Trump and the Future of the USMCA
from Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies
from Greenberg Center for Geoeconomic Studies

Trump and the Future of the USMCA

An employee works at Trefilados Inoxidables de México, which exports manufactured aluminum, nickel alloys, and stainless steel wire to the United States, in Tlaxcala, Mexico.
An employee works at Trefilados Inoxidables de México, which exports manufactured aluminum, nickel alloys, and stainless steel wire to the United States, in Tlaxcala, Mexico. Hector Lorenzo/Reuters

President Trump has threatened new tariffs on all imports from Canada and Mexico. His trade plans threaten the future of the United States’ largest free trade agreement.

January 17, 2025 9:07 am (EST)

An employee works at Trefilados Inoxidables de México, which exports manufactured aluminum, nickel alloys, and stainless steel wire to the United States, in Tlaxcala, Mexico.
An employee works at Trefilados Inoxidables de México, which exports manufactured aluminum, nickel alloys, and stainless steel wire to the United States, in Tlaxcala, Mexico. Hector Lorenzo/Reuters
Expert Brief
CFR scholars provide expert analysis and commentary on international issues.

Shannon K. O’Neil is senior vice president, director of studies, and Maurice R. Greenberg chair at the Council on Foreign Relations. Julia Huesa is the special assistant and research associate to the senior vice president, director of studies, and Maurice R. Greenberg chair at the Council on Foreign Relations.

More From Our Experts

The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which underpins North America’s economic integration, requires a joint review by July 2026 and agreement by all three parties to continue. This review now looks poised to become more of a full-fledged renegotiation as President Donald Trump seeks to leverage the discussions to reshape North American trade, migration, and security, as well as address China’s growing influence in regional supply chains.

What is the USMCA?

More on:

United States

Canada

Mexico

Trade

Treaties and Agreements

The USMCA replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), signed in 1993. NAFTA created a free-trade zone between the United States, Canada, and Mexico, and established rules to protect intellectual property, investment, workers’ rights, and the environment. During the twenty-five years that NAFTA was in place, North American trade quadrupled, reaching over $1.4 trillion. Still, critics blamed the agreement for U.S. job losses, especially in manufacturing. President Trump took office in 2017 intent on renegotiating NAFTA, calling it “one of the worst trade deals ever made.”

The USMCA entered into force in July 2020 after more than two years of negotiations. The agreement created stronger mechanisms to enforce labor standards, established stricter rules of origin for North American automobiles, expanded U.S. farmers’ access to Canada’s dairy markets, changed dispute settlement processes, and set up guardrails for digital trade and e-commerce. It also introduced a sixteen-year sunset clause and six-year review requirements.

Why does it matter?

The USMCA buttresses the United States’ two most important trade relationships, with Canada and Mexico together forming the largest U.S. export market. U.S. companies send more than $800 billion in goods and services—over a quarter of total U.S. exports—to the two countries, over four times what the United States sends to China. Intraregional trade supports more than four million jobs in the United States, roughly half of them in manufacturing. 

More From Our Experts

Over the past five years, the USMCA has helped the United States reduce its supply chain dependence on China. In 2023, Canada and Mexico displaced China as the United States’ top import partners for the first time in two decades, with total North American trade exceeding $1.8 trillion. At the supply chain level, the shift is even more pronounced. In 2020, nearly 40 percent of the value of U.S. auto imports from Mexico originated in the United States, compared to just 2 percent from China.

What’s at stake in 2026?

A mandatory review of the USMCA must be completed by July 2026. The future of tariff-free trade hinges on the review’s outcome: If any country objects to extending the USMCA, it triggers an annual approval process and a countdown to the agreement’s end in 2036, increasing uncertainty for exporters and cross-border businesses.

More on:

United States

Canada

Mexico

Trade

Treaties and Agreements

Commercial challenges. The upcoming review will address both commercial challenges within the USMCA as well as broader foreign policy concerns. The United States will press Mexico to walk back its ban on genetically modified (GMO) corn—which a panel ruled violates the USMCA—and scrutinize Mexico’s state-centered energy policies. These include recent constitutional reforms that prioritize the state utility company over private companies, ban third parties from providing transmission and distribution services, and dismantle Mexico’s hydrocarbon and antitrust regulators.

