Business
How Trump tariff threats might plunge Mexico into recession and stoke immigration
If former President Trump is reelected and follows through with his promise to slap new tariffs on all imports to the U.S., experts say much of the global economy could be upended. And few countries would be more vulnerable than Mexico.
The economy here is driven almost exclusively by trade, with 83% of exports sent north of the border.
Mexicans are watching the U.S. election anxiously, and bracing for a possible Trump victory over the Democratic nominee, Vice President Kalama Harris. Last week, the peso lost value after polling showed that the former president had taken a slight lead in several swing states.
Economists warn that even a small increase in tariffs on Mexico’s goods could lead to a rise in unemployment and poverty, and some say that could prompt more people to migrate to the United States.
“Even the threat of tariffs will create havoc,” said Juan Carlos Moreno-Brid, an economics professor at the National Autonomous University of Mexico. “It will further reduce Mexico’s long-term economic growth. And it could drive migration to the United States and Canada.”
A worker packages Little Tikes baby swings at the MGA Entertainment factory in Ciudad Juarez, Mexico.
(Bloomberg / Getty Images)
Few world economies are more tightly bound than those of the U.S. and Mexico.
In 2023, U.S. exports of goods and services to Mexico totaled $367 billion and imports from Mexico exceeded $529 billion, according to the U.S. Department of Commerce. Mexico is the United States’ largest trading partner, having overtaken China in 2021.
Trump, who has long complained about the exodus of manufacturing jobs from the U.S. to countries such as China and Mexico, says that tariffs will help lure factories back to the United States.
Economists, though, are largely skeptical of that claim. And there’s some evidence that higher tariffs enacted during his presidency have cost American jobs. Many warn that U.S. companies would end up absorbing much of the new taxes, a cost they would pass on to U.S. consumers.
Some economists predict a 20% tariff imposed by Trump would end up costing the average U.S. family $2,600 each year. Harris says it could be higher, adding nearly $4,000 a year to the typical household’s bills, an increase she calls a “Trump sales tax.”
It’s difficult to say exactly what new tariffs would mean for the U.S. and the rest of the world because Trump’s proposals keep changing.
He has vowed, at various points, to impose an across-the-board tax of 10% or 20% on all goods entering the U.S. He’s also threatened tariffs of 60% or higher on imports from China.
In an interview this month with Fox News, he threatened to impose an exorbitant tax on autos imported from Mexico. A big chunk of U.S.-Mexico trade involves cars and auto parts that are transported back and forth across the border for production and final assembly.
“All I’m doing is saying, I’ll put 200[%] or 500%, I don’t care,” Trump said. “I’ll put a number where they can’t sell one car.”
New tariffs could trigger global trade wars because countries would probably retaliate with their own taxes on U.S. imports, targeting in particular farm goods because of the politically sensitive nature of that sector. The International Monetary Fund predicts growth would decelerate worldwide.
Donald Trump has vowed to impose a tariff of 10% or 20% on all goods entering the U.S. and threatened an exorbitant tax on autos imported from Mexico: “I’ll put 200[%] or 500%, I don’t care.”
(Rebecca Blackwell / Associated Press)
But countries such as Mexico, which relies heavily on exports for economic growth, would be especially affected.
The value of Mexico’s exports and imports amounts to almost 90% of the country’s gross domestic product, according to World Bank data. Economists warn that even a small increase in tariffs on goods destined to the U.S. poses serious risks for the economy.
“Under the worst-case scenario, the Mexican economy will fall into recession, the currency will depreciate, and inflation will rise,” reads a report released this month by the economic research firm Moody’s Analytics.
The mere threat of tariffs has already scared off foreign companies from investing in Mexico. Tesla, for example, announced that it was pausing plans to build a new factory in Mexico until after the election because of Trump’s vow to levy taxes against auto imports.
Trump appears willing to target individual companies doing business here, recently threatening 200% tariffs on John Deere if the tractor manufacturer moves production and jobs to Mexico.
“The threat of tariffs and the erratic nature in which Trump might deploy them doesn’t offer any investment certainty,” said Rodrigo Aguilera, an independent economist.
As president, Trump in 2018 imposed tariffs on steel from Mexico and other countries, prompting counter-tariffs on American farm goods and straining U.S.-Mexico relations.
He also threatened broader tariffs on all Mexican goods, but backed off after American business leaders complained that it would hurt them and his administration extracted a promise from Mexican authorities to do more to stop migrants from reaching the U.S. border.
Some Mexican officials have said they don’t believe Trump will follow through with his tariff threats, which aren’t popular in the U.S. and seen as counterproductive for the American economy.
Marcelo Ebrard, Mexico’s economy secretary, told journalists recently that he believes they are just a campaign tactic. “The United States economy is not a manufacturing economy,” Ebrard said. “And I’m sorry, but it will not be that way again.”
