FP’s guide to the 2026 tournament
Welcome back to Foreign Policy’s Latin America Brief.
The highlights this week: Mexico makes a memorable exit from the World Cup, the United Nations debates U.S. sanctions on Cuba, and Colombia’s presidential transition falters.
Sunday night marked the grand finale of Mexico’s 2026 FIFA World Cup. The Mexican national team went out fighting in a 3-2 loss to England in what was also the last game of the tournament hosted on Mexican soil.
For Mexican fans and visitors, the mood before and during the match was electric. Although many in the country had mixed feelings ahead of hosting the tournament, Mexico caught soccer fever as the national team delivered multiple victories without conceding a single goal, including its first win in a knockout stage game in 40 years.
That June 30 match over Ecuador featured goals by stars Julián Quiñones—a Black Colombian-born, naturalized Mexican who is changing the way the country thinks about national identity—and Raúl Jiménez, who was back at elite performance following a life-threatening skull fracture in 2020.
After the victory, more than a million people packed the streets of Mexico City. A catchphrase went viral among fans: “¿Y si sí?”—which roughly translates to “What if we can?” Though the prospect of Mexico winning the entire World Cup seemed slim, the expression was true to the optimism of the moment.
The tournament “gave Mexico back the collective joy that it had been missing so much,” journalist Alejandro Domínguez wrote in Milenio. While ticket prices meant that spectators in the stadiums were disproportionately wealthy, “the streets, in contrast, served as the meeting point for everyone,” he wrote.
International soccer critics gave similarly positive reviews of the atmosphere in Mexico. The Athletic’s Jack Lang wrote that the games hosted in Mexico were “its best experience, its dislocated heart,” and that Mexico City’s historic Azteca Stadium “provided a blueprint for what big-tournament matches like [the Mexico-England game] should look like.”
Despite some travelers’ worries, cartel violence in Mexico did not interrupt the tournament. More disruptive were activists denouncing forced disappearances and calling for higher wages; authorities generally allowed them to demonstrate but not immediately around stadiums.
Another factor that failed to emerge at the World Cup was political unity between the three North American hosts. Instead, the Trump administration announced that it would trigger annual reviews of the three countries’ free trade deal, the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, or USMCA.
Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, who has responded calmly to U.S. President Donald Trump’s past provocations, dialed up her rhetoric against the United States in the last few weeks. She supported a bill that allows for election results to be overturned in cases of foreign interference and pledged legal action after the fatal shooting of a Mexican immigrant in Houston by a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent.
Sheinbaum’s response to Trump even drew a comparison with the Mexican national soccer team. Just as the Mexican squad shed its “‘colonial chip,’ the notion that we are condemned to lose,” author Jorge Zepeda Patterson wrote, the Mexican government has responded “firmly and unequivocally when the imbalance between the two countries threatened to turn into abuse.”
Zepeda Patterson was referencing Mexico’s fierce style of play in its final game. Though Mexico lost on Sunday against England, it fought hard until the end of the match. Colombia similarly drew 0-0 against Switzerland in its Tuesday knockout game before losing in penalties—a more honorable exit than Brazil’s 2-1 loss against Norway on Sunday.
Meanwhile, Paraguay—which was eliminated from the tournament in a 1-0 loss to France on Saturday—continued to make headlines this week after a senator from the country launched a racist string of online attacks against French star Kylian Mbappé, prompting condemnation from both French President Emmanuel Macron and Paraguayan President Santiago Peña.
There is only one Latin American team left standing: Argentina. Though the defending world champions played slowly at points in the tournament, they proved on Tuesday that they should not be written off, coming back from a 2-0 lead by Egypt and scoring three goals in 13 minutes.
Saturday, July 11: Argentina plays Switzerland in the World Cup quarterfinals in Kansas City.
Monday, July 13, to Friday, July 24: The International Seabed Authority convenes in Kingston, Jamaica, to negotiate rules for deep-sea mining.
Tuesday, July 28: Keiko Fujimori is inaugurated as president of Peru.
Cuban Foreign Minister Bruno Eduardo Rodríguez Parrilla addresses the United Nations General Assembly at U.N. headquarters in New York on Sept. 27, 2025. Charly Triballeau/AFP via Getty Images
U.N. debate on Cuba. On Tuesday, the United Nations General Assembly held a debate on U.S. sanctions on Cuba at the request of the Cuban government. The assembly normally votes on condemning the sanctions once per year and last convened for that vote in October, but Havana said the meeting had become more urgent given Trump’s fuel embargo on the island.
Cuba plunged into another nationwide blackout on Monday amid the embargo and long-standing problems with its energy grid. The United States vocally opposed Tuesday’s debate, calling it “whitewashing” of Cuban policies. U.N. member countries still voted 136-9 to move forward with it, with 30 abstentions.
