The spring of 2026 arrived and brought with it a sobering reality: the US administration's "doctrine of coercion" is bumping up against both the law and public sentiment.

President Trump's use of blunt-force tariffs and a superior military have reshaped certain theaters. However, the US Supreme Court has limited the executive’s use of IEEPA for open-ended trade penalties, and air strikes alone have proven insufficient against the choke-point realities of a world where Iran seemingly dictates the terms of the Strait of Hormuz.

No one has figured this out more quickly than the American people. Recent polling reflects a deep-seated exhaustion with the conflict in Iran, as voters increasingly link the war to their pain at the pump. This domestic fatigue is being matched by a strategic drift abroad where a "loose alliance" of European powers is beginning to coordinate trade and military budgets with newfound autonomy.

Shaken by the Trump administration’s recent announcement to withdraw 5,000 more troops from Germany, the continent is preparing for a future no longer anchored by Washington’s traditional lead. And, as the US heads into a mid-term electoral cycle, American's seem ready to reject the current Republican controlled congress.

This reality is inseparable from the hardening of the "CRINK" axis—the strategic alignment of China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. As CSIS has highlighted, these four nations are now operating as a unified, parallel economy designed to be sanction-proof.

In Europe, an increasing alignment is bearing fruit, aided by the surprising parliamentary shifts in Hungary where Viktor Orbán’s strongman model faced its first real electoral challenge in April. And in Ukraine, now entering its fifth year of conflict, we are seeing an uptick in Ukrainian success.

For those wanting daily reports on the Middle East and Ukraine, I’d encourage you go to the Institute for the Study of War for their indispensable and timely analysis.

Turning to Beijing, expectations for President Trump’s upcoming May visit should be measured. The Chinese leadership appears convinced they hold the upper hand, particularly given both the US’s challenges in Iran and its critical mineral dependencies. A "win" for the US will likely be limited to technical truces rather than a grand bargain, but most will be listening intently for any shift in rhetoric regarding Taiwan, which remains the highest-risk flashpoint in the relationship.

In the hemisphere, we are witnessing a pivot toward cold-eyed energy realism. The de-facto diplomatic recognition of the interim government in Venezuela, driven by a hunger for heavy crude stability, has left Cuba isolated. This shift comes as a wave of regional elections in Brazil, Colombia, and Peru nears. Beyond energy, the unrealized opportunity for the US in the region lies in "near-shoring" the critical mineral supply chain. South America holds roughly 60% of the world’s lithium, and remains a viable path to addressing this strategic imperative.

Closer to home, the importance of the USMCA has never been clearer. This agreement underpins nearly $2 trillion in annual trade and supports some 13 million American jobs, making it our primary shield in a fragmented world. If no deal is reached during the formal July review, the USMCA will enter a "sunset" scenario where the agreement enters an agonizing period of annual reviews—effectively a year-to-year limbo that would stifle long-term investment and exacerbate the already uncertain economic prospects for North America, and concerns over the US's long term fiscal stability.

In Mexico, President Sheinbaum is navigating a slowing economy while managing significant friction with the US following the deaths of CIA agents in Chihuahua and the high-profile US indictment of the Governor of Sinaloa. Meanwhile, in Canada, Prime Minister Mark Carney is aggressively repositioning the country as a pillar of transatlantic security, even as US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer labels Canada a top "economic retaliator" following provincial bans on American liquor.

Ultimately, the path forward for North America lies in moving past the "zero-sum" rhetoric that has dominated the headlines. The upcoming negotiations in Mexico City at the end of this month are about more than just trade quotas; they are about deciding whether we will face a volatile world as a unified continental fortress or as three separate entities competing for scraps of global stability.

As I've written in the past, our regional cohesion isn't just a worthy policy goal, it is our most vital strategic asset. I look forward to hearing your thoughts on these dynamics via Facebook, Twitter, or LinkedIn.

Sincerely, 

Antonio Garza

The views expressed here are solely my personal opinions and do not constitute legal advice from, or on behalf of, the firm.