When Institutions Falter, Relationships Rule
Source: Wikimedia Commons/ Enrique Peña Nieto meets with Donald Trump, G-20 Hamburg summit, July 2017
In a global age of institutional fatigue, personal ties are the glue that keeps policy moving – the United States’ CEO-style approach to diplomacy can find a home in Latin America.
One does not have to be a Washington insider to know that President Donald Trump’s 2025 election has sparked a global shift away from the era of U.S. led international governance and towards transactional diplomacy. Indeed, visible progress has come less from lengthy communiqués and more from short leader meetings and quiet follow-up – one could say, a more business-like approach. Latin America has always read the room this way. When formal channels jam, a trusted call between principals can unlock cooperation on security, trade, or migration. Although many frame this style of diplomacy as a mere workaround, it can be argued that this approach is the work itself.
The U.S. under Donald Trump has mainstreamed a CEO-style, highly transactional diplomacy in the Americas. Problems are defined plainly, concrete tasks are set, quick concessions are traded, and both sides move on. With Mexico, tariff leverage and migration benchmarks turned leader-to-leader bargaining into rapid deliverables, normalizing principal-driven diplomacy.
During Trump’s 2019 presidency, then Mexican president Andres Manuel and Trump hashed out a Migration Deal. Beyond the tariff threats, the real driver was the direct channel between Marcelo Ebrard (Mexico’s foreign secretary) and Jared Kushner. Ebrard negotiated face-to-face in DC, or via phone calls with individuals, his personal credibility carrying more weight than institutional protocols.
That same logic surfaced recently in Mexico City as President Claudia Sheinbaum and U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio reaffirmed security cooperation and stood up a high-level implementation group on fentanyl, arms flows, and migration. Marco Rubio describes this recent cooperation plan as the closest the U.S. has ever had with Mexico. Cooperation unfolded even as Trump kept tariff threats in play and Mexico pressed its sovereignty narrative. In practice, it was boardroom politics applied to statecraft: a tight agenda, clear responsibilities, firm deadlines, and measurable outcomes.
This “business-like” approach is spreading across the region. When institutions stall, decisive relationships function like a sales office: producing fast, informed deals that keep the files moving.
Mexico is fluent in relationship politics. Strong, increasingly powerful presidential systems, fluid coalitions, powerful governors and mayors, and chaotic business-union networks make bargaining a normal way to get things done or at least stall them. Mexican parties and presidents alike are not afraid of making pragmatic concessions, however, these deals are often built through some trust, reciprocity, and heavy face-saving scripts first. That’s why the U.S.’ CEO-style approach can work unusually well in the region when it’s done correctly and respectfully.