On Friday, the Supreme Court of the United States ruled, by a 6–3 vote, that the tariffs imposed by Donald Trump under the argument of an “economic emergency” are not legal. This decision does not invalidate all the tariffs Trump has promoted through other channels, but it clearly affects those announced on that famous “Liberation Day,” which caused nothing but problems.
In any case, Trump reacted as he always does. He called a press conference and disqualified the six justices who voted against him—as if he belonged to Mexico’s 4T. He then announced that he would impose a 10% tariff using Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. This was a measure designed for that decade, when economies were emerging from fixed exchange-rate regimes and the risk of a serious balance-of-payments deficit was not minor. That situation does not exist today; in fact, the United States has no deficit in that indicator. Therefore, it is not applicable. But Trump is Trump.
Worse still, on Saturday he realized that with this new tariff he would be collecting less than before, and he decided to raise it to 15%. Yale’s Budget Lab had already calculated that, with the Court’s ruling and Trump’s reaction, the impact of the tariffs would be cut in half—in terms of revenue, but also inflation, which is not a bad idea. But, as I said, Trump is Trump.
When Trump arbitrarily raised tariffs on the entire world on Liberation Day, he triggered a market disaster that forced him to correct course in less than a week. That earned him the nickname TACO (Trump Always Chickens Out), which some have since tried to replace with FAFO (Fuck Around until You Find Out). We already know this is his modus operandi: threaten in order to extract more in negotiation. That may be useful in the New York real estate business in which he was formed, but it is not in other arenas, especially international affairs.
Since April 3, the dollar has depreciated 10%, with a couple of recent nudges—his speech in Davos and his Friday tantrum. That actually helps him, because it functions as a general 10% tariff, and therefore he would not even need to do what he did. But he does not like to lose. It is not clear to me how American voters—who are the ones that matter—will receive this. Many dislike seeing a politician refuse to comply with the law (as López did during that impeachment process that was never concluded in time). Many others have embraced the idea of “lawfare”: that Trump is the victim of the legal system being used to stop him. In this post-truth world, there is everything.
In any case, the Court has shown it is not at his service, and I believe that is what bothers him most, because he trusted that his six nominees (or close allies) would grant him whatever he wanted. For American democracy, this is great news. But courts move slowly, and Trump’s new decision—which is clearly illegal—lasts 150 days, and only then would it have to be ratified by Congress. In 150 days we will be in the thick of the primaries, and they will ratify nothing. He will surely attempt some other legal trick—as they call such maneuvers here—to continue the same course. But I have the impression that by the summer, when that time expires, we will be discussing other matters.
The force the United States has amassed against Iran does not seem intended for negotiation. Iran, for its part, has continued pretending. Now Saudi Arabia has returned to its old position and prefers aligning with Iran against Israel. The probability of an attack grows by the day, and if it occurs, its objective will have to be the fall of the ayatollah regime. We have commented several times that this would be a very hard blow to Putin, who has little left. He has already lost Syria, his presence in the Sahel, a million Russians in four years of a fruitless invasion of Ukraine, and without Iran he will lack the capacity to continue that invasion. For that reason, I have no idea how he would react if a U.S.–Israeli attack occurs, as seems highly probable.
Iran has threatened to attack U.S. bases, and Israel, together with all its allies—now perhaps including Saudi Arabia (Qatar, I believe, was already assured). This is not something comparable to Venezuela; it is many times larger, with the potential to escalate greatly. I even think we must consider the possibility that China might seize the opportunity to take Taiwan. In short, if a World War is possible, this is it—and it could be only hours away.
In Mexico, we cannot expect a Court to restrain presidential actions, because the Judiciary has ceased to exist. Consequently, I believe the best we can do is try to build political counterweights. That is why I have helped create Somos México, and I share here the article that El Financiero will publish tomorrow:
Somos México
Macario Schettino
Building a political party in Mexico is extremely complicated. When we transitioned to democracy in the 1996 reform, parties did not want to broaden competition and established very difficult requirements. It was also then that the PRI insisted on the “governability clause,” reflected in an eight-point overrepresentation that, over time, served Morena and its allies to carry out the 2024 coup d’état.
No human system is perfect, and our electoral system has its deficiencies—or had them, because now it is worse, and the government threatens total destruction through an electoral reform that interests only them. However, the revealed preferences of Mexican voters suggest that at least half are seeking other options. Building them is necessary.
This Saturday, the Founding Assembly of Somos México took place. With this, the organization fulfilled all legal requirements to form a political party. It held 390 district assemblies (there are only 300 districts, but in some there were several attempts), and met the minimum of 300 affiliates per assembly in 246 districts. Additionally, the law requires a minimum total number of affiliates (which some existing parties likely would not meet). Somos México far exceeded that number, registering more than 300,000 people nationwide.
For some reason, the INE discounted several of those districts and recognized only 205 on the very day of the assembly, in response to which Somos México announced legal appeals. In any case, the minimum requirement was met, and the assembly was held with the acknowledgment of the INE’s executive official in Mexico City.
Even though these enormous requirements—unmatched in other countries—have already been fulfilled, registration of the new party must await approval by the INE and the Electoral Tribunal. This is no minor matter. It has happened before that organizations meeting all criteria were blocked with all sorts of excuses. The construction of Somos México has carefully attended to every detail to prevent this, so if it happens, it will simply be another case in the authoritarian drift we face.
Somos México is the convergence of very diverse groups. At the beginning, older people predominated, but this has been gradually corrected with increasing participation from younger groups. A significant proportion of people once affiliated with or close to the PRD remains noticeable. This too has changed, with a growing number from the PAN or PRI, but especially with greater participation from civil society groups and, as mentioned, young people without political experience.
I have participated indirectly throughout this process and have been invited to join the Citizen Advisory Council of Somos México. The idea is to create an internal, citizen counterweight to prevent the natural tendency of parties to close themselves off. We shall see whether it works.
For me, the creation of this new party is very important because, as we have commented on several occasions, we need civic tools—whether for elections or for the not improbable case of a collapse of the group in power that would require intervention from different sectors of society to prevent that collapse from being followed by national disintegration. It is no small matter, and I insist that it is not improbable.
This great effort of political construction should be celebrated and defended against attempts from the government to nullify it. For them as well, having Somos México as an adversary is a blessing, as one of the sayings attributed to Reyes Heroles goes: “What resists, supports.” Sustaining Mexico requires real opposition. That is Somos México. Welcome.