Trump Admin Announces New Restrictions on Mexican Airlines Over US
Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content.
The U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT) has announced a series of new regulatory measures restricting Mexican airlines in the United States.
The measures were announced Saturday in an effort to "to combat Mexico's blatant disregard of the 2015 U.S.-Mexico Air Transport Agreement and its ongoing anti-competitive behavior," according to a press release from the DOT.
Newsweek has reached out to Mexico's Secretaría de Infraestructura, Comunicaciones y Transportes (Transport Department) for comment via email on Saturday afternoon.
Why It Matters
The 2015 agreement was designed to liberalize market access and promote fair competition between carriers from both countries. Mexico is accused of violating the agreement since 2022 when "it abruptly rescinded slots and then forced U.S. all-cargo carriers to relocate operations" from Benito Juárez International Airport in Mexico City. The U.S. government says this has disrupted trade flows, increased operational costs for U.S. businesses, and raised concerns about market competition.
Mexico is the top foreign destination for Americans with more than 40 million passengers flying there last year, the Associated Press reported.
What To Know
Transportation Secretary Sean Duffy said on Saturday that "[former President] Joe Biden and [former Transportation Secretary] Pete Buttigieg deliberately allowed Mexico to break our bilateral aviation agreement."
Duffy added: "That ends today. Let these actions serve as a warning to any country who thinks it can take advantage of the U.S., our carriers, and our market. America First means fighting for the fundamental principle of fairness."
The transportation secretary said his department was issuing the three following orders to stop Mexican airlines from "taking advantage" of the U.S.
They include:
Requires all Mexican airlines to file detailed schedules for their U.S. operations with the DOT.
Mandates prior DOT approval before any large passenger or cargo aircraft charter flights by Mexican carriers can operate to or from the United States.
Proposes withdrawing the antitrust immunity previously granted to the joint venture between Delta Air Lines and AeroMexico, citing concerns that Mexico's market interventions have created an unfair competitive environment
The DOT claims Mexico rescinded historic slots from three U.S. carriers: American, Delta, and United, as well as three Mexican airlines: AeroMexico, Viva Aerobus, and Volaris, at Benito Juárez International Airport in 2022 under "the pretense" of capacity constraints.
U.S. officials say they have tried repeatedly to confirm when the slots would be returned, or when major construction work at the Mexican airport would end but were not provided with information on either.
In February 2023, the Mexican government published a decree that forced all dedicated cargo operations to relocate from Mexico City International Airport to Felipe Ángeles International Airport, disrupting U.S. cargo routes and prompting industry and diplomatic pushback.
The DOT also cited Mexico's failure to implement an internationally recognized and non-discriminatory slot allocation system, contrary to Article 11 of the 2015 air agreement.
As of July 2025, U.S.-Mexico diplomatic talks on restoring normal aviation services and upholding bilateral commitments remain ongoing, with no resolution announced.
A worker wearing a mask walks past a Boeing 737 Max 9 built for AeroMexico as it is prepared for a flight from Renton Municipal Airport on November 18, 2020, in Renton, Washington.
A worker wearing a mask walks past a Boeing 737 Max 9 built for AeroMexico as it is prepared for a flight from Renton Municipal Airport on November 18, 2020, in Renton, Washington.
Ted S. Warren/AP
What People Are Saying
The Department of Transport said in a Saturday statement: "Mexico's actions harm airlines seeking to enter the market, existing competitor airlines, consumers of air travel and products relying on time-sensitive air cargo shipments traded between the two countries, and other stakeholders in the American economy."
It added: "The Department is committed to enforcing our agreements to ensure that aviation markets are fair and pro-competitive.
What Happens Next
If the withdrawal of antitrust immunity is finalized, the Delta-AeroMexico partnership would dissolve its ability to coordinate pricing and share revenue, although Delta could retain its equity stake in AeroMexico and continue independent operations between the two countries.
