OPEN LETTER: Mr. Trump, why abandon USMCA now

Introduction: a letter to a partner who has become unpredictable

Mr. President, a simple question must be asked

Mr. President, allow me to write to you directly, as a pro-Western columnist who has always defended the strategic necessity of your leadership against major geopolitical threats. But today, your decision not to renew the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (USMCA) deserves a clear public explanation, one you have still not given with the transparency this matter demands.

According to CBC News and CNBC, your administration let the July 1, 2026 deadline pass without formally starting the renewal process for a new sixteen-year term, a decision with significant economic consequences for millions of North American workers.

What this decision actually means

Technically, the agreement remains in force, with annual reviews scheduled through 2036, unless one of the three parties decides to withdraw with six months' notice. But the absence of a formal renewal sends a signal of instability that is already worrying business communities in all three signatory countries.

This open letter aims to ask you, Mr. President, the questions millions of Canadians, Mexicans, and Americans are asking today about the future of this essential trade relationship for the entire North American continent.

The scale of trade at stake between our two countries

A colossal economic partnership

Mr. President, you certainly know that the trade relationship between Canada and the United States represents roughly 1.3 trillion dollars in annual trade, according to data reported by several economic analysts cited by CBC News. This colossal figure illustrates just how deeply interconnected our economies remain, far beyond simplistic political rhetoric.

USMCA currently protects roughly 90 percent of Canadian exports to the United States against punitive tariffs, an economic security net whose sudden questioning legitimately worries entire sectors of the Canadian economy.

Entire industries hanging on your decision

The automotive industry, agriculture, energy, and North American manufacturing all depend, to varying degrees, on the legal stability offered by this trilateral trade agreement, initially signed under your own first administration.

Ironically, Mr. President, it was you who negotiated and signed this agreement in 2020, presenting it then as one of the greatest trade successes of your first term. This reversal raises legitimate questions about the consistency of your long-term trade policy.

Why tariffs seem to have become your priority

A deliberate fiscal strategy amid rising debt

According to analysts cited by Al Jazeera, your administration appears to have deliberately chosen to favor tariffs as a fiscal and economic instrument rather than maintaining a stable, predictable trade framework with your North American neighbors, amid steadily growing American federal debt.

This approach, while politically profitable with a segment of your electorate that views tariffs as protection for American jobs, largely ignores repeated economic studies showing that these same tariffs often end up being paid, ultimately, by American consumers themselves.

The paradox of a policy that could backfire

Mr. President, several economists warn that this aggressive tariff approach could accelerate domestic American inflation, a major political risk given that your administration has made fighting the cost of living precisely one of its central communication priorities since your return to power.

This contradiction between your economic rhetoric and your concrete trade actions deserves to be publicly highlighted, as it illustrates an internal tension in your own economic strategy that even your supporters sometimes struggle to explain coherently.

Canada facing a difficult strategic choice

Negotiate now or wait for the midterm elections

The Canadian government now finds itself facing a complex strategic dilemma: negotiate immediately with your administration in an uncertain political context, or wait until the 2026 American midterm elections, hoping for a shift in the balance of power in Congress more favorable to a stable trade agreement.

This strategic uncertainty, documented by several analysts cited by CBC News, illustrates the delicate position in which your decision places a historic partner that has always scrupulously honored its trade commitments to the United States.

The risks of prolonged wait-and-see tactics

Waiting too long, however, carries its own risks for Canada: prolonging economic uncertainty could discourage major cross-border investments and push some Canadian companies to redirect their supply chains toward other markets, potentially to the detriment of both economies in the long run.

This situation, Mr. President, truly benefits no one, not Canadian workers, not American workers, nor even the broader goal of North American economic security against Chinese strategic competition over critical supply chains.

The role of the U.S. Trade Representative

Jamieson Greer and Washington's official position

U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer publicly confirmed the decision not to formally renew the agreement for a new sixteen-year term, while insisting that the existing framework remains functional thanks to the annual reviews scheduled through 2036, according to CNBC and the New York Post.

This position, while technically reassuring on the immediate legal front, does not answer the underlying strategic question: why give up the stability of a long-term commitment in favor of renewed annual uncertainty, which complicates investment planning for companies in all three countries?

Communication that lacks clarity

Mr. President, your administration would benefit from publicly clarifying, in much greater detail, the real strategic objectives behind this decision to let the renewal deadline slip, rather than allowing uncertainty to linger that undermines the confidence of markets and North American trade partners.

This lack of strategic clarity fuels various speculations, some suggesting a deliberate negotiating strategy, others simply pointing to a lack of priority given to this file within an administration overwhelmed by multiple simultaneous fronts.

Mexico, the often-forgotten third partner in this debate

A relationship just as crucial but less publicized

While the public debate often focuses on the bilateral relationship between Canada and the United States, Mexico remains an equally essential partner in this trilateral agreement, with automotive and manufacturing supply chains deeply integrated across the three North American economies for decades.

The uncertainty surrounding USMCA's renewal therefore directly affects millions of Mexican workers, whose economic future remains suspended on the same American strategic decisions that today worry your Canadian neighbors.

North American solidarity put to the test

This situation should, Mr. President, prompt you to reconsider the strategic importance of an economically united North America, particularly in the face of China's growing industrial and trade ambitions, which is actively seeking to exploit any division between Western partners to strengthen its own global economic influence.

Weakening North American economic integration at the precise moment when Western unity against Beijing should be strengthened constitutes, in my view, a strategic mistake whose consequences could be felt well beyond mere short-term trade considerations.