In his second term, Trump is also likely to press Mexico on its growing trade deficit with the United States. Since the USMCA entered into force, the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico has grown by nearly 50 percent, reaching $160 billion in 2023. Still, trade in both directions has increased, as Mexico often serves as the final assembly point for U.S.-made products. Indeed, in 2024, Mexico briefly became the top destination for U.S. exports, surpassing Canada. Negotiators will also try to resolve disputes over Canada’s digital services tax and U.S. noncompliance [PDF] with USMCA auto rules.

To lessen Trump’s ire, Mexico could try to buy more from the United States. But its current ban on GMO corn—first under previous President Andrés Manuel López Obrador (commonly known as AMLO) and now under Claudia Sheinbaum—will make it harder to do so without a policy change, as more than 90 percent of U.S. corn is genetically modified. And while Mexico remains a top three U.S. export market, U.S. companies have been losing market share to competitors from other countries, including China, in capital, intermediate, and finished goods.

Another major focus will be preventing China from accessing the U.S. market tariff-free via Mexico. Here, the United States will continue to pressure Mexico to impose tariffs on Chinese imports. Since early 2024, Mexico has introduced tariffs on hundreds of products relating to steel, aluminum, textiles, chemicals, and electrical materials, among other things, from countries with which it lacks trade agreements, including China. Mexico’s economy ministry is also working with top importers of Chinese parts—auto companies and electronics companies among them—to find alternative suppliers in Mexico or the United States. Concerns over Chinese foreign direct investment in Mexico, particularly in vehicle production and assembly, could prompt talks about creating a North American review process similar to that of the Committee on Foreign Investment in the United States to screen investments regionwide. 

Migration and security. Trump is likely to force issues such as migration and security into the trade talks. U.S.-Mexico border crossings have risen dramatically since his first term, with more than two million people coming annually over the last three years. The majority of migrants now hail from beyond Mexico and Central America’s Northern Triangle, including Cuba, Ecuador, and Peru, as well as nations in Africa and Asia. AMLO and Sheinbaum, respectively, have worked closely with the United States to manage these flows, helping reduce 2024 border encounters to levels not seen since the COVID-19 pandemic. But there are limits to what Mexico can do. Its migration agencies are underfunded and overwhelmed, and the country itself is receiving hundreds of thousands of asylum seekers each year. Though Trump will pressure Mexico to step up enforcement, temporary measures such as breaking up caravans and busing migrants south fail to provide long-term solutions.

Trump has threatened to impose 25 percent tariffs on all Mexican imports if the country fails to curb drug trafficking into the United States. In her first one hundred days, Sheinbaum’s administration has taken a more confrontational approach to organized crime, targeting high-crime states like Sinaloa. In December 2024, after Trump threatened tariffs, Mexican soldiers seized over one ton of fentanyl pills—the equivalent of more than twenty million doses and worth nearly $400 million—the largest such bust in the country’s history. But Sheinbaum’s successful security strategies when she was mayor of Mexico City will be hard to replicate nationally, as they depended on a large local civilian police force, tens of thousands of cameras for surveillance, and significant investigative work into organized crime rings. 

What will new governments mean for the USMCA?

Domestic political shifts in all three countries will make it harder to find consensus. In Canada, turmoil following Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s recent resignation weakens the country’s negotiating position. With elections scheduled for October, talks will likely begin with a lame-duck government. In Mexico, Sheinbaum’s constitutional reforms—particularly those reshaping judicial and autonomous agencies—add to the negotiation difficulties. And despite spearheading the USMCA’s passage during his first term, Trump will not be bound by loyalty to the agreement, instead likely taking a hard line to advance his own political agenda. All this leaves much uncertainty over the future of the United States’ most consequential free trade agreement, which connects some five hundred million consumers and represents almost a third of global gross domestic product. 

