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.
Business
Nike to Cut 1,400 Jobs as Part of Its Turnaround Plan
Nike is cutting about 1,400 jobs in its operations division, mostly from its technology department, the company said Thursday.
In a note to employees, Venkatesh Alagirisamy, the chief operating officer of Nike, said that management was nearly done reorganizing the business for its turnaround plan, and that the goal was to operate with “more speed, simplicity and precision.”
“This is not a new direction,” Mr. Alagirisamy told employees. “It is the next phase of the work already underway.”
Nike, the world’s largest sportswear company, is trying to recover after missteps led to a prolonged sales slump, in which the brand leaned into lifestyle products and away from performance shoes and apparel. Elliott Hill, the chief executive, has worked to realign the company around sports and speed up product development to create more breakthrough innovations.
In March, Nike told investors that it expected sales to fall this year, with growth in North America offset by poor performance in Asia, where the brand is struggling to rejuvenate sales in China. Executives said at the time that more volatility brought on by the war in the Middle East and rising oil prices might continue to affect its business.
The reorganization has involved cuts across many parts of the organization, including at its headquarters in Beaverton, Ore. Nike slashed some corporate staff last year and eliminated nearly 800 jobs at distribution centers in January.
“You never want to have to go through any sort of layoffs, but to re-center the company, we’re doing some of that,” Mr. Hill said in an interview earlier this year.
Mr. Alagirisamy told employees that Nike was reshaping its technology team and centering employees at its headquarters and a tech center in Bengaluru, India. The layoffs will affect workers across North America, Europe and Asia.
The cuts will also affect staffing in Nike’s factories for Air, the company’s proprietary cushioning system. Employees who work on the supply chain for raw materials will also experience changes as staff is integrated into footwear and apparel teams.
Nike’s Converse brand, which has struggled for years to revive sales, will move some of its engineering resources closer to the factories they support, the company said.
Mr. Alagirisamy said the moves were necessary to optimize Nike’s supply chain, deploy technology faster and bolster relationships with suppliers.
Business
Senate committee kills bill mandating insurance coverage for wildfire safe homes
A bill that would have required insurers to offer coverage to homeowners who take steps to reduce wildfire risk on their property died in the Legislature.
The Senate Insurance Committee on Monday voted down the measure, SB 1076, one of the most ambitious bills spurred by the devastating January 2025 wildfires.
The vote came despite fire victims and others rallying at the state Capitol in support of the measure, authored by state Sen. Sasha Renée Pérez (D-Pasadena), whose district includes the Eaton fire zone.
The Insurance Coverage for Fire-Safe Homes Act originally would have required insurers to offer and renew coverage for any home that meets wildfire-safety standards adopted by the insurance commissioner starting Jan. 1, 2028.
It also threatened insurers with a five-year ban from the sale of home or auto insurance if they did not comply, though it allowed for exceptions.
However, faced with strong opposition from the insurance industry, Pérez had agreed to amend the bill so it would have established community-wide pilot projects across the state to better understand the most effective way to limit property and insurance losses from wildfires.
Insurers would have had to offer four years of coverage to homeowners in successful pilot projects.
Denni Ritter, a vice president of the American Property Casualty Insurance Assn., told the committee that her trade group opposed the bill.
“While we appreciate the intent behind those conversations, those concepts do not remove our opposition, because they retain the same core flaw — substituting underwriting judgment and solvency safeguards with a statutory mandate to accept risk,” she said.
In voting against the bill Sen. Laura Richardson, (D-San Pedro), said: “Last I heard, in the United States, we don’t require any company to do anything. That’s the difference between capitalism and communism, frankly.”
The remarks against the measure prompted committee Chair Sen. Steve Padilla, (D-Chula Vista), to chastise committee members in opposition.
“I’m a little perturbed, and I’m a little disappointed, because you have someone who is trying to work with industry, who is trying to get facts and data,” he said.
Monday’s vote was the fourth time a bill that would have required insurers to offer coverage to so-called “fire hardened” homes failed in the Legislature since 2020, according to an analysis by insurance committee staff.
Fire hardening includes measures such as cutting back brush, installing fire resistant roofs and closing eaves to resist fire embers.
Pérez’s legislation was thought to have a better chance of passage because it followed the most catastrophic wildfires in U.S. history, which damaged or destroyed more than 18,000 structures and killed 31 people.
The bill was co-sponsored by the Los Angeles advocacy group Consumer Watchdog and Every Fire Survivor’s Network, a community group founded in Altadena after the fires formerly called the Eaton Fire Survivors Network.
But it also had broad support from groups such as the California Apartment Association, the California Nurses Association and California Environmental Voters.