The situation remains dynamic, with ongoing diplomatic discussions and potential for further regulatory adjustments depending on Mexico's responses.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Boston Globe
12 minutes ago
- Boston Globe
Student loan debt may be tougher to pay off and expand the wealth divide after passage of Trump's big bill
'I'm at an age when people are advancing in their careers, starting families, buying houses,' she said. '[The debt] takes a huge emotional and financial toll. I'm very pro-active, I create budgets. On every spreadsheet, I have to budget for this dark cloud.' Get Starting Point A guide through the most important stories of the morning, delivered Monday through Friday. Enter Email Sign Up German Roman is one of the Advertisement Recent efforts by the Trump administration and Republican-led Congress to restrict access to federal student loans may further deepen these disparities. By limiting funds historically under-represented communities have relied on, students of color and women may be pushed toward private lending, or skip higher education altogether. As part of the 'Big Beautiful Bill,' signed by President Trump on July 4, federal loans for medical and law students will be capped at $200,000, below Advertisement The bill also limits repayment options, with fewer flexibilities, restricted pathways to debt forgiveness, and faster repayment requirements. According to the Student Borrower Protection Center, an advocacy and research group, all students, regardless of income or whether they've completed their degree, will face higher monthly payments as a result of these changes. Outside of the legislation, the Trump administration The Student Debt Crisis Center, a separate advocacy group, estimates these fees will amount to about $300 a month. Already 5 million Americans have defaulted on their student loans, with another 2 million projected to default this month. Natalie Abrams, president and founder of the debt crisis center, now expects these numbers to grow. Advertisement 'This is a bad bill for borrowers,' she said. Advocates who have been raising alarm bells for years about rising student debt are now stuck in a strange position: Advocating for federal loans to continue, while also calling for major changes to the system through debt cancellation and lowered tuition. On its face, the Republican-led changes seem to acknowledge concerns about the country's But critics counter that in the face of federal loan caps, borrowers will rely on higher-priced, more risky private loans, or skip school altogether. Borrowers of color, who have less family wealth to tap into and are therefore more reliant on student loans, will be hurt the most. Student debt diminishes the ability of historically under-represented communities to build generational wealth, diverting money that could go toward savings, retirement, or investing in big-ticket items that traditionally fuel family wealth, such as homes. Advertisement 'Generations of systemic racism have forced Black and brown folks — especially Black women — to borrow at higher rates than our white peers and bear an enormous financial burden, denying us the opportunity to succeed and build generational wealth,' Representative Ayanna Pressley told the Globe in an emailed statement. Changes by the Trump administration, while reducing a reliance on federal student loans, could actually worsen the divide. Lending limits 'means fewer people who are not already rich will be able to go to college, and the people who still need to get education and training that are not already rich are going to be targeted for predatory private loan projects,' said Eileen Connor, executive director of the Project on Predatory Student Lending, a legal and policy organization focused on predatory for-profit colleges and lenders that started at Harvard Law School. 'There's been a fair amount of talk about Trump policies leading to resegregation,' Persis Yu, deputy executive director and managing council at the Student Borrower Protection Center, an advocacy group that aims to improve the student loan system, said. 