SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
usmca
For June Dairy Month, Trump Should Celebrate the Canadian System, Not Denounce It
Trump’s plans don’t work for U.S. farmers. In fact, his intention to increase exports and enter the Canadian market fails both American farmers and our partner to the north.
Jun 29, 2025
Uncertainty is nothing new for farmers.
Freak weather changes and fluctuations in the market make planning for the future a gamble, never a sure thing. Dairy farmers have to deal with the additional issues of needing to keep their herds healthy and well-fed, as the price farmers receive in part depends on bacteria counts, and also the fat and protein content of the milk. If things weren’t hard enough, milk is a highly perishable product, which, unlike grains, cannot be stored and then sold when prices improve.
Giving farmers even more headaches these days is President Donald Trump’s on-again, off-again trade war. Specifically, farmers have to endure even more uncertainty than normal as prices for inputs like seed or fertilizer may rise with tariffs, while their export markets abroad are endangered. In this mix of the president’s ongoing trade spats, he's ridiculing Canada for protecting its dairy farmers with their supply management system, alleging that it harms U.S. farmers.
The moral of the story is that exports don’t keep farms in business, but instead allow larger operations to capture market share for themselves while driving out the smaller operations that have long defined U.S. dairy.
But here’s the reality—Trump’s plans don’t work for U.S. farmers. In fact, his intention to increase exports and enter the Canadian market fails both American farmers and our partner to the north.
Mexico has long been the main customer for our dairy exports and is regularly the No. 1 importer of all U.S. goods. This is a mutually beneficial arrangement as Mexico is a milk deficit country and meeting their domestic consumption needs requires imports. That’s how trade should work—when one country has stuff to sell that another country wants to buy, everyone wins.
With our neighbors to the north, the story is much different.
Canadians do not want our products forced into their market. Actually, Canadians want their system to stay as it is. It’s not difficult to see why. The Canadian supply management system ensures dairy farmers a fair price for their milk by tying domestic dairy production to consumption. Prices are negotiated in periodic meetings between farmers and processors to assure a baseline cost of production for producers and an adequate supply for domestic needs. Unlike the U.S. system, in which price controls were lifted for dairy in the 1980s, Canadian dairy farmers have a semblance of certainty year after year. U.S. dairy producers must fend for themselves, adopting a “get big or get out” mentality and increasing production whenever they can to maintain some kind of financial security. This push to constantly increase production leads to chronic overproduction and price volatility. Also unlike the U.S. system, Canadian farmers do not rely on tax-payer financed bailouts, or inadequate insurance payments that keep American farmers hanging on by a thread.
Furthermore, the production treadmill promoted by U.S. government policy has caused the loss of small farms and the hollowing out of rural communities. Trump continued this “get big or get out” mantra the first time he was in office, targeting Canadian dairy much like he is doing now. During the renegotiation of North American Free Trade Agreement into the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), the Canadian market was slightly opened to U.S. dairy exports.
Despite the heralding of this change a “win” for farmers, it has proved to be anything but.
Specifically, even though exports to Canada have nearly doubled since 2018, U.S. farmers continue to exit the industry at alarming rates. While U.S. dairy operations numbered at about 34,000 operations in 2020, the year when the USMCA was officially passed, that number fell to just about 26,000 by 2023—a 25% decrease.
The moral of the story is that exports don’t keep farms in business, but instead allow larger operations to capture market share for themselves while driving out the smaller operations that have long defined U.S. dairy.
Particularly as we celebrate June Dairy Month, we should learn from the Canadian system instead of denouncing it. Granted, Canada’s supply management is not perfect—few government policies are. But their system provides for fair returns for farmers and certainty in a profession already marked by so many challenges. A similar production management system in the U.S. could ensure farmers a fair milk price thereby eliminating the need for taxpayer subsidies, while providing consumers with fairly priced, locally produced dairy. Let’s stop championing an economic vision for agriculture that has already been shown to be a failure.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump’s Hawk Lands in Mexico
Ronald Johnson’s appointment as ambassador sparks outcry over U.S. interference.
