Yeah true, but producing enough basic calories to feed their own population will never be a problem for the US. And they are engaging in protectionism. As long as the US doesn't disintegrate into civil war, this advantage of their geographic location and size remains.
So yeah the best strategy for China is to remain friendly and non-aggressive and maintain minimal economic stability for their neighbors. And try to increase economic and social instability and dependence in the US. But you see how the US is poking the bear and now china, they want the instability. And Europe, Russia, China and India at each others throats.
So if / when there is a gradual collapse of our global civilization, the US could switch fully to that strategy and just continue to destabilize and start proxy wars all around the world rather cheaply.
I don't know about Mexico, but there are studies that large parts of India could become literally uninhabitable with too high wet bulb temperatures. After that you can image the talk about "Living space in the north" in Siberia. Plus many other places and large cities near the rising oceans. How can there not be endless conflict spilling out and through the many porous borders.
It's painful to consider, but I don't see the US "loosing" except for civil war or nuclear war. They will have massive problems but they just have to loose less quickly than the rest of the world.