The Perilous Gamble: Undermining USMCA Threatens North American Stability and Economic Freedom

The Current Landscape of USMCA Review

The Trump administration has initiated what promises to be a contentious review process of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), the trade deal that replaced NAFTA and was signed into law in 2020. This week, the administration began holding hearings where farmers, academics, trade groups, and other stakeholders gathered to share their assessments of the agreement. These hearings represent the start of a mandatory six-year review process required by the agreement itself, but they occur under the shadow of President Trump’s longstanding antipathy toward North American trade agreements and his recent threats to potentially withdraw from USMCA entirely.

The USMCA, spanning over 2,000 pages, represents one of the most comprehensive trade agreements in history, governing everything from financial services to food safety standards across North America. It bears the imprint of numerous interest groups and contains provisions from both the Trump administration and congressional Democrats, creating a delicate balance that has allowed tariff-free movement of critical goods across the continent since its implementation.

Stakeholder Concerns and Warnings

During the hearings, testimony revealed significant anxiety among businesses and trade groups about the forthcoming negotiations. David Gantz of the Baker Institute for Public Policy captured the prevailing sentiment by invoking the medical profession’s guiding principle: “First, do no harm.” This warning reflects the deep concern that arbitrary changes or withdrawal from USMCA could destabilize industries that have built their operations around the agreement’s predictable rules.

Representatives from automotive, agricultural, and textile industries emphasized the agreement’s critical importance to their competitiveness. Kim Glas, president of the National Council of Textile Organizations, argued that the mix of factories and resources across the three countries allows manufacturers to produce quality products that can compete effectively against Chinese and Asian imports. Similarly, agricultural groups described Mexico as an “indispensable” market for American products while acknowledging some concerns about seasonal competition.

The testimony revealed a nuanced picture: while stakeholders recognize room for improvement in USMCA, they overwhelmingly advocate for preserving the agreement’s core benefits rather than engaging in radical restructuring that could jeopardize existing economic relationships.

The Administration’s Troubling Approach

What makes this situation particularly concerning is the administration’s apparent disregard for the complex economic ecosystems that depend on stable trade relationships. President Trump’s statement that the deal “expires in about a year, and we’ll either let it expire or we’ll maybe work out another deal” demonstrates a cavalier attitude toward agreements that thousands of businesses rely upon for planning and investment decisions.

Even more alarming are reports that administration officials have considered turning the three-country agreement into separate bilateral deals, reflecting their view that negotiations with Mexico have been easier than those with Canada. Such an approach fundamentally misunderstands the integrated nature of North American supply chains and the value of trilateral cooperation.

The administration’s tariff actions earlier this term—imposing tariffs on both Canada and Mexico for their role in facilitating fentanyl flow, then adding additional levies after Canadian officials criticized these measures—demonstrate a pattern of using trade policy as a weapon rather than a tool for mutual prosperity. While some tariffs on Mexico were later suspended, reportedly due to President Trump’s relationship with Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, the inconsistent application of trade measures creates uncertainty that damages business confidence.

The Principles at Stake

From a constitutional and democratic perspective, this approach to trade policy represents multiple concerning developments. First, it undermines the stability and predictability that are essential for economic freedom and prosperity. The Founders understood that commerce thrives under consistent rules rather than arbitrary decisions. The administration’s erratic approach to trade agreements violates this fundamental principle.

Second, the threats to withdraw from carefully negotiated agreements damage America’s credibility on the world stage. When the United States signs international agreements, other nations reasonably expect that these commitments will be honored beyond any single administration. The casual discussion of abandoning USMCA suggests a disregard for America’s role as a reliable partner in the international community.

Third, the administration’s preference for bilateral over multilateral approaches represents a troubling isolationist trend. While bilateral agreements have their place, the complex supply chains of the 21st century often require multilateral solutions. The North American economic ecosystem particularly benefits from trilateral cooperation that recognizes the interconnected nature of our economies.

The Human Cost of Trade Instability

Beyond the abstract principles, we must consider the real human impact of destabilizing trade relationships. The article mentions plant closures affecting autoworkers and farmers concerned about seasonal competition. These aren’t merely economic statistics—they represent families whose livelihoods depend on predictable trade rules.

The textile industry’s ability to compete against China, the agricultural sector’s access to Mexican markets, and the automotive industry’s integrated supply chains all contribute to American jobs and prosperity. Threatening these arrangements without careful consideration of the consequences demonstrates a profound failure of governance responsibility.

The administration’s approach also risks creating winners and losers based on political considerations rather than economic merit. The reported suspension of tariffs on Mexico due to presidential relationships rather than policy considerations is particularly concerning from a rule-of-law perspective. Trade policy should be conducted based on consistent principles rather than personal relationships.

A Path Forward Rooted in Democratic Values

Responsible governance requires that we approach trade policy with respect for the institutions and processes that ensure stability. The USMCA review process should be conducted with careful attention to stakeholder input, economic data, and long-term strategic interests rather than short-term political messaging.

Improvements to USMCA should focus on making North American industries more competitive globally, addressing legitimate concerns about labor standards and environmental protections, and ensuring that the benefits of trade are widely shared. The suggestions from various stakeholders—from higher wage requirements to better enforcement mechanisms—provide a constructive starting point for negotiations.

However, the overwhelming message from those who testified is clear: the foundation of USMCA works, and changes should build upon this foundation rather than risking its destruction. The administration should heed the medical principle invoked by David Gantz and ensure that its first priority is to do no harm to the economic relationships that support millions of jobs across North America.

Conclusion: Upholding Our Democratic Commitments

Trade policy represents one of the most concrete expressions of a nation’s values and commitments. The way we conduct our economic relationships with neighboring democracies speaks volumes about our respect for rules-based order, institutional stability, and mutual prosperity.

The current approach to USMCA review risks undermining these fundamental values. By threatening withdrawal, imposing arbitrary tariffs, and considering radical restructuring without adequate consideration of the consequences, the administration demonstrates a troubling disregard for the careful balance of interests that trade agreements represent.

As citizens committed to democratic principles and economic freedom, we should demand better. We should insist that trade policy be conducted with respect for established institutions, with attention to stakeholder input, and with commitment to stability that allows businesses and workers to thrive. The North American economic partnership has been a remarkable success story that has enhanced prosperity across all three countries. We must protect this achievement rather than risking it for short-term political gains.

The administration has an opportunity to demonstrate leadership by conducting the USMCA review process with the seriousness and respect it deserves. We can only hope they choose this responsible path rather than continuing down the dangerous road of economic brinkmanship that threatens the very foundations of North American prosperity and stability.