Absolute rejection of the United States-Mexico Action Plan on Critical Minerals in our territories

On 4 February, it was announced that the governments of the United States and Mexico had agreed to work on a joint action plan on ‘critical’ minerals. Through this instrument, the Mexican government commits to taking action to ‘develop a new paradigm for preferential trade in critical minerals, backed by minimum prices and other measures’.

At REMA, we believe that this Plan deepens Mexico’s subordination to the geostrategic policy of the United States. This agreement is part of a long-standing asymmetrical relationship between the two countries and, as various analysts have pointed out, is an example of the interventionist diplomatic agreements that the United States imposes on Mexico and other countries it considers within its sphere of influence. The official document itself explains that the agreement responds to the US government’s concern to maintain its global hegemony in the face of competition from China, ensuring access to and control of strategic resources such as minerals, gas and oil.

This Plan is an example of the interventionist diplomatic agreements that the United States imposes on Mexico and other countries it considers within its sphere of influence, such as Australia and Canada. These agreements occur in a context of explicit threats of military interventionism, which has already been carried out recently in Iran, Venezuela and Ukraine, and has escalated in other cases such as Greenland, in addition to the United States’ active efforts to suffocate the peoples of Cuba and Gaza.

One of the central themes of our analysis in this plan is our criticism of the concept of “critical minerals”. We argue that this is a political and discursive construct that legitimises a supposed collective urgency to promote mining extractivism. The definition of these minerals is based on political rather than technical criteria: in the United States, the most recent list includes 60 minerals, while in Mexico there is not even a defined list. This ambiguity allows for the creation of an exceptional scenario that justifies the streamlining of procedures, the relaxation of regulations and the prioritisation of projects considered strategic.

The Plan establishes that both governments will identify specific mining and manufacturing projects “of mutual interest” to prioritise their financing and public policy support. We consider this point to be particularly worrying, as it may involve the deployment of the economic and political apparatus to impose priority projects over the affected communities. This will undoubtedly lead to increased dispossession, forced displacement and militarisation, formalising US interference (disguised as binational cooperation) and increasing criminalisation and violence in disputed territories.

Another important aspect is what is known as “geological transparency,” which involves the sharing of technical information between the United States Geological Survey and the Mexican Geological Survey. This would mean greater financial and technical capabilities for mining prospecting and exploration in Mexico, allowing for the expansion of the extractive model into new territories and encouraging speculative processes associated with these activities. In addition, the mention of “coordinated stockpiling of reserves” heralds the advancement of exploration work throughout the national territory.

The Plan also mentions “regulatory cooperation,” which implies greater harmonisation of the regulatory framework between Mexico and the United States to facilitate trade. It should be clear that regulatory cooperation means greater collaboration between regulators for the sole purpose of promoting trade, a demand that has been pushed for many years by transnational companies with supply chains located in two or more countries, as highlighted by researcher Stuart Trew of the Canadian Centre for Policy Alternatives. The concept of “regulatory cooperation” already exists in Chapter 28 of the USMCA, but now, by applying this concept specifically to “critical minerals,” this plan jeopardises the application of the precautionary principle to protect watersheds, forests, health, and social property in the face of this extractivist onslaught.

In the context of the announcement of the Action Plan, it is essential to question the statements made by President C. Sheinbaum during the morning conference on 9 February, where she stated that “nothing has been signed” and that “no new mines will be opened”. The data shows a different reality: in 2025, 16 Environmental Impact Statements for mining exploration work were approved and only three were denied. At the same time, the annual report of the Mexican Mining Chamber (CAMIMEX) reports expansions and new projects in gold, silver and copper, while more than 22,000 mining concessions remain in force. These elements show that the extractive framework continues to operate with broad institutional support.

We reiterate that minerals are neither critical nor strategic in themselves. They are inputs to sustain a deeply unequal energy and industrial model that reproduces colonial structures and capital accumulation. What is truly critical is the country’s water situation, the increase in systemic violence linked to macro-criminal networks, and the strengthening of anti-rights policies.

For all these reasons, we affirm that this Plan deepens Mexico’s dependence on and expansion of extractivism, with direct consequences for the territories, common goods, and the peoples who inhabit them. Faced with this scenario, we reaffirm our defence of the hills, subsoil, rivers, and territories as an integral part of life and the exercise of our rights to self-determination.