The second round of negotiations between Mexico and the United States on the joint review of the USMCA is scheduled to begin on June 15 and will include the agricultural sector this time.
The United States’ goal is to reduce the agricultural and food trade deficit it has had with Mexico since 2015, which has continued to grow, reaching $18.4 billion in 2024 and $13.2 billion in 2025.
During the early years of NAFTA, Mexico ran a trade deficit, but the increase in exports of fruits, vegetables, and alcoholic beverages changed the equation.
In 2025, Mexico imported $30.6 billion worth of essential food products from the United States, primarily staple grains and meat. Corn is the main imported crop, accounting for $6.5 billion.
Mexico exported $43.8 billion worth of luxury goods to the United States for its elites. Beer accounted for $6 billion; tequila, $4.8 billion; avocados, $3.2 billion; raspberries and strawberries, $1 billion each; tomatoes, $2.3 billion; and bell peppers, $1.6 billion.
This agro-export model, which the Mexican government promotes as a success, consists of exports by foreign companies located in Mexico, taking advantage of the climate, water, land, cheap labor, tax subsidies, and so on. Thus, the beer is owned by Belgian and Dutch companies; tequila is owned by British and U.S. companies. The main avocado exporters are U.S. companies such as Mission Produce and Calavo. In the case of blackberries, Driscoll’s, a U.S. company, ranks first in exports from Mexico to the United States. Both bell peppers and tomatoes are exported by U.S. brokers such as NatureSweet—the largest greenhouse agriculture company in North America—and Bioparques de Occidente, an agro-industrial giant that exports through its commercial arm, Kaliroy Fresh.
Thus, the exports that President Trump wants to combat are those of foreign companies—primarily American ones—located in Mexico.
President Trump’s administration is convinced of the risks posed by unrestricted trade—such as dependence on imports—which is why it has set out to regulate them through tariffs and remains a staunch critic of what it calls “hyperglobalization.”
In this context, a U.S. Agricultural Coalition for the USMCA—composed of the beneficiaries of free trade, including powerful national producer organizations for corn, barley, sunflowers, rice, soybeans, oilseeds, pork, poultry, turkey, milk, and eggs, as well as associations representing seed companies, mills, bioproducts, agricultural credit, energy, ethanol producers, and CropLife—which brings together companies that produce genetically modified seeds—expressed their support for the renewal of the USMCA and argued that the agreement facilitated the export of $12 billion worth of grains and oilseeds to Mexico in 2024. They maintain that these benefits “…are due to a trade approach that puts U.S. interests first in relations with our closest partners.”
From the Mexican side, the exclusion of campesino and farmer organizations from the negotiations is evident. Unlike what occurred during the neoliberal Salinas administration, when NAFTA was negotiated—when the 11 peasant organizations (official, independent, or autonomous) that made up the Permanent Agrarian Congress participated in the so-called “backroom”— in addition to private farmers’ organizations. Currently, the only organization participating in the “backroom” is the National Agricultural Council, composed of corporate producers, input and agricultural service providers, agro-industrial firms, and agribusinesses.
The National Agricultural Council and its affiliates formed a Mexican Coalition for the USMCA, which joined forces with the U.S. and Canadian coalitions. Without making distinctions between winners and losers, they argue that North America is the region with the highest level of food security in the world and propose maintaining and expanding the USMCA for the benefit of the entire food and agricultural sector.
Meanwhile, the National Front for the Rescue of the Mexican Countryside, made up of campesino and farmer organizations from various states, maintains that one of its main demands is to remove staple grains from the USMCA. It argues that the treaty favors transnational corporations over food producers and that, as a result, the United States is taking over a market that belongs to Mexicans. Despite the massive protests, their voice is not being heard.
*Director of the Center for Studies on Change in the Mexican Countryside
Original text by Ana de Ita published in La Jornada on June 15th, 2026.
Translation by Schools for Chiapas.