Fact check: will Mexico pay for Trump’s border wall?
US president claims Mexico will indirectly fund his long-promised wall through new trade deal

Donald Trump has claimed that Mexico will indirectly pay for his border wall, as Democrats and the White House remain deadlocked over funding and a partial government shutdown continues.
In his first prime-time address from the Oval Office earlier this week, Trump said the project would “be paid for indirectly by the great new trade deal we have made with Mexico.” Is he right?
What has Trump said?
Subscribe to The Week
Escape your echo chamber. Get the facts behind the news, plus analysis from multiple perspectives.

Sign up for The Week's Free Newsletters
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
From our morning news briefing to a weekly Good News Newsletter, get the best of The Week delivered directly to your inbox.
The President's position on how Mexico might pay for the wall has “shifted considerably” in recent months, says BBC Reality Check.
Throughout his campaign, Trump repeatedly vowed that America’s southern neighbour would stump up the money for the steel barrier.
Between his announcement speech and the 2016 election, he declared 212 times that Mexico would pay for the wall, according to Factbase, which tracks all of Trump’s interviews, speeches and tweets.
He then went on to argue that the wall would “pay for itself” within two months, due to the high cost of illegal immigration.
But in the last few months, the president has argued that Mexico would indirectly fund the structure through the new United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA).
“What we save on the USMCA — the new trade deal we have with Mexico and Canada — what we save on that, just with Mexico, will pay for the wall many times over just in a period of a year, two years and three years,” he said earlier this month.
“So, I view that as, absolutely, Mexico is paying for the wall.”
What have the Democrats said?
Speaking in the Senate last month, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer rejected the idea that Mexico would be footing the bill for the wall through savings from the new trade deal.
“If the president really believed [that], he wouldn't be threatening to shut down the government unless American taxpayers can fund his wall.”
The president’s position on the wall “is totally contradictory, ill-informed, and frankly irresponsible,” he added.
What are the facts?
Trade experts and economists have highlighted a number of problems with Trump’s argument.
First, the trade deal, which replaces the North American Free Trade Agreement (Nafta), has yet to be ratified by the legislative bodies in the US, Mexico and Canada.
Democrats, who now control the House, have already voiced criticism of the deal and there is no guarantee that it will be approved.
Even if it is rubber-stamped by lawmakers in all three countries, it wouldn’t come into effect until 2020 at the earliest.
Trump “keeps repeating the ludicrous claim that somehow the revised Nafta will fund his wall even though it remains unclear if the deal will be enacted,” Lori Wallach, director of trade policy for the advocacy group Public Citizen, said in a statement.
The second major flaw in Trump’s claim is that the trade agreement contains no provision that would require Mexico to pay for the wall, either directly or indirectly.
“Trump says the border wall will be paid for through the new Nafta (USMCA),” tweeted Kenneth Smith Ramos, Mexico’s chief negotiator in the trade talks. “That's a chapter you will NOT find in the new agreement, simply because it does NOT exist.”
The president may believe that USMCA will reduce America’s trade deficit with Mexico and will in the long run save the US money, which can be spent on the wall, says Andrew Hunter, senior US economist at Capital Economics.
“However, there is little direct relationship between a country’s trade deficit and government finance,” Hunter told the BBC.
The other possibility is that the deal increases economic activity and could boost government tax revenues.
However, the changes included in the agreement “are relatively minor and unlikely to have much impact on the economy,” Hunter added.
And even if US tax revenues did increase as a result of the deal, those funds could not be directed towards a border wall without Congressional approval, the Washington Post Fact Checker reports.
“It’s hard for any politician to admit they broke a campaign promise,” the paper says. “But no amount of spinning and fuzzy math will obscure the fact that Trump made a promise that he cannot deliver.”
Is Trump right?
No. Even if the trade agreement is eventually approved, there are no funds earmarked for a border wall, and any tax revenues raised as a result of the deal would still need to be approved by Congress.
Sign up for Today's Best Articles in your inbox
A free daily email with the biggest news stories of the day – and the best features from TheWeek.com
-
France and Indonesia promote a contentious bid for an Israel-Palestine two-state solution
Talking Points Both countries have said a two-state solution is the way to end the Middle East conflict
-
Film reviews: Mission: Impossible—The Final Reckoning, Lilo & Stitch, and Final Destination: Bloodlines
Feature Tom Cruise risks life and limb to entertain us, a young girl befriends a destructive alien, and death stalks a family that resets fate's toll.
-
Music reviews: Morgan Wallen and Kali Uchis
Feature "I'm the Problem" and "Sincerely"
-
Deportations: Miller's threat to the courts
Feature The Trump administration is considering suspending habeas corpus to speed up deportations without due process
-
Asylum: Only white Afrikaners need apply
Feature Trump welcomes white Afrikaner farmers while shutting down the asylum program for non-white refugees
-
Trump pauses all new foreign student visas
speed read The State Department has stopped scheduling interviews with those seeking student visas in preparation for scrutiny of applicants' social media
-
Law: The battle over birthright citizenship
Feature Trump shifts his focus to nationwide injunctions after federal judges block his attempt to end birthright citizenship
-
The threat to the NIH
Feature The Trump administration plans drastic cuts to medical research. What are the ramifications?
-
Courts try to check administration on deportations
Feature The Supreme Court will allow the Trump administration to end protected status for Venezuelans, but blocks deportations under the Alien Enemies Act
-
House GOP pushes ahead on deficit-boosting tax bill
Feature Republicans push a bill that will lock in Trump's tax cuts, cut Medicaid and add trillions to the national debt
-
'Gen Z has been priced out of a future, so we invest in the present'
instant opinion Opinion, comment and editorials of the day