Across the river, U.S. President Donald Trump was quick to cast the water transfer as a “major win” for U.S. farmers along the Rio Grande and took credit for levying tariffs and threatening other measures to force Mexico to give up water stored in reservoirs and nearby rivers. 

The strategic and political gamesmanship to assure larger water deliveries along the dry U.S.-Mexico border is one more example of the geopolitical upheaval occurring as the world dries from climate change. It also illustrates how the American president’s tough foreign policy and freewheeling social media diplomacy is yielding results in his favor. 

Mexico’s pledge came less than three weeks after Trump posted on Truth Social, accusing Mexico of “stealing the water from Texas Farmers [sic]” and threatening tariffs and other sanctions if his demands were not met. The president’s work on the water scarcity crisis was celebrated by public officials.

“This agreement marks another considerable win for Texas farmers and ranchers along the Rio Grande River,” said Texas Department of Agriculture Commissioner Sid Miller in an official statement. “I would like to express my gratitude to President Donald J. Trump, Secretary of Agriculture Brooke Rollins, Secretary of State Marco Rubio, and Deputy Secretary of State Christopher Landau for their dedication to American agriculture and relentless efforts to finalize this historic agreement with Mexico.”

But other authorities said the president’s involvement was heavy-handed and could set a troubling precedent for future water diplomacy. Dr. Rosario Sanchez, a senior research scientist at the Texas Water Resources Institute of Texas A&M University, called it “distracting.” 

“They’re not going to bring more water into the basin,” she said in an interview. “It’s just making things more difficult because it affects trust.”

The 1944 Treaty 

The U.S. and Mexico currently share water along the southern border in accordance with a treaty signed in 1944. Under the agreement, the U.S. must allocate a certain amount of water from the Colorado River to Mexico, which returns the favor with water from the Rio Grande. Mexico is required to supply 1,750,000 acre-feet total per five-year cycle, allowing for flexibility in annual deliveries depending on environmental conditions.

The latest tensions are the result of severe shortfalls over the course of the current 2020-2025 cycle. From October 2020 to November 2024, Mexico only delivered 425,405 acre-feet of water to the U.S., meaning it had less than a year to deliver over 75 percent of the promised five-year total. 

Not only was it completely infeasible for Mexico to meet the deadline, but certain industries were devastated more by the uncertainty of water supplies rather than the overall quantity. Last February, Texas’ only sugar mill ceased operations permanently due to faltering sugarcane harvests caused by water scarcity that affected over 100 local farmers and 500 mill employees. 

Until now, disagreements on the fairness and practicality of the treaty have been mediated by the International Boundary and Water Commission (IBWC), which is jointly administered by the U.S. and Mexico. The IBWC addresses problems with the treaty through the “minute system,” in which each “minute” is a project or change to the agreement that is enforced upon federal approval.

Adjustments Are Common

In response to the impending crisis, the IBWC published Minute 331 last November with the goal of making water deliveries more reliable by offering Mexico more flexibility in timing and sourcing as well as establishing pilot programs for water conservation. Locals were skeptical, however, calling it a half measure that came too late.

“What difference is next season going to make? Really, nothing. This minute is late in the game,” said Sonny Hinojosa, water advocate and former general manager of Hidalgo County Irrigation District No. 2, in an interview with myRGV.com.

In contrast, the Trump administration bypassed the IBWC entirely, using economic muscle to force Mexico to abide by the treaty. Texas farming advocates, some of whom have been asking for federal support since Trump’s last term, praised the president for his actions. 

Dr. Sanchez, however, called Trump’s involvement more performative than practical. Although his demands seem fair considering Mexico’s overuse of accommodations built into the treaty, they only serve to increase tensions between the two countries with little long-term benefit to the Texas farmers they are meant to support. 

“That tiny little amount of water is not going to make a difference for Texas, but it would make a big difference for border communities on the Mexican side,” Sanchez said. 

Last summer, Sanchez published a paper exploring solutions to the Rio Grande dilemma. She argues that while it is Mexico’s responsibility to ensure more regular and reliable water deliveries on a yearly basis, the U.S. must focus on better stewardship of the water that is available. Because water resources are diminishing on both sides due to climate change, cooperation is key, the article states. 

A More Fitting Approach?

A good example of this strategy lies to the west, along the Colorado River.

The Colorado River basin also suffers from drought, and Mexico has made concessions appropriately, giving up 14 percent of its share of the basin. 

Texas, however, has continued to demand the same total volume of water every cycle regardless of hydrological conditions, resulting in snowballing debt that repeatedly rolls over until the circumstances become untenable. 

Moreover, stakeholders representing a variety of interests are involved in the governance of the Colorado River but not the Rio Grande. According to the paper, engaging agriculturalists, industry experts, government officials and academics in decision making on the Colorado River has promoted mutual understanding and a spirit of collaboration. 

No matter what the ultimate resolution is, aggressive political rhetoric has no place in water negotiations, Sanchez says. “We already know what the problems are,” she said. “We know what we need to face, so we don’t need extra pressure or extra threats.”