But others fear that Trump, if he wins a second presidency, will be more likely to take dramatic measures on an array of policies because it is likely he would be surrounded by more loyalists.
“Trump is not going to be moderated by more moderate conservatives,” said Pamela K. Starr, a professor of international relations at USC. “The second presidency, I think, will be Trump unleashed.”
Rodrigo Aguilera, an independent economist, said there is no doubt that Trump will “use a tariff threat to force Mexico to collaborate on something he wants, on migration policy or security policy.”
“Mexico,” he said, “will have to try to capitulate.”
If Trump enacts tariffs on Mexico, it would be in violation of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, a 2020 treaty that replaced the Clinton-era North American Free Trade Agreement. The new treaty, which Trump helped negotiate, calls for generally no tariffs on trade on the North American continent. If the U.S. violated the agreement, Mexico would have permission to retaliate.
When they overlapped in office, Trump and former President Andrés Manuel López Obrador came to an unexpected detente. López Obrador said the two countries’ relationship was built on mutual respect, and famously called Trump “a friend.”
Many think such a relationship may be less likely with the country’s new president, Claudia Sheinbaum, and Trump, in part because he doesn’t have a good track record of working with female heads of state.
“She’s really smart and a woman, all things that Trump seems to find threatening,” Starr said.
Sheinbaum has largely refrained from commenting on Trump’s tariff threats, except to say that it is the U.S., as much as Mexico, that would suffer if they came to pass.
Free trade, she said recently, “is as important for the United States as it is for Mexico.”
Sheinbaum, who took office this month, inherited an economy that was already on shaky ground. The country faces its largest budget deficit since the 1980s. And while the social programs carried out by her predecessor helped lift some Mexicans from poverty, 36% of the population is still poor, with 7% living in extreme poverty.
Recent developments in domestic politics in Mexico have spooked some investors. Business groups have criticized an ongoing plan to overhaul Mexico’s justice system, which some say will undermine the independence of judges.
In Mexico and much of Latin America, poverty has a direct link to immigration. A severe recession in Mexico in the 1990s contributed to some 5 million Mexicans immigrating to the U.S.
Times staff writer Don Lee contributed to this report.
Walmart is rapidly expanding its network of electric vehicle chargers designed for customers to use while they shop.
The network could help fill gaps in EV infrastructure in states with greater need for chargers. Walmart, which has more than 5,000 locations in the U.S. and hundreds in California, says more than 90% of Americans live within 10 miles of one of its stores.
The chargers also offer an incentive for customers to choose Walmart — Walmart Plus members will receive a 10% discount off an average price of $0.46 per kilowatt-hour of energy at the company’s chargers.
Walmart chargers are already available at more than 75 locations in 17 states, with Texas boasting the most charging stations, followed by Florida and Arizona.
Matthew Nelson, Walmart’s director of energy policy, said last week on LinkedIn that the network will soon reach 29 states, including California.
“We are delivering on the promise of affordable, reliable and convenient charging,” Nelson said in his post.
According to Walmart’s website, six charging stations are coming to California soon, though the company did not offer a specific timeline.
The chargers will be installed at stores in Antelope, Brea, Fresno, Stockton, Suisun City and Vallejo.
Most charging sites in California will include eight to 16 fast-charging stalls, said Walmart spokesperson Kelsey Bohl.
The company first announced plans in April 2023 to install its own EV chargers at Walmart and Sam’s Club stores, with a goal of installing thousands of chargers by 2030. Partnering with ABB E-Mobility and Alpitronic, it added 25 new charging sites this past May and six more in June.
“Walmart is building a leading retail-integrated EV fast-charging network, focused on delivering an affordable, reliable and convenient charging experience where customers already shop,” Bohl said in an emailed statement. “Customers can charge while they shop, access stations through the Walmart app they already use, and benefit from affordable pricing.”
The charging stations already available include 612 individual charging stalls using 400-kilowatt chargers. Each stall has a dual charging cord with both Combined Charging System and North American Charging Standard connectors. The standard connectors, designed by Tesla, are smaller and lighter than the combined systems.
The primary way to pay for the chargers is through the Walmart app, but the company is also experimenting with built-in credit card readers to allow those without the app to use the stations.
Customers can check charger availability on the Walmart app. The company said the chargers will be available 24 hours a day.
Robotaxis could be turning into robocops.
A self-driving Waymo reported two teens to San Mateo, Calif., police on Monday after they were found drinking alcohol and shooting toy guns in the back of the vehicle.
According to a social media post from the San Mateo Police Department, officers detained two 15-year-olds after the Waymo they were riding in contacted the department and stopped in a parking lot until law enforcement arrived.
“Parents do you know where your teens are?” the San Mateo Police Department wrote on Facebook following the incident. “Waymo does!”
