COMMENTARY: CUSMA in limbo — Trump leaves North America's greatest trade deal in a void

A sixth anniversary under extreme commercial pressure

On July 1, 2026, the CUSMA — the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, known as USMCA on the American side and T-MEC in Mexico — marked its sixth year in force. This treaty, negotiated and signed during Trump's first term, was meant to replace NAFTA and modernize trade rules between the three North American neighbors. That same day, trade representatives from all three countries gathered for the mandatory review built into the agreement itself.

Canada and Mexico had made their intentions clear: they wanted a 16-year renewal. Washington confirmed nothing. Trump publicly declared that he is not a "big fan" of the agreement he himself had brokered, and suggested he might prefer to let it expire — creating an uncertainty with far-reaching economic consequences for millions of workers and businesses across North America.

A deal worth more than a trillion dollars in annual trade

CUSMA governs a trade zone worth more than a trillion dollars in annual exchanges between the three countries. It sets the rules of origin for the automotive industry, phytosanitary standards for agricultural goods, intellectual property provisions, access to public procurement, and dispute resolution mechanisms. Letting it expire without an extension does not immediately trigger a tariff free-for-all — but it would begin a process of structural uncertainty that would cost everyone dearly.

For Canada, where 75% of exports flow to the United States, the stakes are existential. For Mexico, whose economy depends heavily on supply chains integrated with the U.S., the risk is comparable. And for the United States itself, disrupting those North American supply chains — particularly in automotive, agriculture, and technology — would produce direct and immediate inflationary pressure.

On this July 1, 2026, rereading Trump's triumphant declarations from 2020 about CUSMA — the great commercial victory he claimed to have won — I find myself genuinely puzzled. How does one end up threatening to undo one's own masterpiece? The answer, I believe, says everything about the nature of Trumpian power: there is no interesting track record, only the next bet.It takes a certain audacity — or a certain lightness — to threaten to let expire an agreement you personally negotiated and sold to your electorate as a historic victory. Trump did it with NAFTA, he came back with CUSMA. Now he threatens to dismantle his own commercial legacy. Some call it strategic chaos. I call it, more plainly, economic recklessness.

Canada and Mexico: a united front for 16 years

The positions of Canada and Mexico at the July 1, 2026 meeting were unified and firm: renew CUSMA for a new 16-year period, through to 2042. Both countries argue for economic certainty for businesses that invest in integrated supply chains. A stable sixteen-year agreement enables the long-term investment commitments that neither Canada nor Mexico can afford to lose in the current global economic environment.

The Canadian Prime Minister and the Mexican President both signaled, in public communications preceding the meeting, that they were willing to negotiate adjustments to the existing text — particularly on rules of origin in the automotive sector and certain agricultural provisions — but within the framework of a full renewal. They would not accept a default dismantlement resulting from American inaction.

Washington: silence as a pressure tool

On the American side, the silence was carefully orchestrated. Trump and his trade representative Jamieson Greer confirmed nothing ahead of or during the July 1 meeting. This silence is not indecision — it is a classic Trump administration negotiating tactic: maintain maximum uncertainty to extract concessions without having to articulate specific demands.

Trump's declaration that he is not a "big fan" of the deal fits this pattern. It commits to nothing concrete, yet sends a signal to Ottawa and Mexico City: if you want this agreement, you will have to pay a price. That price has not been set. That is precisely the strategic malice of the maneuver.

Using silence as a weapon in commercial negotiations is not new — seasoned negotiators know perfectly well that not saying no sometimes creates more pressure than saying no outright. But applied to an agreement governing trillions in trade and millions of jobs, this commercial poker game has real human consequences that the White House strategists seem to calculate with unsettling coldness. Too cold, in my view.

The review mechanism built into the agreement

CUSMA contains its own review mechanism: if no long-term renewal decision is reached at the sixth-anniversary review, the agreement does not simply vanish. It enters a cycle of mandatory annual reviews until its final expiration in 2036, at which point it must either be renewed or it expires permanently.

This mechanism creates a decade of structural uncertainty: every year, the parties must convene to decide whether to maintain or amend the agreement for the following year. For businesses planning investments over 5, 10, or 15 years, this instability is a direct brake. Automotive supply chains in particular require long planning horizons — no manufacturer builds a plant on the basis of an agreement renegotiable every year.