'And I think this is part of that project.' Amina Khamsi will be starting her third year at Boston University School of Medicine this fall. Originally from El Paso, Texas, Khamsi, who is a first-generation immigrant with Moroccan and Colombian roots, has already taken out nearly $120,000 in federal student debt, which has accrued nearly $10,000 in interest. She's already considering whether she can afford to stay in Boston for residency, and worries doctors will have to reconsider whether they can work in underserved communities, where positions pay less, if they have to take on more private debt. Advertisement 'You are forcing people to make decisions not based on ethical practices or how they want to practice medicine, but 'how am I going to cope with this.' I fear in the long run we're going to have less doctors who look like me, who look like a lot of patients across America, and that could have detrimental effects to health care.' Private lenders seem primed for the potential influx. In the weeks leading up to the legislation's passage, Sallie Mae calling for caps on federal student lending. The CEO of Navient, a major private student lender, As students consider their now whittled-down options, German Roman encourages them to be informed. She doesn't regret going to college, but she does regret taking on debt, even as she feels she should consider herself lucky, since the $20,000 she owes is half tuition-free college. 'No one is arguing for the status quo,' said Yu. 'But until there is a real investment in higher education, both on the federal and state level,' millions of students and their families will continue to rely on federal debt, with now-tightened conditions. 'These proposals,' Yu said, 'are going to make the crisis worse, not better.' Advertisement This story was produced by the Globe's team, which covers the racial wealth gap in Greater Boston. You can sign up for the newsletter . Mara Kardas-Nelson can be reached at
Axios
12 minutes ago
- Axios
Ice cream hit by two scoops of inflation
We won't all just be screaming for ice cream on National Ice Cream Day this Sunday, we'll be screaming about its high prices. Why it matters: At the height of summer, prices for America's go-to frozen treat are hitting new highs, according to federal data. The big picture: The average price of a half gallon of ice cream was $6.49 in June, up nearly 6% from June 2024, per the latest data from the U.S. Bureau of Labor Statistics via FRED released Wednesday. The price of a half gallon is up nearly 33% since June 2021, when it was $4.89. Zoom in: Soaring ingredient costs, extreme weather and hot demand are fueling the higher prices. By the numbers: Americans spent $289 on ice cream in 2024 and $170 in the first five months of 2025, according to data from Empower. Americans spent $31 on ice cream in May 2025, a 26.5% jump over April 2025, Empower found. Gen Z spent nearly double any other group, forking over an average of $63.20 in May. Millennials purchased $33, Boomers, $32.60, and Gen X, $25.10, in May, per Empower. The average American eats roughly 19 pounds of ice cream each year, or about 4 gallons, per the International Dairy Foods Association. National Ice Cream Day deals and freebies Dig in: Deals and freebies at certain restaurant chains on National Ice Cream Day can provide some relief from the inflationary pressures. The day is marked annually on the third Sunday in July. Here are some of the deals available on Sunday, July 20:
Los Angeles Times
12 minutes ago
- Los Angeles Times
Mexico City bids adiós to monument to Castro and ‘Che' Guevara
MEXICO CITY — Goodbye, Fidel. Hasta la vista, Che. Denunciations and accolades greeted the abrupt removal this month of a controversial monument in the Mexican capital commemorating the two revolutionaries, Fidel Castro and Ernesto 'Che' Guevara. The monument, a pair of bronze, life-sized sculptures of Castro and Guevara chilling on a bench, recalls a consequential moment in both Mexican and Cuban history — the pair's first meeting, which took place in an apartment in Mexico City in June or July 1955, according to historians. At the time, both were twentysomething militants in the formative stages of their transformation into leftist icons who would inspire a global generation of revolutionaries and activists. A leftist Mexico City government installed the monument in 2017 in a small park in the capital's Colonia Tabacalera neighborhood, not far from where the storied duo first met in a Cold War encounter that has taken on near-mythical dimensions among many on the left. In the two sculptures, both men stare straight ahead and are decked out in light combat garb — Guevara in his trademark beret (a look immortalized on T-shirts across the globe) and Castro sporting a fighter's cap. His legs crossed, Castro grasps a cigar in his left hand, and a book on his right. Guevara's right hand secures a pipe. The sculpture has long sparked polemics: While adherents of the left generally applauded it, and some visitors would leave flowers, critics assailed the artwork as a tasteless shrine to a bloody communist dictatorship. Spearheading its removal Wednesday was Alessandra Rojo de la Vega, conservative borough president of the capital's central Cuauhtémoc district, where the bench (known as Encuentro or Encounter) was situated. Her decision, Rojo de la Vega initially explained on social media, was based on legality — not politics. She said there wasn't 'one single paper' authorizing the monument's installation. Its removal, she added, would allow park denizens to stroll in 'liberty and security.' She posted images of city workers prying out the two figures from the bench and the bronzed Castro and Guevara being ignominiously hauled away in a bulldozer. But the borough president later pivoted to a more ideological rationale. 