Officers removed both teens from the vehicle and determined they were using toy guns to shoot Orbeez out the windows. Orbeez are small, water-absorbing beads sold at toy stores.
“Toy guns, water guns, and BB guns all pose real dangers, especially to an untrained eye,” the Police Department said. “The simple handling of them can cause fear in [passersby].” “
A video posted on Facebook shows at least five officers and a police dog responding to the scene and approaching the Waymo with their weapons raised.
Waymo did not immediately respond to a request for comment.
Waymo vehicles have internal cameras and microphones that may be used in an emergency or to “promote safety and security,” according to Waymo’s online support page.
The cameras are also used to ensure the vehicles are clean and to help find lost items, according to the support page.
The company said it does not use facial recognition or other biometric identification technologies to identify individuals.
“In more urgent circumstances, support may access live video during a trip,” the Waymo page said.
The San Mateo Police Department’s Facebook post has garnered nearly 60 comments, with one user accusing Waymo of “snitching.”
“At least they got a designated driver?!” one user commented.
Business
Commentary: How right-wing anti-transgender attacks led to a Supreme Court ruling upholding sex discrimination
At the Supreme Court, the unfounded fear of boys masquerading as girls in youth sports rolled the clock back on gender equality.
On the surface, the Supreme Court’s June 30 opinion upholding state laws barring transgender girls from women’s and girl’s sports teams looks like a victory for women’s rights.
The 6-3 opinion by Justice Brett M. Kavanaugh certainly presents itself that way. “Females and males have inherent physical differences relevant to athletic performance,” Kavanaugh wrote. “Therefore, in contact sports, forcing female athletes to compete against males can create significant safety risks.” He also asserted that “forcing female athletes to compete against males can undermine competitive fairness.”
The ruling applied to prohibitions enacted in Idaho and West Virginia against “biological” males’ participation on women’s teams in public schools. Federal judges in both states overturned the bans. The Supreme Court majority restored them. The ruling essentially upholds similar bans enacted in 25 other states.
There was no record of any transgender person participating in school sports in the State, let alone any ‘problem’ with transgender students … creating unfair competition or unsafe conditions.
— Justice Sonia Sotomayor, demolishing the Supreme Court’s argument in favor of banning transgender girls from girl’s sports
Kavanaugh, like Donald Trump and others in the anti-transgender camp, maintained that one’s gender is an immutable fact of life, established even before birth.
Anything else, Trump stated in an executive order he issued on inauguration day 2025, could only be the product of “gender ideology extremism.” The U.S., his order stated, recognizes “two sexes, male and female. These sexes are not changeable and are grounded in fundamental and incontrovertible reality.” That’s a “biological truth,” he declared.
In his own version of this overconfident and factually insupportable conclusion, Kavanaugh wrote: “As all agree, females and males have inherent physical differences relevant to athletic performance.”
Science recognizes that some people are “born with sex traits that don’t fit into typical male or female patterns,” to cite a discussion on the Cleveland Clinic web page on the topic “intersex.” The condition “may involve chromosomes, hormones, reproductive organs or genitals.”
From a psychological standpoint, medical science recognizes “gender dysphoria” as a real condition often requiring counseling and medical intervention such as the use of puberty blockers and hormones to stave off the development of secondary sex characteristics until the condition can be resolved.
No one disputes that there are physical differences between the sexes. Few would dispute that on average or even at the median, males may be bigger and more powerful than females, or that in certain contact sports the difference may be telling and on occasion dangerous.
But that’s not the same as asserting that the physical differences between males and females invariably mean that men will invariably prevail over women in all competitions or that their participation will endanger women.
The International Olympic Committee — in a policy statement Kavanaugh cited incompletely — says that in “most running and swimming events,” males have a 10% to 12% advantage over women. That’s a range that would accommodate the full spectrum of outcomes — transgender females win, cisfemales win, they tie. (The “cis” prefix denotes those living consistent with their birth gender.)
West Virginia and Idaho addressed this ambiguity by banning transgender women from all girls’ teams. So under their rules transgender girls can’t play football or soccer with cisgirls. But what’s the argument in favor of banning them from the 100-yard dash, or cross-country track, or diving, or archery?
But something else is going on here. The Supreme Court’s ruling was almost preordained, given the years-long campaign by conservatives to demonize transgender individuals as if they’re members of an alien species.
It will be recalled that during his presidential campaign, Trump spun a despicable fantasy in which children were kidnapped in school and secretly subjected to sex-change operations.
Trump’s executive order wiped out policies aimed at protecting transgender adults from discrimination. He moved to outlaw gender-affirming medical therapies for anyone under 19 by cutting off federal funding for healthcare institutions that provide such care.
He banned transgender individuals from serving in the military and ordered federal prison officials to move transgender inmates into the general populations consistent with their birth genders, which exposes them to physical assault. (Federal Judge Royce Lamberth of Washington, D.C., has blocked the government from transferring three transgender women into the male prison population or terminating their hormone treatments.)