The impact on investment and supply chains

Economists surveyed by several financial publications estimate that each year of uncertainty over CUSMA's status represents a shortfall in foreign direct investment in Canada and Mexico on the order of several billion dollars. American companies that have built integrated supply chains — particularly in automotive, agri-food, and electronics — find themselves in an uncomfortable position: invest more in an uncertain framework, or diversify their suppliers toward other regions of the world.

That second option — diversification away from North America — would be paradoxically counterproductive relative to Trump's stated objectives of reshoring production to the American continent. Creating commercial uncertainty to force concessions risks producing the opposite effect: pushing investors toward more stable destinations.

There is a basic economic logic that commercial nationalists seem to systematically ignore: certainty is an economic resource. Businesses do not create jobs in uncertainty — they wait. And while they wait, workers do not eat. This is not a metaphor. It is the reality of millions of Canadian, Mexican, and American families.

The automotive industry: the most vulnerable

The North American automotive industry faces the most direct threat from CUSMA uncertainty. Manufacturers such as General Motors, Ford, Stellantis, and Toyota have built supply chains that cross the Canada-U.S. border and the U.S.-Mexico border multiple times for a single vehicle. A single engine may cross the border 5 to 8 times during its production.

CUSMA's rules of origin — which require a growing share of automotive content to be produced in North America to benefit from preferential tariffs — are precisely what makes this integration possible and advantageous. Calling them into question, even temporarily, would force massive and costly logistical reorganizations that automakers simply cannot absorb quickly.

Agriculture and food: millions of jobs on the line

The North American agricultural sector depends heavily on the tariff-free access guaranteed by CUSMA. Canada exports substantial quantities of canola, beef, wheat, and dairy to the United States. The U.S. exports corn, soybeans, pork, and fruit to both Canada and Mexico. Mexico sends tomatoes, avocados, berries, and fresh produce to the U.S. that fill American supermarket shelves.

A return of agricultural tariffs following CUSMA's expiration would directly translate into higher food prices for American consumers — the exact opposite of what Trump claims to want in his fight against inflation. This is the internal contradiction of the expiration threat: it would hit hardest the rural voters and middle-class families that Trump claims to defend.

I want to believe that Trump's economic advisors have explained to him the fundamental contradiction between threatening CUSMA and claiming to fight food inflation. I want to believe he understands that Mexican tomatoes in Ohio supermarkets are not there by accident. But sometimes ideological convictions override arithmetic. And that is where things become genuinely dangerous.

Beijing watches North American disruption with interest

The threat of CUSMA's expiration is not merely a bilateral commercial problem between neighbors — it is a strategic opportunity for China. Beijing watches with evident interest any disruption to the North American trade bloc, which constitutes one of the main counterweights to Chinese economic dominance in global supply chains.

If uncertainty around CUSMA pushes investors and manufacturers to seek alternatives outside North America, China — despite trade tensions with Washington — remains an unavoidable actor in global supply chains. Southeast Asian countries close to Beijing could also benefit from a weakening of North American integration. This is exactly the opposite of what Trump's reshoring strategy seeks to achieve.

Economic integration as a national security tool

National security strategists in all three countries understand that North American economic integration is also a tool of collective security. Integrated supply chains between allies reduce dependence on potentially hostile suppliers. Weakening this integration for domestic political reasons undermines the economic resilience of the entire Western bloc in the face of pressure from China and its authoritarian trading partners.

This strategic dimension extends far beyond quarrels over agricultural tariffs or automotive rules of origin. It touches on North America's capacity to act as a coherent economic bloc in a global competition with powers that plan in decades. China thinks in decades. The Trump administration thinks in electoral cycles. The asymmetry is concerning.

While Trump plays poker with CUSMA to extract short-term concessions, Beijing is investing in infrastructure, technologies, and trade partnerships that will shape the economic geography of the next thirty years. This is not alarmist exaggeration — it is a documented reality. And the West should be far more worried about it than it currently appears to be.

The North American private sector in forced waiting mode

On the business side, the reaction to CUSMA uncertainty is a combination of exasperation and pragmatic adaptation. Large multinationals have legal teams and trade strategists capable of modeling different tariff scenarios. But the Canadian and Mexican SMEs — which represent the bulk of employment in export-oriented sectors — do not have those resources.

