to offer assessments that diverge sharply from the widely held public narrative.
