“It is better that it’s closing” were the words of President Claudia Sheinbaum in response to the news of the freezing of USAID resources. In 2024, Mexico ranked among the top nine countries in the Latin American region that received the most funding from the U.S. through this agency, with support of 77.7 million dollars. With these figures, it is worthwhile to unravel the reasons why the President is leaning towards closure. These reasons have to do with the nature and relevance of international cooperation in countries of the Global South, whose history is linked to colonial and expansionist logics of countries like the U.S. The situation of the freezing of resources implies at the same time the need to rethink the responsibility of the States to fill this gap by strengthening their revenues, channeling them effectively to local States and guaranteeing the independence of civil society.

Roots of asymmetric cooperation

Historically, the U.S. has intervened in Latin America on multiple occasions, generating political, economic and social crises in the region. These interventions have included military actions, support for coups d’état and economic policies that have affected the stability of several Latin American countries, as well as development cooperation itself.

In Mexico, the U.S. interventionist logic is longstanding. One of the most significant interventions took place in the 19th century. Between 1846 and 1848, a war known as the U.S. intervention took place, which led to the signing of the Treaty of Guadalupe Hidalgo. With this treaty, Mexico ceded more than half of its territory to the U.S., including the current states of California, Texas, New Mexico and Arizona. This territorial loss had profound repercussions on Mexico’s economic and political development. The intervention was in line with the so-called Monroe Doctrine, whose motto “America for the Americans” fed the nationalist sentiment and “American” grandeur. Initially, this doctrine obeyed the anti-colonial logic promoted to prevent European interventions in Western territories, but over time this logic mutated. Little by little it became a tool to have its own exclusive area of influence in the American continent.

During the first decades of the 20th century, the U.S. influenced Mexican politics by supporting or rejecting different governments according to its interests. Such was the case of the occupation of Veracruz on April 21, 1914, where US forces occupied this port due to US opposition to Victoriano Huerta’s regime. The occupation lasted until November of that year, when the U.S. troops withdrew to give power to Venustiano Carranza.

Then, at the end of World War II, the post-war period brought about a new international order characterized by the creation of institutions aimed at promoting peace, security and respect for human rights. In this context, international cooperation was promoted as a tool to foster global stability, economic development and the guarantee of human rights. However, it also consolidated a system in which the major powers and international financial organizations maintained disproportionate power over developing countries. Although this cooperation helped to avoid large-scale conflicts, it failed to eliminate global inequalities or prevent new forms of geopolitical and economic influence.

In Mexico, cooperation took place predominantly through trade agreements and financing for military and environmental policies. In 1994, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was implemented. While it boosted trade with the U.S. and Canada by increasing exports, it weakened food sovereignty within Mexico. Small Mexican farmers were unable to compete with imports of highly subsidized agricultural products from the U.S. Thus, macroeconomic indicators were not reflected in the microeconomy.

Until recently, one of the main sources of cooperative assistance came from USAID. These resources were predominantly channeled through projects in which civil society organizations participated and which had an impact on the capacities of local communities. One example is the “Prosperous and Sustainable Communities” project, which in 2024 received US$6 million in funding to support rural producers in the implementation of sustainable productive projects in regions such as the Yucatan Peninsula, the Sierra Sur of Oaxaca and the Sierra Madre of Chiapas.

The freezing of USAID funds has reopened the debate on the relevance and nature of international cooperation. On the one hand, with respect to the principle of solidarity that guides international cooperation. On the other hand, on the dependence of States on international cooperation and their capacity to fill the funding gaps left by such a decision.

The principle of solidarity is based on the idea that countries and global actors must work together to address common problems, reduce inequalities and promote the well-being of all nations, especially those in vulnerable situations. This principle is key because it drives cooperation beyond economic or strategic interests and promotes a sense of shared responsibility to address global challenges such as sustainable development, climate change, poverty, public health and political stability.

However, the decision adopted by the U.S. government indicates a break with that purpose. This move, which is aligned with the “America First” policy, seeks to prioritize national interests in the allocation of resources. In other words, it is a reflection of the Trump administration’s re-evaluation of international cooperation, focusing on ensuring that funds destined abroad directly benefit U.S. strategic and economic interests. In the medium term, this decision could lead to a geopolitical rearrangement, in which other powers such as Russia or China become stronger as influential players in Latin America, while Latin American states face the double challenge of filling the financial gap and rethinking their international alliances in an increasingly competitive scenario.

The second issue, the dependence of Latin American states on international cooperation, represents a structural challenge because in some cases it limits their autonomy in the formulation of public policies and their capacity to address national issues without external interference. In the case of Mexico, this dependence is manifested in key sectors such as social development, human rights and the environment, where many initiatives receive funding from international organizations or foreign governments, such as USAID or the European Union. This exposes Mexico to a paradox: while it seeks to consolidate its sovereignty and strengthen its state capacity, many of its organizations and social programs continue to be tied to international cooperation flows. This reopens the debate on the need to diversify funding sources, strengthen cooperation networks and promote regulations that shield their autonomy from internal and external pressures.

Thinking about this, as well as the traceability of Mexico-US relations where the latter’s interference in the internal politics of the former has predominated, it was that President Claudia Sheinbaum said it was better for USAID to close. The question that remains is: Is the Mexican State ready to do its part to fill this void by guaranteeing the independence of civil society? And with that, is it ready to make the kind of fiscal reforms it has refused to make to strengthen state revenues and have them channeled to local states effectively? Is it ready to strengthen the independence of civil society at the local level by protecting it from all the threats it faces, even if they are critical of the government? Let us hope that the President’s answer was mediated by a prior political analysis with the inclusion of these questions. Otherwise, it could be an inconsistent and even irresponsible attitude.

**

At Dejusticia we maintain that States must create an adequate global governance environment to achieve the realization of human rights. International cooperation and assistance is a tool for this and for strengthening democracy, as long as it is aligned with principles of transparency, participation and accountability. States must cooperate internationally to ensure universal respect for human rights, as established in Articles 55 and 56 of the Charter of the United Nations. Therefore, they must not only respect and guarantee human rights within their territory, but also have obligations beyond their borders. 

Our work is based on the defense of a development model based on social justice and respect for human rights, where international cooperation is not a mechanism of interference, but an instrument of solidarity and institutional strengthening. In the case of Mexico, the freezing of these funds should not be an excuse to weaken social organizations, but an urgent call to strengthen their autonomy and advocacy capacity. The real challenge is not to depend less on international cooperation, but to build stronger states, with institutions capable of guaranteeing the rights of their people without political interference or restrictions.