Jun 03, 2025
A storm is brewing in U.S.-Mexico relations, and its epicenter is the newly appointed U.S. ambassador: Ronald Johnson, a former Green Beret and CIA operative with deep ties to U.S. military interventions in Central America.
Johnson arrived in Mexico City on May 15 and presented his diplomatic credentials to President Claudia Sheinbaum on May 19, triggering alarm among activists, political observers, and civil society leaders on both sides of the border.
To many, Johnson’s appointment is not just a diplomatic formality—it’s a signal. “It’s a declaration of war, basically, on Mexico,” said Marco Castillo, co-executive director of Global Exchange, during a recent episode of the podcast WTF Is Going on in Latin America & the Caribbean. “It feels like one step before Trump attempts to set foot in Mexico.”
A Familiar Face From a Violent Past
Johnson’s résumé reads like a blueprint for interventionism. In the 1980s, he worked with right-wing paramilitary groups in El Salvador and Panama. His associations include relationships with controversial U.S.-backed figures accused of human rights abuses during Reagan’s Central American “Dirty Wars.” During the first Trump administration, Johnson served as U.S. Ambassador to El Salvador (2019-2021), developing a close relationship with Salvadoran President Nayib Bukele.
“To those of us who worked in Central America in the 1980s, he’s a figure that’s never really gone away,” said WTF co-host and activist Teri Mattson. “This is a profound message Trump is sending to Mexico and the region.”
Johnson’s appointment is not just a personnel change—it’s a test of will, sovereignty, and solidarity.
Observers draw parallels between Johnson’s arrival and a larger arc of escalating U.S. hostility toward Mexico that began years ago. Mattson recalled a WTF episode from April 2022 titled “Challenging the U.S. Narrative on Mexico,” which chronicled rising anti-Mexico sentiment in U.S. media, including opposition to Mexican energy reforms and false claims tying cartels to U.S. military hardware sent to Ukraine.
“Johnson is not an aberration—he’s the culmination,” said Mattson. “He’s the endpoint of a continuum that began at least in 2021.”
A Pattern of Political Provocation
The backlash intensified when it was revealed that even before receiving formal recognition as ambassador, Johnson dined with Eduardo Verástegui, the Mexican ultra-conservative and unofficial Trump envoy. Verástegui, President of CPAC Mexico, is known for his alignment with U.S. right-wing interests and has long tried to position himself as Trump’s proxy in Mexico.
“That’s not a coincidence. That’s a statement,” said Castillo. “This is not how you build a respectful relationship with your closest neighbor.”
Indeed, Johnson’s appointment seems designed to antagonize. Activists and analysts fear his presence will embolden right-wing actors within Mexico and destabilize efforts toward national sovereignty, particularly as the country approaches pivotal judicial elections.
Strategic Interests, Economic Pressure
Beyond ideology, Johnson’s arrival is seen as part of a broader geopolitical strategy. Mexico is now the United States’ top trading partner, eclipsing even China, and the stakes of the fourth quarter 2025 review of the U.S.-Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA or TMEC, as it’s known in Mexico) are higher than ever. Under the surface of trade talks lies a tug-of-war over energy sovereignty, technology patents, and labor rights.
“The U.S. has tried everything—sanctions, media campaigns, diplomatic pressure—to undermine Mexico’s progressive reforms,” said Alina Duarte, a journalist and activist who co-hosted the WTF episode. “But this ambassador is different. He’s not just a diplomat. He’s a weapon.”
In 2024 alone, U.S.-Mexico trade reached over $840 billion, with Mexican manufacturing playing a key role in the electric vehicle supply chain and artificial intelligence infrastructure. Activists believe this economic dependence gives the U.S. incentive to suppress Mexico’s drive for self-determination, particularly under the leadership of President Sheinbaum and the MORENA party.
“Mexico’s energy reforms threaten U.S. corporate interests in tech, AI, and EVs,” said Mattson. “That’s what this is really about.”
Assassinations and Escalation
Just one day after Johnson formally presented his credentials, two close political allies of Mexico City Governor Clara Brugada (MORENA) were assassinated. While no official connection has been established, the timing has rattled many.
“We’ve never seen something like this—not in Mexico City,” said Duarte. “These were people directly tied to progressive governance. The implication is chilling.”
