Claudia Sheinbaum, the president of Mexico, is praised for her ability to remain composed in the face of the impetuous US president. She isn’t cut out to be an anti-Trump symbol, though.

It is a very revealing letter to Donald Trump. The US president faces threats that “seven billion consumers are ready to replace their iPhones with Samsung or Huawei devices in less than 42 hours.” It continues with the arrogant assertion that Xcaret theme park in Mexico is a superior option to Disney anyway, and that none of the Wonders of the World are situated in the United States. “Best regards, Sheinbaum, Claudia. Mexico’s president.

It’s tempting to think that the sly David of Mexico might defeat the stomping giant of the United States. The president of Mexico, the Greek goddess of balanced justice and punishing human folly, is Trump’s archenemy.

Given that Sheinbaum is a woman, a professional physicist, a former member of the UN panel of climate experts, and ideologically left-wing, she embodies everything Trump finds objectionable. The tale is too fantastic to be true, and the letter is phoney.

On the surface, Sheinbaum seems to be able to compete with Trump, unlike previous regional heads of state. Threats and his tariff bullying don’t readily deter her. She frequently dampens Hurricane Trump’s spirits with her stoic mantra of “Plans A, B, and C,” which she keeps in the drawer but won’t reveal for a few days. Usually, this leads to a phone conversation or the dispatch of a delegation to Washington, where a “deal” is eventually reached between the neighbouring nations.

This is in contrast to individuals who, while high on adrenaline, dare to start a dwarf rebellion and then, a few hours later, docilely crawl to the cross. Consider President Gustavo Petro of Colombia, who threatened X with 50% counter-tariffs during a long, poetic-historical tirade, but was compelled to back down a few hours later due to pressure from entrepreneurs. Or President Xiomara Castro of Honduras, who called a meeting on the anti-Trump crisis in Latin America but called it off a day later because of little interest.

Compared to the fawning of the Latin American Trump fan club, which is led by President Nayib Bukele of El Salvador, Sheinbaum’s cordial distance from Trump—they periodically talk on the phone and give each other phoney exaggerated praise—seems more respectable and professional.

He promoted his maximum-security jail for deported migrants at a reduced cost while taking corny sunset pictures at a volcanic lake with his “friend”, US Secretary of State Marco Rubio. Or Daniel Noboa, the president of Ecuador, a billionaire’s son who attended US colleges and has direct access to Trump’s MAGA team. In defiance of his own constitution, Noboa enthusiastically volunteered to re-establish US military installations.

But is Sheinbaum more successful than its Latin American neighbours? At first glance, not so much. Trump’s reciprocal punitive tariffs are ultimately distributed fairly evenly across Latin America – no matter how ingratiating or rebellious the heads of state behave. Ten percent for El Salvador , Colombia and Argentina, as well as for Ecuador and Brazil.

A uniform special regulation applies to the free trade partners Mexico and Canada (which has reacted much more harshly than Sheinbaum with retaliatory tariffs and boycotts of US products). ): The free trade agreement (USMCA) and duty-free market access for goods manufactured in North America remain in force, but a 25 percent tariff is imposed on steel and aluminium, as well as cars and products that do not meet the USMCA rules of origin.

In any case, tariffs are not the appropriate metric to assess a nation’s effectiveness in handling Trump. They are only a tool to achieve a goal. Trump is worried about world politics. Control of natural resources (oil, rare earths, lithium) and strategic infrastructure (the Panama Canal, US military sites, for instance, on the Galapagos Islands in the centre of the Chinese-dominated Pacific) are his objectives.

He is focused on protecting the threatened US hegemony in the area and limiting China (no Chinese 5G networks). The criminalisation of migration and the militarisation of internal security in Latin America under US authority, both under the guise of combating crime, are components of this approach.

