
A report in the Financial Times indicates that Mexico is in the process of eliminating the checks and balances in its political system:
But the bills passed in the past two weeks ultimately implement key elements of the former president’s agenda, including eliminating autonomous regulators and replacing them with ones under greater central government control.
“It’s a step back,” said Carlos Ramírez of political risk consultancy Integralia. “It’s the end of the era of the autonomous institutions and now we’ll start a new era where these institutions are where they were 30 years ago: in the executive’s hands.”
The other new laws implement further key aspects of López Obrador’s agenda, such as strengthening state companies and cementing military control of an empowered National Guard. The changes came weeks after a controversial election to replace the country’s judges resulted in a supreme court where all nine members were put forward by Sheinbaum or her coalition.
“It’s an attempt to dismantle the old Mexican state,” said political analyst Sabino Bastidas.
In the very same issue of the Financial Times we see the following story:
In an interview with the Financial Times, [Abbe] Lowell expressed alarm at the president’s use of executive power to target law firms and the authority of courts, suggesting it could put unbearable strain on the judicial system. . . .
Trump’s broader campaign has included executive orders blocking access to federal buildings for some law firms — a threat to their businesses — prompting splits between litigators willing to fight the government and more commercially minded colleagues.
A form of coexistence that had existed for decades was now breaking under pressure from Trump, Lowell suggested.
It seems to me that the rise of a unified executive is one of the most important stories of the past decade. In one country after another, we see executives gaining power at the expense of other parts of the government. Examples include China, Russia, India, Turkey, Hungary, Poland and many other places.
In the US, we’ve recently seen the president gain the right to fire the head of independent agencies. Under previous administrations, the president was not allowed to fire independent agency officials other than for reasons of malfeasance. Some might argue that this is a return to first principles:
In an interim order in May concerning the leaders of two other agencies, the Supreme Court appeared to agree. The majority wrote that Mr. Trump could remove officials who exercise power on his behalf “because the Constitution vests the executive power in the president.”
Of course, it’s equally true that the Constitution vests the tariff power in Congress. Also the power to declare war. So I believe that what we are seeing is much more than a return to traditional modes of governance.
During the 20th century, vast new powers were given to the federal government, under the implicit assumption that no executive would abuse those powers for personal gain. But what would happen if a president used those powers to go after individual people and companies that he viewed as disloyal? Perhaps it is already happening.
Why are we experiencing a global rise in authoritarianism? In my view, that’s the most important unanswered question of the 21st century.
PS. On the plus side, Mexico does seem to allow its residents to buy the world’s best electric cars. I saw this SUV parked outside my hotel on a recent visit to Tucson, Arizona:
Sadly, those cars are not available to American motorists. (For privacy reasons, I blurred the license plate number.)
READER COMMENTS
Richard A.
Aug 20 2025 at 8:10pm
Chinese EVs do seem to be visiting the US from Mexico. Both parties are guilty of effectively banning would be cheap Chinese EVs in the US with very high tariffs.
Trump, by usurping congress’s control over tariffs, is turning the US in one of the more protectionist countries in the world.
Craig
Aug 20 2025 at 8:38pm
What would happen if one bought the car from the owner in the US? Now you have the car, presumably with some kind of Mexican title or a title from the Mexican state of Sinaloa in hand and you go to register the car? What happens?
Jose Pablo
Aug 20 2025 at 8:47pm
Perhaps it is already happening.
Quoting The Princess Bride: “I don’t think perhaps means what you think it means”
steve
Aug 20 2025 at 8:52pm
Dont worry Scott. Now that Trump is going to make sure that the US own big chunks of Intel and other corporations we will be great again. What could go wrong with the government owning the means of production?
Steve
Mactoul
Aug 21 2025 at 3:16am
Not true for India at least. There have been no such developments, constitutional or otherwise, in past decade or even more.
Andrew_FL
Aug 21 2025 at 7:57am
Explain to me how the President can “gain” the right to fire heads of “independent” agencies? Can you point me to where in the Constitution the “Independent” Branch of the Federal Government is created? The one with, apparently, no accountability to the people whatsoever?
naruccc@yahoo.com
Aug 21 2025 at 12:45pm
I certainly can’t explain it.
It is long-standing precedent that Congress can pass laws, including laws limiting the President’s discretion to remove heads of agencies. In 2020, SCOTUS narrowed this holding to apply only to multi-member agencies.
But then this year SCOTUS waived application of this precedent entirely (annonymously, and without rationale). No, wait–SCOTUS implies that the prededent still operates to prohibit tinkering with the Federal Reserve, because that agency is “uniquely structured, quasi-private….” and has a “distinct historical tradition of the First and Second Banksof the United States.” But those institutions came into existences AFTER adoption of the Constitution in 1789. So why would our putatively “origialists” jurists cite subsequent events to retroactively establish restrictions on the constitutional powers of the executive?
This is all part of the fight over the Unitary Executive Theory. The US Constitution states that executive power is vested in the person of the President–but never defines executive power or specifies how it can be exercised. The Constitution likewise vests Congress with the power to make laws (and to set tariffs, and to spend money, and to declare war…). The originalists on the high court seem hell-bent on finding that the Founders, who had risked their lives fighting off the tyrany of a king, were determined to vest vast powers in the executive.
As I say, I certainly can’t explain it.
MarkW
Aug 22 2025 at 7:48am
Of course, it’s equally true that the Constitution vests the tariff power in Congress. Also the power to declare war. So I believe that what we are seeing is much more than a return to traditional modes of governance.
Yes. I think the big test of this administration will be the Supreme Court’s ruling on Trump’s ’emergency’ tariffs on just about everything. Are they going to be consistent in forcing the other branches back to first principles? Let’s hope. The tariffs really should be invalidated for two reasons — first because they grossly exceed the ’emergency’ power granted by the relevant law, but also probably because under the ‘major questions’ doctrine, Congress really shouldn’t be able to pass tariff authority off to the executive even if they wanted to evade responsibility (which is one of their favorite things to do — something the founders wholly failed to envision).
TMC
Aug 22 2025 at 9:50am
Just saw a comparison of Tesla and BYD.
https://www.thefp.com/p/test-drive-is-byd-as-good-as-tesla
“The China automaker is making big gains in the EV market, but Tesla still has the edge. For now.”
BYD was not as nice, but close. Also cost a couple grand more.
TGGP
Aug 22 2025 at 3:13pm
There are lawsuits arguing Trump’s tariffs are unconstitutional, and my understanding is that courts have agreed so far (though the Trump admin is appealing).
nobody.really
Aug 22 2025 at 7:14pm
It’s nice to find such a variety of opinions expressed on this blog.
JoeF
Aug 24 2025 at 7:27am
I don’t understand the lead argument. Trump openly published a legally-testable executive order blocking three law firms. Those law firms had secretly conspired with a previous administration to concoct what we now know is a completely (100%) fabricated case against an elected President. Should he not try to cut off their access? Authoritarianism may be growing worldwide, but I think we’ll never find out by asking Abbe Lowell.
Comments are closed.