Yet activists remain undeterred. They call on U.S. citizens and organizations to reject Johnson’s appointment and demand a foreign policy grounded in justice, not domination.
In the wake of the killings, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio released a statement accusing the Mexican government of complicity with organized crime, while simultaneously acknowledging that U.S.-made weapons are fueling that very violence.
“This isn’t just hypocrisy,” said Castillo. “It’s gaslighting. Over 70% of the weapons used in crimes in Mexico are trafficked from the United States.”
“It’s a confession,” added Duarte.
Mexico has responded by filing lawsuits against U.S. gun manufacturers and sellers, but progress has been slow. A pending case before the U.S. Supreme Court may determine whether these companies can be held accountable for arms flooding Mexico’s criminal networks.
Building a Transnational Resistance
In response to these rising tensions, Castillo and a coalition of labor unions, civil society organizations, and Indigenous leaders recently convened a binational assembly on the USMCA in Mexico City. The event aimed to link economic justice to human rights and to forge a coordinated strategy for regional solidarity.
“If we’re not included in the negotiations, then we say: No more trade without rights,” Castillo declared. “This deal has made trillions for corporations, but very little for the people.”
The assembly brought together voices from across Mexico and the U.S., highlighting how the USMCA has enabled corporate abuses, weakened labor protections, and escalated surveillance. Many warned that without structural changes, the deal would continue to enable exploitation and violence.
Eyes on the Judiciary and the Future of Democracy
The timing of Johnson’s arrival is also significant because it coincided with a historic election in Mexico. On June 1, Mexican voters directly elected members of the judiciary—a groundbreaking shift in Latin American democracy.
“It’s a moment of enormous pressure,” said Duarte. “The U.S. and its allies want Claudia Sheinbaum and the Fourth Transformation to fail. But the people have a chance to make history.”
Mexico’s so-called Fourth Transformation—a sweeping set of reforms aimed at curbing corruption, empowering the poor, and reclaiming national sovereignty—has faced constant sabotage from conservative elites, many with direct ties to Washington.
“This is part of a regional pattern,” said Mattson. “We saw the same with Bolsonaro in Brazil, Milei in Argentina. Now Trump wants a proxy in Mexico.”
Yet activists remain undeterred. They call on U.S. citizens and organizations to reject Johnson’s appointment and demand a foreign policy grounded in justice, not domination.
“Mexico will always be your neighbor,” said Castillo. “If the U.S. continues to bully and attack us, it’s sabotaging its own future.”
A Crossroads for the Hemisphere
As Mexico moves toward a historic democratic moment, it does so under the shadow of renewed U.S. interference. Johnson’s appointment is not just a personnel change—it’s a test of will, sovereignty, and solidarity.
“Trump’s hawk is here, but so are we,” said Duarte. “And we’re not going anywhere.”
Keep ReadingShow Less
What a Ruling Against Mexico’s GMO Corn Ban Could Mean for the Future of the USMCA
The pro-U.S. ruling raises questions about the fairness of tri-national trade agreement itself, which has now legitimized the use of the agreement’s dispute process to challenge a domestic policy that barely affected trade.
Dec 29, 2024
A tribunal of trade arbitrators has ruled in favor of the United States in its complaint that Mexico’s restrictions on genetically modified corn violate the terms of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement, or USMCA. The long-awaited ruling in the 16-month trade dispute is unlikely to settle the questions raised by Mexico about the safety of consuming GM corn and its associated herbicide.
Indeed, the pro-U.S. ruling raises questions about the fairness of the USMCA itself, which has now legitimized the use of the agreement’s dispute process to challenge a domestic policy that barely affected trade. U.S. President-elect Donald Trump is now openly threatening Mexico with 25% tariffs on all Mexican exports, a blatant violation of the USMCA that Trump himself renegotiated and signed in 2018. Yet the treaty appears impotent to challenge such unilateral U.S. trade measures just as its tribunal slaps Mexico’s hand for its public health policies.
