SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
To donate by check, phone, or other method, see our More Ways to Give page.
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
New report reveals how U.S. agricultural dumping has led to lost income for Mexican farmers, increased dependency on imports for food staples and high import costs with today’s high prices
Today, a new report from the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy’s Timothy A. Wise documents how the United States’ practice of agricultural dumping of cheap exports into Mexico has hampered the Mexican government’s efforts to improve food self-sufficiency. From 2014 to 2020, the U.S. exported corn and wheat at prices 10% and 27% below what it cost to produce them. Collectively, Mexican corn farmers lost $3.8 billion in value for their crop, while wheat farmers lost $2.1 billion. At a time when the Mexican government is seeking to decrease dependence on key staple foods, such practices undermine efforts to stimulate domestic production.
Prior to the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), Mexico was nearly self-sufficient in corn, importing just 7% of its needs. By 2008, import levels rose to 30%, and in 2022, they reached 38%. Wheat import dependency has risen from 18% before NAFTA to 66% today. Mexico now imports 48% of its grain and oilseed consumption, with just 52% produced in Mexico.
U.S. policies are challenging Mexico’s ambitious goals for reducing dependence on imports. Not only is the U.S. government currently disputing Mexico's decision to restrict some uses of genetically modified corn, but it has also contributed to Mexico's levels of import dependence by exporting corn, wheat and other basic staples at prices below the cost of production — an unfair trade practice known as “agricultural dumping.”
Swimming Against the Tide: Mexico’s quest for food sovereignty in the face of U.S. agricultural dumping examines the impact of cheap U.S. exports on five staple food crops — corn, wheat, beans, rice and dairy — that the Mexican government has prioritized in its efforts to boost domestic production and reduce import-dependence. In 1994, NAFTA eliminated most of the trade restrictions Mexico had used to protect its farmers from foreign competition, and in 16 of the 28 years since, the U.S has dumped corn, soybeans, wheat, rice and cotton exports into Mexico at prices 5%-40% below what it cost to produce them. In turn, Mexican producers of these crops experienced prices drops of 50%-68% in the 12 years after NAFTA took effect. From 2014 to 2020, U.S. exports of priority food crops came into Mexico at unfairly low prices, undermining the incentives for Mexican farmers to increase production.
“In trying to reverse decades of rural neglect and U.S. dumping, the Mexican government is swimming against some very strong tides,” said report author Wise. “Reducing import dependence and increasing domestic production of priority food crops are worthy goals, for a variety of reasons: poverty reduction, rural development, increased resilience to price and supply shocks, greater control over the quality of the food Mexicans consume and even national security.”
Agricultural dumping is an unfair trade practice that is proscribed by a range of international trade agreements. As this report demonstrates, U.S. dumping undermines Mexico’s legitimate efforts to stimulate domestic production of priority food crops and reduce its dependence on imports. In addition, dumping is bad for U.S. farmers and rural communities, as low prices undermine local economies and leave farmers dependent on expensive yet inefficient government subsidies.
The Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy works locally and globally at the intersection of policy and practice to ensure fair and sustainable food, farm and trade systems.
"The Pentagon's law of war manual states unequivocally that such statements are war crimes," said a legal scholar who previously worked in the Pentagon's office of general counsel.
Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth's statement last week that "no quarter" will be given to "our enemies" in Iran—a declaration, in military parlance, that surrendering combatants will be executed rather than taken prisoner—constituted a clear violation of international law and a war crime.
The International Committee of the Red Cross explains that "the prohibition on declaring that no quarter will be given is a longstanding rule of customary international law already recognized in the Lieber Code, the Brussels Declaration, and the Oxford Manual and codified in the Hague Regulations." The Hague Convention of 1907, to which the US is a party, says it is "especially forbidden" to "declare that no quarter will be given."
During a press conference on Friday, Hegseth said that US forces attacking Iran "will keep pushing, keep advancing; no quarter, no mercy for our enemies."
Hegseth's statement sparked alarm among legal experts and members of Congress, particularly in the context of the Pentagon chief's ongoing efforts to loosen legal oversight of American forces and roll back rules aimed at protecting civilians.
"'No quarter' isn’t some wannabe tough guy line—it means something," said Sen. Mark Kelly (D-Ariz.), a retired US Navy officer. "An order to give no quarter would mean to take no prisoners and kill them instead. That would violate the law of armed conflict. It would be an illegal order. It would also put American service members at greater risk. Pete Hegseth should know better than to throw around terms like this."
Oona Hathaway, a legal scholar and former special counsel to the Pentagon's general counsel, wrote in response to Hegseth's remarks that "declaring that no quarter will be given unequivocally violates international humanitarian law."
"Indeed, ordering that no quarter will be given, threatening an adversary therewith, or conducting hostilities on this basis is prohibited and constitutes a war crime," Hathaway added.
Daniel Maurer, a retired Army lieutenant colonel and judge advocate—a profession that Hegseth has treated with contempt—wrote a "hypothetical legal memorandum" advising the Pentagon chief to "publicly retract" his "no quarter" statement, warning that it "may expose you to criminal liability under 18 USC 2441(c)(2), and expose any subordinate servicemembers who carry it out to prosecution under the Uniform Code of Military Justice as well as 18 USC 2441(c)(2)."
Maurer continued:
Given that “no quarter” is a clear violation of the Hague Convention IV and, as a consequence, U.S. federal law, we recommend the following immediate actions:
a. Publicly retract the comments and disavow any intention to induce, inspire, counsel, encourage, incite, order, threaten, tolerate, or give “no quarter” to Iranian combatants.
b. Communicate through the chain-of-command conducting Operation Epic Fury that “no quarter” is a war crime that will be thoroughly investigated and prosecuted under the Uniform Code of Military Justice or 18 USC § 2441.