I wrote during Trump’s first term, when his anti-transgender policies were still gestating, that the goal was to show that “one can target any community, as long as it doesn’t have a strong political voice or political power. These are the actions of bullies and cowards, pretending to be strong.”
Last year, the Supreme Court struck its first blow against transgender rights by upholding a Tennessee law banning transgender care, including puberty blockers and hormone therapy, for minors. Similar laws have been enacted in 25 other states. The majority in that ruling by Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. was identical to the one in the June 30 ruling — Roberts, Kavanaugh, and Justices Clarence Thomas, Samuel A. Alito Jr., Neil M. Gorsuch and Amy Coney Barrett.
Who are the targets of this ideological campaign? They number only about 1.6 million U.S. adults, or one-half of 1% of the U.S. population. About 300,000 adolescents ages 13 to 17, or 1.4%, identify as transgender, according to a study by UCLA School of Law.
In West Virginia, as Justice Sonia Sotomayor observed in her dissenting opinion, “there was no record of any transgender person participating in school sports in the State, let along any ‘problem’ with transgender students … creating unfair competition or unsafe conditions.”
In endorsing the flat bans directed at transgender women in Idaho and West Virginia, Kavanaugh argued that any attempt to implement case-by-case judgments of students’ requests to join sports teams inconsistent with their biological gender would create “an enormous practical and administrability problem.”
Is that so? That wasn’t the case in Maine, where the annual K-12 population is more than 170,000. There, a committee was charged with determining whether a student’s participation in a sport consistent with their gender identity but inconsistent with their biological sex would “result in an unfair athletic advantage” or present a risk of injury to others. The committee held 56 hearings from 2013 through 2021, or an average of seven per year. During the entire time span, only four involved transgender girls. (The outcome of those hearings couldn’t be learned.)
It was Maine’s policy, one might recall, that provoked a confrontation between Trump and Maine Gov. Janet Mills at the White House last year, when Trump threatened to withhold federal funding from the state unless it barred transgender students from competing on women’s sports teams. “We’ll see you in court,” Mills snapped.
Whether the Idaho and West Virginia laws genuinely protect girls from unfair competition is questionable. (The Idaho law is styled the “Fairness in Women’s Sports Act.”) In practice, the laws may subject women in public schools to “invasive sex verification procedures,” as educational expert George Theoharis of Syracuse University wrote after the court ruling.
They’re also based on a retrograde view of women as fragile creatures needing men’s protection, Theoharis wrote — “the same logic that has historically been used to justify excluding women from making their own healthcare decisions and girls from rigorous math and science; that physically demanding work is simply beyond them.” (There don’t appear to be any state laws barring transgender women from competing in men’s sports.)
Becky Pepper-Jackson, the plaintiff in the West Virginia case, in which she is identified only as B.P.J., is the only transgender girl who sought to join girl’s teams — track and cross-country — in the state. That was in 2021, just after West Virginia passed its law and she was about to enter sixth grade. She didn’t appear to pose any competitive risk to others on the track and cross-country teams she applied to join — her lawyers told the Supreme Court that on those no-cut teams, she “came in near the back.”
Anyway, she had not gone through male puberty, which theoretically might have endowed her with a competitive advantage, because she had been taking puberty blockers and female hormones.
Thanks to the court’s ruling, Sotomayor observed in a dissent joined by Justices Elena Kagan and Ketanji Brown Jackson, West Virginia can deny Becky access to school sports “because it thinks they have an inherent athletic advantage, even if the facts show that they do not.”
B.P.J., Sotomayor wrote, “cannot practice on girls’ teams, even if she would not take anyone’s spot in an eventual competition, even if everyone who tries out for the team makes it, and even if having the chance to participate could aid immensely in treating B. P. J.’s gender dysphoria.”
So whose interest was really protected by the Supreme Court?
-
New Hampshire3 minutes agoNew hampshire set to approve world’s first $100 million bitcoin-backed municipal bond
-
New Jersey6 minutes agoPolice conclude investigation at Walmart in Cherry Hill, officials say
-
New Mexico11 minutes agoMonsoon high shifts slightly west but rain is still possible Wednesday in New Mexico
-
North Carolina18 minutes agoNorth Carolina Republican operative shaping the state’s early voting plans is reassigned
-
North Dakota21 minutes agoWest Fargo Attorney Chosen for North Dakota Ethics Commission Position
-
Ohio26 minutes agoJeff’s Donuts opens first Ohio location, open 24 hours
-
Oklahoma33 minutes ago5 Things To Know: Oklahoma County inmate death, deadly OKC hit-and-run
-
Oregon36 minutes agoOregon to ask court to delay Paramount deal for 60 days while it reviews records
