A viral pamphlet that attacks President Donald Trump’s tariffs and his proposed border wall is circulating in several languages, often with a false attribution to Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum. The text calls on U.S. citizens and their president to reconsider protectionist policies, warning that consumers around the world could boycott American products. But the pamphlet was not written by Sheinbaum. It is an anonymous text whose earliest known versions date to at least 2018, long before she became president of Mexico.

Key facts at a glance

• The viral text is not an official statement by Claudia Sheinbaum.
• The pamphlet denounces Trump’s border wall and tariffs and threatens a global boycott of U.S. brands.
• Versions have circulated in French, Spanish, English, Portuguese and other languages.
• Earlier copies from 2018 were signed “The rest of the world” and made no reference to Sheinbaum.
• Some recent posts add Sheinbaum’s name and photo to give the text more authority.
• There is no official publication or declaration linking the Mexican president to the pamphlet.
• The exact original author remains unknown, but the text predates Sheinbaum’s presidency.

What the viral text says

The publication is addressed to U.S. citizens and begins with a direct challenge: “So, you decided to build a wall…” It then develops into a long denunciation of the wall on the U.S.-Mexico border and, more broadly, of the protectionist turn in U.S. economic policy. The text targets Trump’s tariffs and argues that the rest of the world can respond by turning away from American goods.

Its most shared passages list consumer alternatives. The pamphlet claims that seven billion consumers could replace an iPhone with a Samsung or Huawei device in less than 42 hours. It says they could swap Levi’s for Zara or Massimo Dutti. It adds that within six months, consumers could stop buying Ford or Chevrolet vehicles and choose Toyota, Kia, Mazda, Honda, Hyundai, Volvo, Subaru, Renault or BMW instead. The text also argues that Disney or Hollywood entertainment could be replaced by Latin American or European productions.

The closing passages warn of economic consequences. If those seven billion consumers stopped buying U.S. products, the text says, unemployment would rise and the U.S. economy “inside the racist wall” would collapse. It ends with a threat and a rhetorical flourish: the United States wanted a wall, so it would get a wall. The tone is deliberately provocative, mixing trade policy with a message about national pride and global interdependence.

How the text spread across platforms and languages

The pamphlet has appeared in social media posts, email chains, messaging apps and online articles. It has been shared in French, Spanish, English and Portuguese, with local adaptations and different introductions. Some posts present it as a courageous speech by Sheinbaum. Others simply label it “The rest of the world.” The same core arguments and phrases recur across versions, which suggests a common source that has been copied and republished many times.

Recent examples show how quickly the text travels. A Spanish-language Facebook post published on 3 February 2025 and attributed to Sheinbaum was shared more than 4,400 times. It included the same opening about a wall and added a photo of the Mexican president. An earlier Spanish-language post from 27 January generated more than 25,000 shares, but it did not mention Sheinbaum and was signed “The rest of the world.” A Portuguese-language version also gathered around 11,000 shares. The text has also been forwarded through WhatsApp and posted on LinkedIn in English.

Some online outlets have republished the pamphlet as if it were a speech by Sheinbaum. One article described it as a “brilliant speech” and presented it to readers without evidence that she had written or delivered it. Other pages have since removed or altered their posts, but copies continue to circulate. The pattern is typical of viral misinformation: a text is detached from its original context, given a new author, and reshared because it fits a current political debate.

Why the attribution to Sheinbaum is false

No official publication or declaration by Claudia Sheinbaum links her to the pamphlet. The text does not appear in her public statements, on official government channels, or in verified transcripts of her speeches. Its style and content also differ from her usual political communication. She has used sharp and sometimes humorous language in disputes with Trump, but she has not adopted the pamphlet’s sweeping boycott language.

The timeline makes the false attribution especially clear. The earliest known versions of the text were published in 2018, during Trump’s first term. At that time, Sheinbaum was the head of government of Mexico City. She did not become president of Mexico until June 2024. The original text therefore cannot have been written by her as president, and its references to Trump’s first-term policies fit the 2018 context rather than the current one.