During the debate, countries largely criticized U.S. restrictions and called for dialogue and a normalization of relations between the United States and Cuba. But the event also showcased how Washington is chipping away at diplomatic support for Havana.
Ahead of the gathering, U.S. Secretary of State Marco Rubio sent a cable to U.S. diplomats instructing them to urge host nations to object to the U.N. debate, Ken Klippenstein and the Nation reported. A few countries that abstained in Tuesday’s vote, such as Canada and Germany, have voted to condemn U.S. sanctions on Cuba in the past.
Bolsonaro’s tariff appeal. Brazilian presidential candidate Flávio Bolsonaro—the son of former President Jair Bolsonaro—made an unusual appearance in Washington on Tuesday, testifying in person at an Office of the U.S. Trade Representative hearing over whether the United States should impose fresh 25 percent tariffs on Brazilian goods.
Trump’s 50 percent tariffs on Brazil last year followed meetings with the Bolsonaro political clan, who urged the United States to punish Brazil for prosecuting Jair Bolsonaro on coup charges. But on Tuesday, Flávio Bolsonaro came out against additional U.S. tariffs, saying they had politically benefited his opponents and pushed Brazil closer to China.
President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva’s administration opposes the potential new tariffs, too, though it sent a written statement for the hearing rather than a representative to testify. Bolsonaro’s presence reflected how intertwined domestic and foreign policy have become in the U.S.-Brazil relationship.
Colombia’s turbulent transition. Outgoing Colombian President Gustavo Petro has refused to recognize far-right politician Abelardo de la Espriella’s victory in last month’s election, prompting de la Espriella to announce on Tuesday that his team would stop attending transitional meetings with Petro’s government.
International monitors reported no fraud in the election. Ivan Cepéda, the defeated left-wing candidate, recognized the results but threatened “civil disobedience” if de la Espriella does not renounce his U.S. citizenship. De la Espriella became a naturalized U.S. citizen after living in Miami for several years.
Petro’s rhetoric echoes that of other Latin American leaders who have refused to recognize defeat, including Jair Bolsonaro. It also strikes a contrast with Peru, where losing left-wing presidential candidate Roberto Sánchez conceded defeat to right-wing Keiko Fujimori on Monday after election results were certified.
For how many consecutive years has the U.N. General Assembly passed a resolution condemning U.S. sanctions on Cuba? (This tally excludes 2020, when voting did not occur.)
The first such vote occurred in 1992, after Washington intensified sanctions on the island. The United States began its trade embargo on Cuba in 1960.
A crane lifts a container at Puerto Antioquia in the Gulf of Uraba, Colombia, on Nov. 8, 2025. Luis Acosta/AFP via Getty Images
A new U.N. report on foreign direct investment in Latin America and the Caribbean last year suggests that Trump’s tariffs and the region’s search for economic partners other than the United States may have economic consequences.
U.S. investment in Latin America was down 11 percent, while it grew from other sources, particularly European countries. Saudi investors continued to purchase Latin American assets, a recent trend that followed the Saudi sovereign wealth fund’s first large-scale Latin American investment conference in Brazil in 2024.
“The recent years have been a moment where Brazil and its companies have been thinking a little bit more about the world,” said Rodrigo Santiago of the Federation of Industries of Rio de Janeiro. “They are looking to see how to improve trade with traditional partners but also with new markets that could better enhance their resilience to this fluctuating geopolitics.”
In a handful of countries, the U.N. Economic Commission for Latin America and the Caribbean report also revealed sharp changes in FDI levels from 2024 to 2025. As Bolivia experienced a pro-market turn under President Rodrigo Paz, FDI there roughly doubled. In Ecuador, under right-wing President Daniel Noboa, it nearly tripled.
But the changes didn’t always map onto party lines: In Javier Milei’s Argentina, FDI shrank by almost three-fourths. It has been steadily falling after an initial boom of enthusiasm in 2023, the year that Milei was elected.
The consequences of Trump’s tariffs for the region depend on the type of economic activity. Despite the fall in U.S. investment in the region, Latin America’s overall exports to the United States continued a longtime growth trend in 2025, according to the Inter-American Development Bank. Early 2026 numbers show that is changing in some countries, with Brazil’s U.S. exports falling sharply. China is their new destination.
Catherine Osborn is the writer of Foreign Policy’s weekly Latin America Brief. She is a print and radio journalist based in Rio de Janeiro. X: @cculbertosborn
Commenting is a benefit of a Foreign Policy subscription.
Already a subscriber? Log In.
Not your account? Log out
I agree to abide by FP’s comment guidelines. (Required)
The default username below has been generated using the first name and last initial on your FP subscriber account. Usernames may be updated at any time and must not contain inappropriate or offensive language.