Canadian industrial associations in the automotive and agri-food sectors have issued joint statements urgently requesting clarification of the American position. They stress that uncertainty itself constitutes a business cost that accumulates every day that passes without a decision. Banks and insurers are already reassessing their exposure to North American commercial risk.

Mexico in a particularly difficult position

Mexico finds itself in a particularly uncomfortable position. On one hand, it depends heavily on access to the American market — the United States represents approximately 80% of Mexican exports. On the other, it faces additional American pressure on immigration and security issues, particularly those related to the cartels. The link between these files and the trade negotiation is never explicit in official statements, but it is implicit in the political dynamic.

The Mexican government is therefore navigating on several fronts simultaneously: maintaining the support of its own export businesses, not yielding to American pressure on sovereign questions, and finding a way to preserve access to the American market without appearing to capitulate to Washington's demands. This is a precarious balance in an already tense Mexican political context.

Mexico is in a position I would describe as structurally unjust. This country cannot do without the American market, and everyone knows it — beginning with the White House. Using that dependence as a lever of pressure is not commerce — it is economic coercion. I say this without any romanticism about Mexico, whose internal problems are very real. But coercion remains coercion.

An agreement he negotiated himself and sold as a victory

Trump's position on CUSMA in 2026 is remarkably inconsistent with his 2018-2020 rhetoric, when he presented this agreement as a "historic victory" for American workers and a clear improvement over NAFTA, which he had called the "worst trade deal ever signed." His administration promoted the new agreement as a model for future American trade negotiations.

Saying today that he is not a "big fan" of CUSMA — the agreement he himself renegotiated — either amounts to admitting that his original negotiation was insufficient, or represents purely tactical rejection rhetoric aimed at extracting new concessions. In either case, it reveals a relationship with commercial truth that his North American partners simply cannot afford to ignore.

American credibility as an asset or a liability

Beyond CUSMA, the question of American credibility as a trade partner is pressing. If the United States is perceived as a partner that calls into question its own agreements in the years following their signing, future American trade negotiations will become exponentially more difficult. Why would any country sign an agreement that could be challenged at the next presidential election?

Economists and specialists in international trade law underscore that the predictability of American commitments is a foundational asset of American economic power. Each time this asset is squandered, the cost of rebuilding it is considerable — far greater than the immediate economic concessions that the threat tactic seeks to extract.

Credibility is built over decades and destroyed in tweets. America built its reputation as a reliable trade partner over seventy years of institutions, respected agreements, and enforced rules even when they were costly. This reputation is one of the primary sources of American power. Every reckless statement about existing agreements chips away at it a little more.

A return to WTO rules: a thirty-year setback

If CUSMA expires without renewal in 2036, North American trade would default to the rules of the World Trade Organization (WTO). This would mean the return of significant customs duties on thousands of products that currently circulate freely between the three countries — a rollback of more than thirty years of progressive economic integration.

Available economic simulations indicate that such a scenario would produce a significant increase in industrial production costs in the United States, a major disruption to the Canadian agricultural sector, and a potentially severe economic crisis in Mexico. This is not a scenario any economic practitioner considers desirable — but it is a real possibility if no decision is reached over the next ten years.

Bilateral alternatives as a fallback solution

Some analysts suggest that if CUSMA were to expire, the three countries could negotiate separate bilateral agreements: a U.S.-Canada deal and a U.S.-Mexico deal, with fewer multilateral protections for the two junior partners. This option is in Washington's tactical interest — divide and conquer — but it would structurally weaken the commercial position of both Canada and Mexico relative to a trilateral agreement.

Bilateral agreements would also be more vulnerable to future American political pressure, since each partner would have to negotiate separately with a White House that holds a structurally more favorable power balance in a bilateral than in a trilateral format. This is precisely why Canada and Mexico have an interest in preserving the trilateral structure — together, they carry more weight than apart.

The Canadian and Mexican strategy of a common front to defend the trilateral agreement is the right one. It is the only way to maintain an acceptable balance of power against a White House that excels at dividing its partners. I hope their diplomats remain united even under pressure — because Washington will inevitably seek to separate them.

