In Mexico, public discourse insists on selling calm when the data screams otherwise. Our country is moving toward 2026 with an economic package already approved and a host of pressures that cannot be glossed over. Internal and external factors intersect at an uncomfortable moment: inflation that refuses to budge, government decisions that shift costs to households, and a relationship with the United States that is once again strained by direct trade threats. Denying this reality does not correct it, it only makes it more expensive.
Consumer inflation picked up speed again in November, and it did so where it hurts the most. Services rose 4.49%, agricultural products rose 0.90%, and energy and government-regulated rates rose 2.4%. The problem is not the average, but the details. Electricity rose, and so did public transportation. These are not abstract figures: they are bills, tickets, meals, and rents.
The explanation comes as no surprise to anyone who has been paying attention. Electricity rates lost subsidies, and the adjustment was passed on in full to the user. Added to this is the persistent pressure on agricultural products, which show no sign of letting up from one fortnight to the next. The result is clear: the cost of living is rising faster than the incomes of millions of families.
This is where the political contradiction arises. It is repeatedly stated that certain groups were a priority, but the facts tell a different story. Removing subsidies for basic services directly punishes low-income households, small businesses, and those who live from hand to mouth. No amount of rhetoric can compensate for skyrocketing electricity bills or more expensive transportation. Inflation is not a technical issue for specialists; it is a silent transfer from citizens’ pockets to inefficiency and lack of foresight.
And in this context, as if the internal front were not enough, the external front is becoming more complicated. Donald Trump has once again used trade threats as a political tool. This time, the pretext is the Water Treaty. On his social media platform Truth, he accused Mexico of failing to comply with the agreement and issued a warning: a 5% tariff on Mexican products if the water is not transferred immediately. He spoke of a debt of more than 986 million cubic meters and demanded 246 million before December 31.
Beyond technical precision, the message is political and economic. A tariff of this size would have immediate effects on exports, prices, and employment. It also opens up a delicate flank ahead of the USMCA review in 2026. The signal is disturbing: the United States seems willing to use any argument to pressure, condition, or make trade relations more expensive. It also puts Claudia Sheinbaum in an uncomfortable position, exposing an administration that did not anticipate the conflict or build room for maneuver for the country’s commercial and political future with its main partner.
The conclusions do not allow for complacency. Mexico faces, heading into 2026, sustained inflation due to internal decisions that shift costs to the population, a family economy under pressure, and a bilateral relationship where tariff threats return unabashedly.
With an economic package already approved, the margin for correction is reduced. The challenge is twofold: to protect citizens from poorly managed internal shocks and to prevent external conflicts from translating into trade penalties. The rest is just talk. And talk doesn’t pay the bills.
