There are moments when politics abandons the realm of ideas and is reduced to the ability, or inability, to exercise power with order. In those moments, discourse matters little: investors adjust their calculations, governments observe cautiously, and trading partners file away every gesture for future decisions. As a businessman, I am less interested in circumstantial applause and more in a cold reading of the facts. Foreign policy is not an exercise in sympathy or a contest of well-received phrases. It is a tool for reducing risks, ordering priorities, and providing certainty to those who produce, invest, and generate employment. In this regard, what has happened in recent days calls for an uncomfortable but necessary analysis.
The second phone call in 2026 between Claudia Sheinbaum and Donald Trump was presented as a productive exchange. This was stated by the president and confirmed by the US president himself, who spoke about the border, drug trafficking, and trade, and concluded with personal praise for the Mexican head of state. The problem is not diplomatic courtesy, but what was not said. The USMCA does not thrive on optimistic statements; it thrives on clear rules, conflict resolution mechanisms, and legal certainty. Every pending review, every latent tariff threat, weighs more than any kind words.
This backdrop explains why the discussion about oil shipments to Cuba is so sensitive. Mexico became the island’s main supplier of crude oil after the US military attack on Venezuela and the blockade of Venezuelan oil tankers. That decision strained relations with Washington. Faced with Trump’s warning about new tariffs on countries that supply oil to Cuba, Sheinbaum responded with a defense of the principle of sovereignty and a promise to pursue diplomatic channels. The speech is correct in form, but insufficient in substance. Sovereignty does not eliminate economic costs or neutralize trade reprisals. For those who depend on trade with the United States, this silence on the practical consequences is worrying.
The most revealing aspect was not the oil discussion itself, but the way in which the government decided to manage it publicly. Days earlier, during the usual morning press conference, it was explained that the Presidency had sent a letter to the Prime Minister of South Korea. The objective: to request his intervention so that the band BTS would open more concert dates in Mexico after the Ticketmaster chaos. It was not an innocent anecdote. It was a calculated distraction.
This move was not the result of responsible foreign policy or long-term thinking. It was an attempt to divert public conversation toward an emotional and widely discussed issue in order to soften the political cost of an uncomfortable decision.
Mexico, one of the region’s leading economies, is sending mixed signals. It talks about sovereignty while measuring its decisions against external pressure. It boasts of dialogue with Washington but avoids specifying commitments. And when faced with serious discussion, it resorts to distraction. This does not strengthen regional leadership or build trust.
In business, improvisation comes at a high price. In international politics, too. If Sheinbaum’s administration does not clearly separate the management of power from the management of applause, the cost will not be symbolic. It will be reflected in restrained investment, business caution, and greater fragility vis-à-vis partners who do not confuse diplomacy with spectacle.