Automotive workers on the front line

Behind the abstract trade negotiations stand millions of workers whose jobs depend directly on North American commercial integration. In automotive plants in Windsor, Oshawa, Detroit, Monterrey, and San Antonio, workers are following the trade news with growing anxiety. Their jobs, their pensions, and their families depend on the stability of an agreement whose survival is now uncertain.

Automotive unions on both sides of the border have already begun warning their members. Unifor in Canada and the UAW in the United States have published joint statements demanding that governments protect North American industrial jobs. The bitter paradox: Trump, who presents himself as the champion of American industrial workers, is pursuing a trade policy that directly threatens the jobs of integrated industry workers.

Farmers facing uncertainty in export markets

Farmers in all three countries face similar uncertainty. Alberta canola producers, Texas cattle ranchers, Iowa corn growers — all have built their operations around the tariff certainties of CUSMA. The expiration threat introduces a new risk factor into their business plans and financing decisions.

Agricultural associations have calculated that even a single year of uncertainty over the agreement's future is enough to reduce investment in equipment and farm expansion. Multiplied across millions of farmers throughout the three countries, this investment freeze effect represents tens of billions of dollars in economic growth that never materializes.

Every time politicians talk about "leverage" and "maximum pressure," I think of farmers who do not know whether they will be able to sell their harvest at a decent price next year. These people are not playing geopolitical chess — they are just trying to feed their families. Their lives should not be pawns in an electoral strategy.

Anxious Republican voices in agricultural and industrial states

Even within the Republican Party, dissenting voices are being heard about the CUSMA expiration threat. Republican senators from agricultural states like Iowa, Nebraska, and Kansas — whose constituents depend heavily on exports to Canada and Mexico — have expressed, in private and sometimes publicly, their concerns about the consequences of prolonged trade instability.

These senators face a classic dilemma: publicly support their president, or defend the immediate economic interests of their states. In a Republican primary environment as punishing for dissenters as the current one, few dare openly challenge the White House line. But the unease is real, and it could manifest in budget votes or year-end negotiations if the trade situation deteriorates.

Democrats and their critique of Trumpian trade policy

Democrats have denounced the CUSMA expiration threat as another example of Trumpian economic chaos. They recall that it was the Trump administration itself that promoted this agreement as a historic victory — and that calling it into question six years later reveals either inadequate negotiation when it was concluded, or purely tactical use of trade rhetoric to serve domestic political objectives.

But Democrats also have their own contradictions on trade policy: their union base supports restrictions on Mexican imports, while their progressive base advocates for agreements that include higher environmental and social standards. Criticizing Trumpian uncertainty over CUSMA without proposing a clear alternative remains their main weakness on this file.

The American trade debate suffers from a bipartisan pathology: no one wants to openly defend free trade, because it has become politically costly on both sides. Democrats fear their unions, Republicans fear Trump. Meanwhile, the integrated economies that create shared prosperity are being weakened. This is not economic nationalism — it is electoral fear dressed up as principle.

A historically strong bilateral relationship put to the test

Relations between Canada and the United States have navigated many commercial tensions since the 1980s — softwood lumber, dairy, steel — but they have always rested on a foundation of strategic partnership and shared values. The current relationship, marked by annexation threats treating Canada as a potential 51st state in the first half of 2025 and now by CUSMA uncertainty, is under qualitatively different pressure from anything that has come before.

Canadian polls show that anti-American sentiment has reached historic highs since the start of Trump's second term. Diversified trade partnerships with Europe and the Indo-Pacific, long considered supplements to the North American relationship rather than alternatives, are now being actively pursued by Ottawa as a strategic necessity. This represents a major paradigm shift in Canadian trade policy.

The lesson for European allies

What Canada is experiencing in its trade relationship with the United States is a direct lesson for European allies: excessive dependence on a single trade partner is a strategic vulnerability that Trumpian administrations will not hesitate to exploit. Europe, which diversified its energy sources after 2022, must apply the same logic to its broader commercial supply chains.

For the West as a whole, the lesson is uncomfortable but necessary: even the deepest alliances can be used as pressure levers in the context of aggressive trade policy. Preparing for this reality is not anti-Americanism — it is responsible geopolitical risk management.