'This city cannot ... promote or provide refuge for figures who injured human dignity, be it in Mexico or the rest of the world' Rojo de la Vega told Radio Formula. As to the fate of the dual bronzes, she said that officials may consider a sale, using the proceeds — likely from lefty purchasers enthralled with the Cuban uprising — for park upkeep. 'If we auction them off, it will mark a first — the communists will use their money, not someone else's,' Rojo de la Vega said. 'If they love them so much, they can put them in their garden, or their patio.' Not pleased was Mexico's leftist president, Claudia Sheinbaum, who said she would speak to the Mexico City mayor — a political ally — about placing the monument elsewhere. The question isn't whether one embraces or rejects the views of the two protagonists, Sheinbaum argued to reporters on Thursday. The Castro-Che encounter, the president said, recalled 'a historic moment' that unfolded in Mexico and merited a display of memory. The contretemps here echoes spats in the United States about monuments glorifying Confederate generals: Critics decry the displays as exalting traitors and white supremacists, while others argue that the statues just reflect history. In the case of the Castro and Guevara likenesses, Sheinbaum suggested that their removal was partisan payback for her own signature monument-canceling moment — the banishment of one of Mexico's most illustrious landmarks, a virtual symbol of the city. In her former post, as mayor of Mexico City, Sheinbaum ordered the removal of a soaring bronze of Christopher Columbus, which, for more than a century, graced a pedestal in the capital's elegant Paseo de la Reforma. The stylized tableau depicted Columbus as a noble conqueror: one hand raised to the horizon, the other lifting a veil from a globe. For years, Indigenous activists and others staged protests at the statue, labeling Columbus and other conquistadores as perpetrators of genocide. In 2020, Sheinbaum finally ordered that the Columbus monument be taken down for renovations; it was never returned to its lofty perch. Its ejection enraged both Columbus' admirers and others who viewed the monument as an integral marker of the Mexican capital. They accuse Sheinbaum of bowing to political correctness. The traffic circle where Columbus long lent his presence has now been renamed the Women Who Fight roundabout, a rallying point for Indigenous, feminist and other protesters hoisting handwritten placards. The grandiose Columbus figure, meantime, remains out of public sight in museum storage. The Castro-Guevara bench, situated in an easy-to-miss park, didn't compare in size or significance to the towering Columbus of the stylish Paseo de la Reforma. But its removal lit up social media, rekindling historic enmities. 'An intent to erase the symbols of battle, of resistance, of Mexican-Cuban humanity,' César Huerta, a left-wing journalist, wrote on X, blasting the action as 'ideological censorship.' A radio commentator, José Luis Trueba Lara, bid good riddance, calling Guevara 'an assassin with good press' and Castro a 'bloodcurdling dictator.' Carlos Bravo Regidor, a columnist, berated the left for being more concerned 'about the retirement of some miserable statues of Fidel and el Che than for the misery suffered by those who live beneath the yoke of the Cuban dictatorship.' At the time of his 1955 encounter with Guevara, Castro, then 28, was not long out of a Cuban prison for an insurgent attack against the U.S.-backed Cuban dictatorship of Fulgencio Batista. Guevara, one year younger, was a physician from a middle-class Buenos Aires' upbringing brimming with revolutionary fervor — and a vision of a pan-Latin American socialist union, free of U.S. 'imperialism.' The two young men immediately hit if off, historians say, embarking on a lifelong friendship and collaboration in the revolutionary project. Both would be among 82 fighters aboard the yacht Granma that, in November 1956, set sail for Cuba from Mexico's Gulf coast. Their voyage, and subsequent guerrilla campaign, would culminate in 1959 in a historic overthrow of Batista and the imposition of a communist government in Havana. Fidel and el Che are long gone, and the book on the Cold War officially closed more than a quarter-century ago. But, as the fiery debate here about an unassuming bench statue illustrates, the ideological fault lines of the Cold War are far from completely obscured, at least not in Latin America. Special correspondent Cecilia Sánchez Vidal contributed.