This work represents the views and opinions solely of the authors. The Council on Foreign Relations is an independent, nonpartisan membership organization, think tank, and publisher, and takes no institutional positions on matters of policy.

Creative Commons
Creative Commons: Some rights reserved.
Close
This work is licensed under Creative Commons Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivatives 4.0 International (CC BY-NC-ND 4.0) License.
View License Detail
Close

Top Stories on CFR

Trade

President Trump doubled almost all aluminum and steel import tariffs, seeking to curb China’s growing dominance in global trade. These six charts show the tariffs’ potential economic effects.

Ukraine

The Sanctioning Russia Act would impose history’s highest tariffs and tank the global economy. Congress needs a better approach, one that strengthens existing sanctions and adds new measures the current bill ignores.

China Strategy Initiative

At the Shangri-La dialogue in Singapore last week, U.S. Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth said that the United States would be expanding its defense partnership with India. His statement was in line with U.S. policy over the last two decades, which, irrespective of the party in power, has sought to cultivate India as a serious defense partner. The U.S.-India defense partnership has come a long way. Beginning in 2001, the United States and India moved from little defense cooperation or coordination to significant gestures that would lay the foundation of the robust defense partnership that exists today—such as India offering access to its facilities after 9/11 to help the United States launch operations in Afghanistan or the 123 Agreement in 2005 that paved the way for civil nuclear cooperation between the two countries. In the United States, there is bipartisan agreement that a strong defense partnership with India is vital for its Indo-Pacific strategy and containing China. In India, too, there is broad political support for its strategic partnership with the United States given its immense wariness about its fractious border relationship with China. Consequently, the U.S.-India bilateral relationship has heavily emphasized security, with even trade tilting toward defense goods. Despite the massive changes to the relationship in the last few years, and both countries’ desire to develop ever-closer defense ties, differences between the United States and India remain. A significant part of this has to do with the differing norms that underpin the defense interests of each country. The following Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) memos by defense experts in three countries are part of a larger CFR project assessing India’s approach to the international order in different areas, and illustrate India’s positions on important defense issues—military operationalization, cooperation in space, and export controls—and how they differ with respect to the United States and its allies. Sameer Lalwani (Washington, DC) argues that the two countries differ in their thinking about deterrence, and that this is evident in three categories crucial to defense: capability, geography, and interoperability. When it comes to increasing material capabilities, for example, India prioritizes domestic economic development, including developing indigenous capabilities (i.e., its domestic defense-industrial sector). With regard to geography, for example, the United States and its Western allies think of crises, such as Ukraine, in terms of global domino effects; India, in contrast, thinks regionally, and confines itself to the effects on its neighborhood and borders (and, as the recent crisis with Pakistan shows, India continues to face threats on its border, widening the geographic divergence with the United States). And India’s commitment to strategic autonomy means the two countries remain far apart on the kind of interoperability required by modern military operations. Yet there is also reason for optimism about the relationship as those differences are largely surmountable. Dimitrios Stroikos (London) argues that India’s space policy has shifted from prioritizing socioeconomic development to pursuing both national security and prestige. While it is party to all five UN space treaties that govern outer space and converges with the United States on many issues in the civil, commercial, and military domains of space, India is careful with regard to some norms. It favors, for example, bilateral initiatives over multilateral, and the inclusion of Global South countries in institutions that it believes to be dominated by the West. Konark Bhandari (New Delhi) argues that India’s stance on export controls is evolving. It has signed three of the four major international export control regimes, but it has to consistently contend with the cost of complying, particularly as the United States is increasingly and unilaterally imposing export control measures both inside and outside of those regimes. When it comes to export controls, India prefers trade agreements with select nations, prizes its strategic autonomy (which includes relations with Russia and China through institutions such as the Shanghai Cooperation Organization and the BRICS), and prioritizes its domestic development. Furthermore, given President Donald Trump’s focus on bilateral trade, the two countries’ differences will need to be worked out if future tech cooperation is to be realized.