Sheinbaum has responded publicly to several of Trump’s announcements since he began his new term on 20 January 2025. When Trump suggested renaming the Gulf of Mexico as the Gulf of America, she replied with humor and proposed renaming the United States “Mexican America,” citing an old map from 1607. On trade, she announced new tariffs on U.S. products on 2 February in response to a 25% tariff on Mexican goods. Those measures were later suspended for a month after a discussion between Trump and Sheinbaum. These real statements are documented, but none of them matches the viral pamphlet.

The political context behind the revival

The pamphlet has resurfaced at a moment of renewed tension between the United States and Mexico. Trump has again made tariffs a central tool of his economic policy, and his border wall remains a symbolic and practical issue. Relations between the two countries are also strained by disputes over immigration and drug trafficking. In that environment, a text that attacks Trump’s trade policy and claims to speak for Mexico’s president can spread quickly.

The original 2018 context helps explain the pamphlet’s arguments. During Trump’s first term, he promised to build a wall to stop undocumented immigration and repeatedly threatened tariffs on Mexican and European products. The text’s references to a wall, tariffs and a global boycott reflect those debates. It was written as a protest pamphlet, not as a diplomatic statement. Its anonymous authorship has made it easy for later users to attach it to a prominent political figure.

The current version also draws on real economic interdependence. The United States, Mexico and Canada share deeply integrated supply chains, especially in the automotive and consumer goods sectors. Tariffs can raise prices, disrupt production and invite retaliation. A boycott of U.S. brands would be difficult to organize in practice, but the pamphlet uses that threat as a rhetorical device. By listing recognizable companies, it turns a complex trade dispute into a simple message about consumer power.

What is known about the original source

The exact author of the pamphlet is unknown. Its first appearances are difficult to trace because the text has been copied, translated and adapted so many times. Early versions were shared as chain messages that encouraged readers to forward the text to a dozen people. That style helped it spread before fact-checkers and social media platforms began tracking its circulation. The wording has changed slightly across languages, but the central claims remain the same.

What is established is that the base text existed by 2018 and was already circulating without any connection to Sheinbaum. It was signed “The rest of the world” in several versions. Only later did some users add Sheinbaum’s name, photo or title. That addition changed the text’s political meaning: an anonymous protest pamphlet became, in the eyes of many readers, a direct warning from Mexico’s president to the U.S. president.

The false attribution is therefore not a minor labeling error. It gives the text an authority it never had. Readers are more likely to believe and share a message if they think it comes from a head of state. The same mechanism has been used in other viral falsehoods, where genuine grievances or real policy debates are packaged with a false author to increase impact. In this case, the underlying text is real, but its supposed author is not.

Why verification matters

The case shows how old content can be recycled to fit new events. A pamphlet written during Trump’s first term can reappear during his second term and seem newly relevant. The references to tariffs and the border wall remain recognizable, so many readers do not question the date or the author. The result is a misleading viral narrative that blends real policy issues with a false claim about Sheinbaum.

It also illustrates the difficulty of correcting misinformation once it has spread. Social media posts are shared across languages and platforms, and copies often lack a link to an original source. Even when an article is removed, screenshots and forwarded messages continue to circulate. Fact-checkers can establish that the text is not an official statement, but they cannot always identify the original author. That uncertainty should not be used to validate the false attribution.

For readers, the practical lesson is to check the source before sharing a political text attributed to a public figure. Official statements are usually published on government websites, verified social media accounts or through credible news organizations. A text that appears only as a screenshot, a forwarded message or an unsigned online post should be treated with caution. The pamphlet’s own history, with versions dating back to 2018 and signed “The rest of the world,” is a clear warning that the Sheinbaum attribution is false.

The only established facts are these: the text is an anonymous protest pamphlet, it has circulated since at least 2018, it attacks Trump’s tariffs and border wall, and it has been wrongly attributed to Claudia Sheinbaum in some recent posts. No official source connects her to it. The false claim continues to travel because it fits a tense political moment, but repetition does not make it true.

Source:RTBF News