And that’s precisely where Sheinbaum made many concessions: she extradited 29 drug lords to the US – more than ever before. She sent 10,000 National Guardsmen to hunt migrants along the shared border, which is now militarised on both sides (that’s the Mexican wall that Trump likes to talk about), dismantled fentanyl labs at record speed (the existence of which the Mexican government denied until recently), and wrested control of security policy from the ineffective military, which the uniformed troops had held since 2006.

She approved the overflight of US spy drones and granted 120 US elite soldiers permission to conduct joint exercises in Mexico. All of this is a clear reversal from the course of her predecessor and political mentor, Andrés Manuel López Obrador. He had deeply alienated the US government when he expelled the DEA from the country and suspended the fight against the cartels.

Under Sheinbaum, Washington controls immigration policy and has a say in how the security plan is developed. The US will probably become considerably more influential. Trump has hung a sword of Damocles by labelling Mexican cartels terrorist groups.

Individuals, businesses, or even politicians who are suspected of working with cartels are now subject to sanctions or even swift abduction, as was the case with Mayo Zambada, the long-time leader of the Sinaloa cartel, who was tricked by US agents last year without the Mexican government’s knowledge and flown out of the country.

Some Republican lawmakers in the US claim that US military actions on Mexican territory in the battle against terrorism are now acceptable; Mexico vehemently opposes these actions.

Sheinbaum is putting on a brave face, as her leeway with the Trump administration is minimal. Over 80 percent of Mexican exports go to the United States, and a tariff war would not only be an economic catastrophe, but would also jeopardise the free trade agreement and the entire Mexican model as an extension of US industry. Mexico’s president also has no trump cards to play with: the Mexican economy wasn’t doing particularly well even before Trump.

Left-wing populist López Obrador has plundered the state coffers with expensive prestige projects and clientelistic social programmes and scared off investment with anti-business reforms. This year, recession or stagflation threatens. Furthermore, part of the budget is being lost to the notoriously loss-making state-run oil company Pemex or is being diverted by corrupt politicians into their own pockets or into local election campaigns. Sheinbaum is still popular: According to polls, over 70 percent approve of her work. But that could quickly change if the economy tanks and poverty increases.

Sheinbaum is currently juggling: in domestic policy, she is seeking to join forces with the business community and the opposition, choosing strong words for the people that appeal to nationalism. In foreign policy, she acts as a technocrat who argues with facts and seeks dialogue. This is a constant balancing act for the 60-year-old .

While there is no longer any significant opposition in Mexico, she is in a difficult position within her own left-wing coalition movement, Morena. She took over almost half of her cabinet from López Obrador. His son holds an important position in the party and is already being touted as a possible successor. Some key figures in the governing coalition are pursuing their own agenda and sabotaging the president’s plans – such as a recent law to combat nepotism, the passage of which was postponed until the distant future.

It is also untrue to say that Sheinbaum is Trump’s democratic-progressive opponent. She shares the US president’s and her predecessor’s desire for hegemony rather than democracy. She incites hostility towards opponents and discredits opposition media. She minimises the nation’s human rights issue, accepts corruption in return for political allegiance, and, like Trump, enjoys playing with “different numbers”.

But when it comes to destroying democracy, Trump can still take a cue from Sheinbaum: she has eliminated independent institutions and consolidated them under the executive branch, such as the Election Commission, the Competition Commission, and the Transparency Commission, by using procedural means to gain a two-thirds majority in Congress.

It is forcing individuals to turn to private service providers and draining the state’s healthcare and education institutions. Additionally, beginning in the middle of the year, federal judges will be chosen by the public after a pre-selection procedure in the Morena-dominated Congress, rather than being chosen and promoted based on ability tests.

As has long been the norm in political struggle, critics view this as a de facto coordination of powers and warn of a possible organised crime takeover of the court, whether through unlawful campaign finance or the targeted killing of unpopular candidates.

Sheinbaum is neither a model democratic president nor a nemesis, despite what her popularity, party membership, theoretical authority, and propaganda machinery may indicate. Mexico’s future is entirely unpredictable, and her position of power is precarious both domestically and in relation to the United States.