I watch Canada's strategic realignment with a mixture of admiration and sadness. This country has been, for decades, America's most loyal and most discreet neighbor. Forcing it to diversify its alliances and develop a doctrine of autonomous economic resilience may be one of the enduring damages of the Trump era — damage that even a future Democratic president would struggle to fully repair.

A partial agreement on key sectors as a way out

Some negotiators and analysts suggest that a realistic exit route could take the form of a partial agreement on a few key sectors — automotive and agriculture as priorities — accompanied by a declaration of intent to renew the full agreement. This approach would allow Trump to present a "win" on specific concessions while maintaining the overall trade framework.

Canada and Mexico would likely be willing to accept adjustments on specific points — automotive rules of origin to incorporate more high-value-added North American content, certain agricultural provisions — in exchange for a guarantee of framework stability over a period of 10 to 16 years. This is normal negotiation between trade partners. The problem is that Trump has not yet signaled a desire for a conventional exit.

The role of the U.S. Congress in the equation

The U.S. Congress also has a voice on trade agreements, even if the executive holds broad negotiating powers. Members of Congress representing states heavily dependent on exports to Canada and Mexico could pressure the White House to avoid a disorderly expiration of the agreement. The November 2026 midterm elections add a political calendar to this equation: no Republican representative in an agricultural state wants to enter a campaign with the threat of agricultural tariff hikes on their conscience.

There remains, therefore, a political window for a resolution before the end of 2026. It is narrow, but it exists. The history of American trade policy shows that seemingly intractable crises have often found pragmatic last-minute resolutions when electoral interests demanded it. That is not a guarantee — but it is an encouraging precedent.

I am not naive: the "last minutes" of American trade policy have often produced lame agreements that satisfied everyone superficially while resolving little structurally. But in this specific case, a lame agreement would be infinitely preferable to a chaotic expiration. Sometimes, the imperfect is the enemy of the catastrophic.

Western economic unity as a strategic message

Beyond its immediate commercial dimensions, the uncertainty over CUSMA sends a strategic message to the rest of the world: Western countries are incapable of maintaining coherent trade commitments among themselves. This message is actively amplified by Chinese and Russian state media, which see in it a confirmation of their narrative about the disorder and weakness of liberal democracies.

Against adversaries like China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea who are betting on the internal cohesion of their authoritarian systems as a competitive advantage, intra-Western trade divisions are a geopolitical gift. Every public display of commercial quarrels between allies weakens the credibility of the Western bloc as a political and economic alternative to authoritarian models.

The final paradox: protecting the West by tearing it apart from within

Trump is convinced that his aggressive trade policies strengthen America's position in the world. His supporters see in commercial uncertainty a pressure tool that forces allies to pay their fair share. There is a logic in this vision — allies have effectively taken advantage of American commercial generosity for decades without bearing all the costs.

But the method for rebalancing these relationships — threatening the expiration of foundational agreements, calculated silence as a negotiating tool, publicly calling into question treaties signed by the same administration — produces structural costs in credibility and allied cohesion that exceed the immediate tactical gains. This is not my ideological conviction — it is a reality documented by decades of international relations theory.

It is difficult for me to conclude this commentary without a certain frustration. CUSMA is a good agreement. It is not perfect — no agreement is — but it represents decades of patient work to build an integrated North American economic space that benefits everyone. Seeing it threatened by the rhetorical strategy of a president who signed it himself is something I cannot find rational.

Economic integration that also serves Western defense

It would be reductive to treat CUSMA purely as a trade agreement. In the current geostrategic context — war in Ukraine, tensions in the South China Sea, Iran's nuclear program — the economic cohesion of North America is also a pillar of Western security. Integrated supply chains between Canada, the United States, and Mexico for steel, aluminum, semiconductors, and strategic materials reduce dependence on potentially hostile suppliers.

Western support for Ukraine requires a strong industrial and economic base. The production of ammunition, military vehicles, and defense electronics rests on those very integrated supply chains that CUSMA facilitates. Weakening the trade agreement for domestic political reasons also weakens North America's capacity to sustain the collective defense effort of the West. This connection is not always obvious, but it is real and documentable.

