• Trump is using energy deals as leverage in negotiations over Mexico’s access to the US market.
  • Mexico seeks relief from Section 232 tariffs on steel, aluminum, and automobiles.
  • Pemex’s financial woes and reliance on US gas imports complicate Mexico’s position.

Trump Presses Mexico for Energy Deals

President Donald Trump is pressing Mexico to sign energy agreements with US companies as part of broader trade negotiations, according to a Financial Times report on October 9. The demand adds a commercial dimension to already tense talks over tariffs, automotive sourcing, and Mexico’s treatment of foreign energy investors. The FT report was published minutes before this request, and full details on specific companies, projects, or contract values could not be verified.

Mexico’s Balancing Act

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum has said Mexico is working toward a deal “within the framework of sovereignty, respect, and what is best for Mexico,” following a call with Trump that she described as “very good.” Reuters (TRI) reported the countries aim for an agreement before the November 3 US midterm elections. However, the fourth formal negotiating round was postponed from late September, with October now a possibility. Mexican officials said technical coordination continues daily.

Mexico’s priority remains relief from Section 232 tariffs on steel, aluminum, and automobiles. Washington is seeking concessions on automotive-content requirements and treatment of Chinese investment. An October 8 report noted progress after Economy Secretary Marcelo Ebrard met US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer on October 1, but major automotive and metals tariff issues remain unresolved.

Pemex’s Precarious Position

At the center of the dispute are Mexico’s state-owned oil company Pemex and electricity utility CFE. Washington has challenged policies that favor them over US companies and US-produced energy. Pemex reported a second-quarter 2026 net profit of 18.02 billion pesos (approximately $1.03 billion), down 69.7% year-over-year, as it struggled to raise oil production. The company’s financial debt stood at $77.5 billion as of June 30, down 9.1% from year-end 2025, but still a substantial burden.

In September, Reuters reported that Sheinbaum had rebuked senior officials over declining output, and the second-quarter setback increased Mexico’s dependence on foreign fuel supplies. Mexico’s 2024 constitutional reforms changed Pemex and CFE from “productive state companies” to “public companies,” reinforcing their public-service role and complicating negotiations for greater foreign participation.

Energy Leverage and Economic Stakes

Mexico’s reliance on US energy supplies gives Washington significant leverage. In April 2025, imports—primarily from the United States—accounted for 72% of Mexican natural-gas consumption, according to Reuters. That figure explains why Mexico has explored additional domestic production and storage to mitigate trade-related supply risks.

The economic stakes extend beyond energy producers. Tariffs and uncertainty affect integrated automotive and metals supply chains, while reliable fuel and electricity supplies are critical for manufacturers operating in Mexico. The current negotiations explicitly link industrial tariff relief with broader investment and sourcing demands.

The regulatory dispute is longstanding. In July 2022, the US formally requested USMCA dispute-settlement consultations over Mexican measures that allegedly prioritized CFE electricity over privately generated power, delayed or denied private-sector operating permits, gave Pemex preferential treatment on diesel standards, and favored Pemex and CFE in access to natural-gas transportation infrastructure. Those were US allegations, not final adjudicated findings, but they show that today’s pressure concerns both potential new contracts and the regulatory treatment of existing investments.

Broader Trade Review Raises Stakes

The broader USMCA review adds urgency. Reuters reported in June that the July review would not produce negotiated revisions in time, and that failure to extend the pact would begin a ten-year termination clock, during which negotiations could continue. This is not equivalent to immediate cancellation of North American free trade, but it heightens uncertainty.

Canada is also affected because the underlying agreement is trilateral, even though recent Reuters reporting describes an interim US–Mexico bilateral bargain. Progress between Washington and Mexico City should not automatically be treated as resolution of the entire USMCA review.

What to Watch

In the short term, energy agreements could become part of an interim package alongside industrial tariff relief. The incentives are visible in Mexico’s stated tariff priorities and the FT report of US pressure, but the accessible evidence does not establish an agreed exchange. If talks stall, continued tariff and regulatory uncertainty could prolong investment caution. Over the longer term, individual commercial contracts may not settle the dispute unless operating permissions, electricity-market treatment, and state-enterprise preferences are also addressed.

The key distinction to watch is whether the negotiations produce merely announced energy deals, enforceable improvements in market access, or a broader trade settlement. Those outcomes would have materially different implications for companies, Mexico’s energy security, and the durability of North American trade relations.

Correction: An earlier version of this article misstated the date of the USMCA review. It is July 2026, not July 2025.