Hegseth's declaration of "no quarter" conflicts with US President Donald Trump's statement late last month announcing the illegal war on Iran, which is now in its third week with no end in sight.
Urging Iranian soldiers to lay down their arms, Trump pledged, "We'll give you immunity."
Ryan Goodman, founding co-editor-in-chief of the digital law and policy journal Just Security, told Axios that Hegseth is "putting the American military on a track to lawlessness in which we will lose more and more allies." Goodman noted that in the wake of the Second World War, the US prosecuted senior German military officials for refusing quarter to enemy soldiers.
"The best thing Secretary Hegseth can do for the country and for the US military is to say he misspoke and to retract the statement," said Goodman, who previously worked in the Defense Department's office of general counsel. "The Pentagon's law of war manual states unequivocally that such statements are war crimes."
"What does Trump expect from a handful of European frigates that the powerful US Navy cannot do?" said one German official.
US allies are giving President Donald Trump the cold shoulder after he demanded that they send their militaries to help him reopen and secure the Strait of Hormuz, which has been shut down by the Iranian government in response to US and Israeli attacks.
Reuters chief national security correspondent Phil Stewart collected reactions from several US allies to Trump's demands in a Monday social media post, and they show little appetite for helping the president out of the jam he created when he launched an unprovoked and unconstitutional war with Iran more than two weeks ago.
German Defense Minister Boris Pistorius spoke bluntly about his country's unwillingness to get involved in what has become a regional conflict in the Middle East that has sent global energy prices soaring and is threatening to upend the global economy.
"What does Trump expect from a handful of European frigates that the powerful US Navy cannot do?" Pistorius asked. "This is not our war, we have not started it."
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer stated flatly that his nation would not be "drawn into the wider Iran war," and insisted that only a diplomatic solution could ease the crisis.
"We are working with others to come up with a credible plan for the Strait of Hormuz to ensure that we can reopen shipping and passage through the Strait," he said. "Let me be clear, that won't be and it's never been envisioned to be a NATO mission."
Catherine King, a member of Australian Prime Minister Anthony Albanese's cabinet, said there were no plans to have the Australian military participate in Trump's efforts to reopen the strait.
"We won't be sending a ship to the Strait of Hormuz," King said. "We know how incredibly important that is, but that's not something that we've been asked or that we're contributing to."
Japanese Prime Minister Sanae Takaichi didn't completely rule out sending escort ships to help oil tankers navigate the strait, but she emphasized there are no plans to do so at the moment.
"We have not made any decisions whatsoever about dispatching escort ships," said Takaichi. "We are continuing to examine what Japan can do independently and what can be done within the legal framework."
Trump started publicly calling on US allies to assist in reopening the strait in a Saturday Truth Social post, in which he said "hopefully China, France, Japan, South Korea, the UK, and others, that are affected by this artificial constraint, will send Ships to the area so that the Hormuz Strait will no longer be a threat by a Nation that has been totally decapitated."
Trump repeated his demands to US allies while talking with reporters on Air Force One on Sunday, arguing that getting the strait reopened was in the interest of all nations.
"Really, I'm demanding that these countries come in and protect their own territory, because it is their territory," Trump said. "You could make the case that maybe we shouldn't be there at all, because we don't need it. We have a lot of oil."
US Sen. Ed Markey warned that the Trump administration is engaged in a "blatant attempt to muzzle the free press."
US President Donald Trump late Sunday floated "treason" charges against media outlets that he accused of reporting false information about the Iran war as the human and economic costs of his illegal military assault continued to mount.
In a tirade posted to his Truth Social platform, Trump wrote that media outlets he accused of circulating "fake news" should "be brought up on Charges for TREASON for the dissemination of false information." The maximum penalty for treason in the US is death.
Trump specifically called out the Rupert Murdoch-owned Wall Street Journal for reporting over the weekend that "five US Air Force refueling planes were struck and damaged on the ground at Prince Sultan air base in Saudi Arabia." Citing two unnamed US officials, the Journal noted that "the tankers were hit during an Iranian missile strike on the Saudi base," and that the planes were "damaged but not fully destroyed and are being repaired."
The US president called the story "false reporting" without substantively refuting its content. Trump wrote that four of the refueling planes are "in service" and one "will soon be flying the skies"—none of which is inconsistent with the Journal's reporting.
Trump, who regularly uses his social media platform to circulate AI-generated videos and photos, also complained about an AI video purportedly showing the USS Abraham Lincoln on fire. The president claimed the video was "distributed by Corrupt Media Outlets," without offering any examples. AFP published a fact-check of the video last week, deeming it "fabricated footage."
Trump's latest attack on the US media came after his Federal Communications Commission chair, Brendan Carr, threatened Saturday to pull the broadcasting licenses of media outlets he accused of "running hoaxes and news distortions." Carr did not provide specific examples.
The US president said Sunday that he was "thrilled to see" Carr's threat, railing against "Corrupt and Highly Unpatriotic" news organizations.
Trump and other administration officials, including Pentagon Secretary Pete Hegseth, have openly whined in recent days about what they've deemed negative coverage of the Iran assault, now in its third week with no end in sight.
Aboard Air Force One on Sunday, Trump attacked a reporter as "a very obnoxious person" after she asked the president why he's sending 5,000 US Marines and sailors to the Middle East.
US Sen. Ed Markey (D-Mass.) warned in a letter to Carr on Sunday that the Trump administration is engaged in a "blatant attempt to muzzle the free press" if outlets don't align their coverage of the Iran war "with Trump's preferred narrative."
"Your Saturday post follows that same logic but extends it to the coverage of an active military conflict, where the chilling effect on journalists and the damage to the public’s right to know are most severe," Markey wrote to Carr.