What Zelensky and the Ukrainians expect from the West

Volodymyr Zelensky and the Ukrainian people have been fighting for more than four years for their national survival and for Western values — democracy, freedom, territorial integrity. This fight demands a united and economically strong West. Every intra-Western commercial fracture, every tariff dispute between allies, every call into question of a foundational agreement weakens the Atlantic Alliance's collective capacity to support Ukraine over time.

This is not a sentimental argument — it is a concrete strategic calculation. Putin's Russia has from the start been betting on Western fatigue and division. Every time that division manifests — whether over tariffs, trade, or security guarantees — it validates Moscow's wager. Maintaining North American cohesion is not only a matter of jobs and tariffs: it is also a matter of geostrategic credibility in the face of democracy's adversaries.

I think of Zelensky and the Ukrainians every time I see Western allies tearing each other apart over trade. These people are fighting so that the West remains strong and united. The least we can do is not provide them with the spectacle of our own economic quarrels fueling the narratives of our common adversaries. Unity is not an option — it is a moral obligation toward those who are fighting in our name.

What is really at stake in the coming months

The current uncertainty over CUSMA is not simply a matter of tariffs and rules of origin. It is a question about what North America wants to be in the coming decades: an integrated and coherent economic bloc capable of competing with other major global economic zones, or a space of permanent tensions where each partner seeks to exploit the vulnerabilities of the others. The answer to that question will define the economic and geopolitical trajectory of the continent for a generation.

The coming months — through the end of 2026 and the midterm elections — are decisive. If an extension is concluded, even partial and imperfect, CUSMA will be able to fulfill its function as a stable commercial framework. If uncertainty persists through the annual reviews, the economic and diplomatic damage will accumulate exponentially. This is not an abstract threat — it is a calculable trajectory.

My final conviction

I am convinced that North American economic integration is one of the strategic achievements of the second half of the twentieth century in the Western world. Calling it into question for short-term domestic political calculations would be a historic mistake whose consequences would be felt long after the current actors have left the stage. The America I admire is the one that builds and honors its commitments. Not the one that threatens its own constructions to force concessions from its nearest neighbors and allies.

Canadians and Mexicans are watching Washington with understandable anxiety. What the coming weeks reveal about the real intentions of the Trump administration will determine whether this foundational agreement can be saved — or whether North America enters a long period of commercial fragmentation with consequences that are difficult to anticipate. I remain cautiously optimistic. But optimism must be earned, and it has not yet been.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Editorial stance

I am not a journalist but a columnist and analyst. My expertise lies in observing and analysing the geopolitical, economic and strategic dynamics that shape our world. My work is to take political strategies apart, to understand global economic movements, to put the decisions of international actors in context and to offer analytical perspectives on the changes that are redefining our societies.

I do not claim the cold objectivity of traditional journalism, which stops at reporting facts. I claim analytical clarity, rigorous interpretation and a deep understanding of the complex issues that concern us all. My role is to give meaning to the facts, to place them in their historical and strategic context, and to offer a critical reading of events.

Method and sources

This text keeps the basic distinction between verified facts and interpretive analysis. The rule never changes: a factual claim is published only when a verifiable source supports it, and the sources this article actually used are listed under Sources, never here.

Primary source families used by the publication, when the story has them: official statements from governments and international institutions, public statements by political leaders, reports from intergovernmental organisations, dispatches from recognised international news agencies.

Secondary source families: specialised publications, internationally recognised news media, analyses from established research institutions, reports from industry organisations.

When an article cites statistical, economic or geopolitical data, it comes from the institutions that produce it (intergovernmental organisations, central banks, national statistics offices), and the exact institution is named under Sources.

Nature of the analysis

The analyses, interpretations and perspectives in the analytical sections of this article are a critical, contextual synthesis based on the information available, the trends observed and the expert comments cited in the sources consulted.

My role is to interpret these facts, to set them in the context of today's geopolitical and economic dynamics, and to give them a coherent meaning within the larger story of the changes shaping our time. These analyses reflect expertise built through continuous observation of international affairs and an understanding of the strategic mechanisms that drive global actors.

This article describes a documented state of affairs on its publication date, not a prediction: later developments may shift its outlook. No update is promised in advance; when an article is corrected or completed, the change is dated in the text.