Leading up to the fires, many insurers, citing heightened fire risk, had dropped policyholders in fire-prone neighorhoods. That forced them onto the California FAIR Plan, the state’s insurer of last resort, which offers limited but costly policies.
A Times analysis found that that in the Palisades and Eaton fire zones, the FAIR Plan’s rolls from 2020 to 2024 nearly doubled from 14,272 to 28,440. Mandating coverage has been seen as a way of reducing FAIR Plan enrollment.
“I’m disappointed this bill died in committee. Fire survivors deserved better,” Pérez said in a statement .
Also failing Monday in the committee was SB 982, a bill authored by Sen. Scott Wiener, (D-San Francisco). It would have authorized California’s attorney general to sue fossil fuel companies to recover losses from climate-induced disasters. It was opposed by the oil and gas industry.
Passing the committee were two other Pérez bills. SB 877 requires insurers to provide more transparency in the claims process. SB 878 imposes a penalty on insurers who don’t make claims payments on time.
Another bill, SB 1301, authored by insurance commissioner candidate Sen. Ben Allen, (D-Pacific Palisades), also passed. It protects policyholders from unexplained and abrupt policy non-renewals.
Business
How We Cover the White House Correspondents’ Dinner
Times Insider explains who we are and what we do, and delivers behind-the-scenes insights into how our journalism comes together.
Politicians in Washington and the reporters who cover them have an often adversarial relationship.
But on the last Saturday in April, they gather for an irreverent celebration of press freedom and the First Amendment at the Washington Hilton Hotel: The White House Correspondents’ Association dinner.
Hosted by the association, an organization that helps ensure access for media outlets covering the presidency, the dinner attracts Hollywood stars; politicians from both parties; and representatives of more than 100 networks, newspapers, magazines and wire services.
While The Times will have two reporters in the ballroom covering the event, the company no longer buys seats at the party, said Richard W. Stevenson, the Washington bureau chief. The decision goes back almost two decades; the last dinner The Times attended as an organization was in 2007.
“We made a judgment back then that the event had become too celebrity-focused and was undercutting our need to demonstrate to readers that we always seek to maintain a proper distance from the people we cover, many of whom attend as guests,” he said.
It’s a decision, he added, that “we have stuck by through both Republican and Democratic administrations, although we support the work of the White House Correspondents’ Association.”
Susan Wessling, The Times’s Standards editor, said the policy is a product of the organization’s desire to maintain editorial independence.
“We don’t want to leave readers with any questions about our independence and credibility by seeming to be overly friendly with people whose words and actions we need to report on,” she said.
The celebrity mentalist Oz Pearlman is headlining the evening, in lieu of the usual comedy set by the likes of Stephen Colbert and Hasan Minhaj, but all eyes will be on President Trump, who will make his first appearance at the dinner as president.
Mr. Trump has boycotted the event since 2011, when he was the butt of punchlines delivered by President Barack Obama and the talk show host Seth Meyers mocking his hair, his reality TV show and his preoccupation with the “birther” movement.
Last month, though, Mr. Trump, who has a contentious relationship with the media, announced his intention to attend this year’s dinner, where he will speak to a room full of the same reporters he often derides as “enemies of the people.”
Times reporters will be there to document the highs, the lows and the reactions in the room. A reporter for the Styles desk has also been assigned to cover the robust roster of after-parties around Washington.
Some off-duty reporters from The Times will also be present at this late-night circuit, though everyone remains cognizant of their roles, said Patrick Healy, The Times’s assistant managing editor for Standards and Trust.
“If they’re reporting, there’s a notebook or recorder out as usual,” he said. “If they’re not, they’re pros who know they’re always identifiable as Times journalists.”
For most of The Times’s reporters and editors, though, the evening will be experienced from home.
“The rest of us will be able to follow the coverage,” Mr. Stevenson said, “without having to don our tuxes or gowns.”
-
Pennsylvania6 minutes agoDemocrat Josh Shapiro tests political muscle in swing-state Pennsylvania’s midterms
-
Rhode Island12 minutes agoSilver Alert issued for missing man in Cumberland, RI
-
South-Carolina18 minutes agoTwo from South Carolina charged with murder after Massachusetts man found dead in trash can
-
South Dakota24 minutes ago
SD Lottery Millionaire for Life winning numbers for April 23, 2026
-
Tennessee30 minutes agoAlabama Baseball Capitalizes on Free Passes in 12-8 Win Over Tennessee
-
Texas36 minutes agoTexas attorney raises concerns as investigation continues into 2 home explosions on North Side
-
Utah42 minutes agoUtah road rage cases peak in March, data shows
-
Vermont48 minutes agoFederal reclassification of marijuana could ‘turbocharge’ Vermont’s medical market – VTDigger