According to the U.S. government, the final report from the tribunal, announced December 20, ruled that “Mexico’s measures are not based on science and undermine the market access that Mexico agreed to provide in the USMCA.” In fact, the trade panel’s ruling was more limited, demanding that Mexico comply with the trade agreement’s procedures for carrying out risk assessments based on “relevant international scientific principles.”
Countries considering entering into trade agreements with the United States may now be more reluctant to do so if their domestic policies can be challenged in a trade court.
The Mexican government defended its position but vowed to comply with the ruling. “The Government of Mexico does not share the panel’s determination, as it considers that the measures in question are in line with the principles of protection of public health and the rights of Indigenous peoples, established in national legislation and in the international treaties to which it is a party,” read a statement following the ruling.
The ruling will not settle the debate over the health and environmental risks of GM corn and its associated herbicides, In the course of the dispute, Mexico produced extensive peer-reviewed scientific evidence that showed ample cause for precaution given the risks associated with both GM corn and its associated herbicide glyphosate. Recent studies have shown negative health impacts to the gastrointestinal tract and potential damage to the liver, kidneys, and other organs.
“[We] did an exhaustive review of the scientific literature,” explained María Elena Àlvarez-Buylla, the molecular geneticist who led Mexico’s national science agency, CONAHCYT, until October. “We concluded that the evidence was more than sufficient to restrict, out of precaution, the use of GM corn and its associated agro-chemical, glyphosate, in the country’s food supply chains.”
That evidence was presented in great detail to the tribunal in Mexico’s formal filings during the process, and it has now been published as a “Science Dossier.” It represents one of the most comprehensive reviews of the scientific evidence of the risks of GM corn and glyphosate to public health and the environment.
For its part, the U.S. government declined to present evidence that its GM corn with glyphosate residues is safe to eat in Mexico, where corn is consumed at more than 10 times the levels as in the United States and in minimally processed forms such as tortillas, not in processed foods.
“The research on the part of the U.S. was quite poor,” says Dr. Álvarez-Buylla, noting that U.S. research was outdated, ignored many recent studies, and depended on science that is “full of conflicts of interest.”
The U.S. government also failed to produce any evidence that Mexico’s February 2023 presidential decree had any meaningful impacts on U.S. exporters. U.S. corn exports have increased since the decree was enacted, not shrunk. The measures restricted only GM white corn use in tortillas, less than 1% of the U.S. corn exported to Mexico.
Early on in the dispute, Mexican Economy Minister Raquel Buenrostro stated that the U.S. needed to show “quantitatively, with numbers, something that has not occurred: that the corn decree has commercially affected” U.S. exporters. The U.S. has yet to produce any such evidence.
Meanwhile, president-elect Trump’s threatened tariffs are blatantly illegal under the USMCA and promise to inflict massive economic harm on Mexican exporters, and on U.S.-based firms that produce in Mexico.
The pro-U.S., pro-agrochemical industry ruling will ripple far beyond this dispute. Mexico’s documentation of the evidence of risk from GM corn and glyphosate should prompt consumers and governments the world over to take a closer look at these controversial products, and at the lax U.S. regulatory processes exposed by Mexico.
Countries considering entering into trade agreements with the United States may now be more reluctant to do so if their domestic policies can be challenged in a trade court. Kenya has been negotiating a trade agreement with the United States. Kenyans are already concerned the agreement will open Kenya to GM animal feeds, says Anne Maina of the Kenya Biodiversity and Biosafety Association. If the agreement can be used to challenge domestic policies, she says, it will be even less palatable.
It remains to be seen how the Mexican government will comply with the ruling. It has 45 days to respond. Already, President Claudia Sheinbaum has reiterated her support for a constitutional amendment to enshrine a ban on GM corn cultivation and consumption in tortillas. A “Right to Food” law passed last year mandates labeling of foods containing GMOs. No tortilla seller wants such a label on its products, because Mexican consumers are clear that they do not want GM corn in their tortillas.
The tribunal’s ruling will not undo the fact that Mexico’s precautionary policies are indeed justified by a wealth of scientific evidence. By allowing the trade agreement to undermine a domestic policy that barely affects trade, it will further tarnish the legitimacy of an agreement already seen as favoring multinational corporations over public health and the environment.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular