The risk is clear: Mexico's mining, environmental, & investment policies can be progressively shaped to comply with Washington's parameters, while a model of coordinated dependency becomes the regional norm.

This article by Zosimo Camacho originally appeared in the February 5, 2026 edition of Luces Del Siglo. We thank Zosimo for the permission to translate and re-publish the article here, and encourage you to visit Luces Del Sigle: Periodismo Verdad.

The United States will know exactly which minerals of interest to it are located in Mexico: probable and proven reserves, and their exact locations. Furthermore, it will ensure that its southern neighbor and “partner” makes changes to its mining regulations. And if that weren’t enough, it will be able to mandate the establishment of “strategic reserves.”

What are these deposits that are the object of US ambition? “Certain select critical minerals yet to be determined.” We can anticipate that their list will include lithium, cobalt, nickel, vanadium, platinum, rare earth elements…

The Monroe Doctrine (relaunched a few weeks ago as the “Donroe Doctrine”) takes shape in documents such as the United States-Mexico Critical Minerals Action Plan, signed by Jamieson Lee Greer, head of the United States Trade Representative, and Marcelo Ebrard Casaubón, Mexico’s Secretary of Economy.

By force, Latin America will prop up the United States in its final economic battle against China. From what we can see, the region has already burned its bridges. One by one, in isolation, each country is directing its “sovereign” policies toward the flow of resources northward. With varying degrees of violence, the resistance that nations like Venezuela, Colombia, or Mexico could have offered has faded.

The Joint Plan of Action between the United States and Mexico on Critical Minerals—as the agreement, revealed yesterday by the U.S. government, can be translated—is cloaked in diplomatic language of resilience and shared security. However, a careful reading of the document reveals the contours of a geoeconomic strategy that, under the premise of correcting “distortions” and vulnerabilities, proposes a regulatory and commercial integration that could mean the complete subordination of Mexico’s strategic resources to the national and economic security interests of its northern neighbor.

The implementation of “adjusted minimum border prices” and their eventual inclusion in a plurilateral agreement will establish a price floor for Mexican exports. The goal is to shield the U.S. supply chain from global market fluctuations and—consequently—from competition.

This scheme, presented as “mutually beneficial,” will ensure the United States industry has access to Mexican deposits. Meanwhile, it compromises Mexico’s ability to negotiate in the open market and makes any negotiations with other mineral-hungry countries like China and Russia impossible. Furthermore, it could set prices that do not reflect future conditions or the true strategic value of the resources.

The plan’s ambition extends beyond trade. By proposing the harmonization of regulatory standards for mining and processing, coordination in geological mapping, coordinated stockpiling of reserves, and even the promotion and planning of investments, the United States seeks more than just a reliable supplier: it seeks a politically aligned and regulatorily accessible territory.

The risk is clear: Mexico’s mining, environmental, and investment policies could be progressively shaped to comply with parameters defined by an agenda designed in Washington. The invitation to identify projects in “third countries” also suggests a bloc-like vision that seeks to extend this model of coordinated dependency.

The plan, to be developed within a peremptory deadline of 60 days by the USTR and the Ministry of Economy, evokes a rushed, technical process that leaves little room for public scrutiny and legislative debate. It speaks of “mutual respect for sovereignty,” but the described framework implies a de facto surrender of key elements of economic sovereignty.

The mining industry has been ecstatic over what it regards as President Sheinbaum’s sharp shift towards a pro-mining position.

The question is whether this model of economic relations builds a true partnership between equals or consolidates, with new and sophisticated instruments, a center-periphery relationship where Mexico’s natural resources are primarily mobilized to absorb vulnerabilities and ensure the competitiveness of the U.S. economy. Resilience, in this context, appears to be an asymmetrical concept: while it strengthens the security of one, it could weaken the strategic autonomy of the other.

In the first act of this drama, a month ago Ebrard announced the return of mining “on a larger scale” in Mexico. Then, his department boasted that 110 new permits for mining projects had been granted in just one year. And now it’s revealed that the minerals will flow to the United States.

Mining in Mexico and around the world serves the accumulation of capital, never the people. What is being foreshadowed are more social and environmental problems associated with the dispossession of communities and the destruction of nature.

By force, Latin America will prop up the United States in its final economic battle against China. From what we can see, the region has already burned its bridges. One by one, in isolation, each country is directing its “sovereign” policies toward the flow of resources northward. With varying degrees of violence, the resistance that nations like Venezuela, Colombia, or Mexico could have offered has faded.

Zósimo Camacho Ibarra is a journalist documenting social and armed movements, Indigenous peoples, corruption, national security, drug trafficking and human rights violations. Follow him at @ZosimoCamacho

The post Critical Minerals: Subordination appeared first on Mexico Solidarity Media.

From Mexico Solidarity Media via This RSS Feed.