USAID's Negative Effect on Mining in Mexico and Central America

Society thought that the villain was that group of people with certain ideas, or some kind of industry, and they always looked in the wrong direction because USAID (United States Agency for International Development) paid the media to point out the actor they didn't like, as has been proven recently.

The closure of USAID's global operations was described by President Donald Trump's administration as a necessary action, due to the misuse of taxpayers' money. Elon Musk, in charge of the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), says that what he discovered was not an apple beginning to rot, with some worms, but a ball of worms, there was no apple left. It has been heard that with the bulging budget they managed, about US$50 billion a year, they financed all kinds of media organizations and NGOs, which were then used to influence as necessary, from changes in government (color revolutions), generating a specific narrative on a topic of interest, among others. USAID sought to finance minority groups with certain tendencies that, after feeling supported and financed, could be used for another purpose. Among these groups, in addition to neo-Nazis, there were LGBT groups, environmental activists, and some church figures, mainly the Catholic Church.

In several countries, USAID was the promoter of some concepts that should be revised, such as the designation of protected areas and the assignment of the administration of these areas to NGOs. In some countries, areas that were known to have mining potential were declared protected areas (for example, the Sierra de las Minas in Guatemala), and the same happened with areas with oil potential, thus eliminating the use of natural resources in these areas.

Environmental permits are the gateway to stopping the development of industrial or urban projects. Green groups have sought influence with Latin American governments, winning seats in the legislative assembly, and then positions in environmental protection agencies (EPAs), from where they can stop development and job creation under the banner of environmental protection. Environmental organizations have become “the green mafia” that seeks power, money, and to stop development, and many of these organizations have received money from USAID directly or indirectly through international NGOs or consulting firms. By controlling the EPAs, they have the authority to stop development, such as opposing “metallic” mining, oil extraction, among others, for any reason, or as is now happening in Mexico, to oppose open-pit mining, as if they were incapable of imposing the conditions necessary to mitigate the environmental impacts that they point out as a reason for not allowing this type of operation.

Among the NGOs receiving USAID money were those promoting green, anti-development, and eco-hysterical agendas, Indigenous groups, human rights defenders, and the Church. These NGOs still have the mandate, because they still receive money from other entities (for example the development agency of Canada and of the European countries, the IDB and the World Bank), to influence governments to push their agendas, which result in blockades to mining, oil extraction, and other industrial activities that do not fit into their policies. And what is that policy? to keep these countries underdeveloped.

In Mexico, these groups exert their influence in the Morena Party, from the period of President Andrés Manuel López Obrador, who complained about the large areas of land that had been given in concession for mining exploration, assuming wrongly that the entire area assigned to explore would result in a mine, when the truth is that of the area that is explored, only a small fraction would be used for mining extraction, after proving that it is economically viable, which is not always the case. Under President Claudia Sheinbaum, this has resulted in opposition to open pit mining, making it difficult for the industry to obtain operating permits.

In El Salvador, these groups promoted and pushed for the ban on metal mining in force from 2017 until it was repealed in 2025, not without opposition.

In Panama in 2023, the same groups led a large demonstration that forced the government to declare unconstitutional a contract that gave continuity to the operation of a very large copper mine, the 12th largest in the world in production terms, only behind the large mines operating in Chile. The government gave in to pressure groups that included unions, environmental NGOs, and the Catholic Church, leaving the country in a difficult situation, facing potential lawsuits, job losses, tax revenues, and the deterioration of the country's image.

Guatemala experienced a mining boom starting in 1998, when a new mining law was enacted, but since 2020, all mining operations have been halted, for various reasons, including a consultation with the Indigenous population that has not advanced even though it is the responsibility of the government to carry it out, and without which mines cannot operate; another mine stopped operations due to the denial of the environmental permit alleging anomalies in the process; while also denying the renewal of export permits to several nickel mines, without which they cannot export their products.

In the Dominican Republic, mining operations are also being attacked by the same groups, and I don't think it's a coincidence. These groups are still trying to stop operations, which would leave thousands of people unemployed.

It's interesting to note that there are countries where this doesn't happen, where these groups paid by USAID have no influence, such as Nicaragua and Cuba.

Promoting investment that generates employment in rural areas of Mexico and Central America should always be a priority for governments interested in the well-being of the population, to improve the standard of living, and reduce migration to cities. During the four years of the Joe Biden administration, illegal migration to the United States was encouraged, with one of the purposes being to change the electoral landscape in some states. Now, with the Trump administration, many of those emigrants who entered illegally are being deported back to their countries of origin and will seek employment.

It is time to start reviewing the actions that were promoted by USAID and its NGOs, and adopted by governments, especially those that have slowed development and employment in rural areas.

I would review the mining and oil policy, so that these industries can generate jobs throughout the country. There should be no impediment to carrying out open pit mining, only establishing the conditions that guarantee a safe closure and compatibility with future land uses.

I would review the protected area policies to remove those that block mining or oil development, and I would consider using part of the economic benefits for national parks that need them.

I would review the processes that regulate environmental permits and other relevant permits to make them more agile, less bureaucratic, and eliminate any room for corruption.

It is said that the people who occupy the leadership positions in the EPAs and other similar institutions are the ones who establish the policy. The leadership positions should be reviewed and those who have been part of USAID should be removed, since it does not benefit the country to keep those people in those positions.