What this reveals about your vision of international trade

Protectionism as a central economic doctrine

Mr. President, your approach to international trade, centered on tariffs and the permanent renegotiation of existing agreements, reflects an openly protectionist vision that contrasts sharply with the trade multilateralism that dominated American policy for decades before you came to power.

This doctrine, which you openly defend as necessary to protect American jobs, deserves to be judged by its concrete results rather than by its stated intentions alone, an exercise the coming months will certainly help clarify.

A necessary evil despite these questionable trade choices

I maintain my position, Mr. President: you remain a necessary evil against the far more serious geopolitical threats posed by China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. But this strategic conviction does not stop me from openly questioning trade decisions that sometimes seem to contradict your own broader geopolitical objectives.

Strong Western leadership requires consistency between firmness toward adversaries and loyalty toward allies, a balance your current trade policy toward Canada and Mexico sometimes struggles to fully uphold.

Reactions from North American business communities

Palpable concern among industrialists

Several Canadian and American business associations have publicly voiced their concern over this lack of formal renewal, underscoring the urgent need for legal predictability to justify major industrial investments spanning several years, even several decades.

This concern, widely shared across the automotive, agricultural, and energy sectors, illustrates the growing gap between companies' long-term planning needs and the more unpredictable pace of political decisions made in Washington under your administration.

Financial markets remain watchful

North American financial markets are also closely monitoring developments on this file, aware that any significant deterioration in the trilateral trade relationship could have repercussions on the economic growth of the three countries that signed this strategic agreement.

This market vigilance, Mr. President, should serve as an additional signal of the importance serious economic actors place on the lasting stability of this trade agreement, well beyond purely short-term political considerations.

The historical precedent of North American trade tensions

A history of tense but fruitful negotiations

The history of North American trade relations, from the original North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) to the current USMCA, has always been marked by tense negotiations that, historically, have ended up producing compromises mutually beneficial to all three economies involved.

This tradition of negotiation, despite its recurring difficulties over the decades, has helped build one of the most integrated and prosperous free trade zones in the world, an economic legacy that your current decision risks weakening without any clearly demonstrated strategic necessity.

A legacy you risk compromising

Mr. President, as the original signatory of USMCA during your first term, you bear a particular responsibility for preserving this North American trade legacy, rather than perpetually calling it into question according to electoral cycles and shifting fiscal priorities.

This historical responsibility deserves, in my view, deeper reflection on your part before you allow such a crucial deadline to definitively slip away, one so important to the economic future of three deeply interdependent nations.

The potential consequences for ordinary workers

Jobs directly threatened on both sides of the border

Beyond the grand economic and geopolitical speeches, Mr. President, it is ordinary workers, in Ontario's automotive industry as much as in factories in Michigan or Ohio, who would suffer the most direct consequences of a prolonged deterioration of this trilateral trade relationship.

These workers, who have no control over strategic decisions made in Washington, deserve a predictable trade policy that protects their jobs rather than permanent uncertainty dictated by short-term electoral considerations.

A human cost often overlooked in the debate

Public debate over international trade often focuses on abstract macroeconomic figures, overlooking the concrete human impact these trade decisions have on entire families whose financial stability depends directly on the health of this North American trade relationship.

This human dimension, Mr. President, deserves a more central place in your strategic thinking, beyond the fiscal or electoral calculations that currently seem to guide your approach to this North American trade file.

What the West expects of you on this file

Strategic consistency as a minimum requirement

Mr. President, the entire West needs an America that is consistent in its economic strategy as much as in its geopolitical firmness against authoritarian regimes. An erratic trade policy toward your closest North American allies sends a signal of weakness that our strategic adversaries will not fail to exploit to their advantage.

This strategic consistency constitutes, in my view, a minimum requirement for any credible Western leadership, particularly in a geopolitical context where unity among democratic allies has never been more essential against the combined ambitions of China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea.

An opportunity to reassure rather than divide

You have, Mr. President, the opportunity to transform this period of uncertainty into a moment of strategic clarification, by clearly communicating your real objectives regarding the future of this trilateral trade relationship, essential to the entire North American continent.

This clarification, if it came quickly, would reassure financial markets, workers in all three countries involved, and your Western allies who are closely watching how you handle this strategic trade file.

Possible scenarios for the coming months

Toward accelerated negotiation or prolonged wait-and-see

Several scenarios remain possible for the coming months: accelerated negotiation among the three countries aimed at quickly clarifying the terms of a renewal, or, conversely, a prolonged wait-and-see approach that would maintain the current uncertainty until the American midterm elections.

Each of these scenarios carries distinct economic and political implications for the three North American economies, making any confident prediction about the final outcome of this complex and highly strategic trade file difficult.

The importance of a swift, clear resolution

Whatever scenario ultimately unfolds, Mr. President, a swift and clear resolution of this situation remains preferable to prolonged uncertainty that truly benefits none of the three North American economies involved in this strategic trade agreement.

Such a swift resolution would also send a positive signal to the entire international community about the West's ability to maintain stable economic partnerships despite the internal political tensions that can sometimes complicate these negotiations.

My final conviction despite my criticisms

Constructive criticism, not systematic opposition

Mr. President, this open letter is in no way intended to question the overall legitimacy of your leadership in the face of the major geopolitical challenges the West is currently facing. Rather, it aims to directly challenge you on a specific matter where your current approach seems to me strategically inconsistent with your broader objectives.

This distinction between constructive criticism and systematic opposition constitutes, in my view, the very essence of responsible journalism, one that rejects both blind adulation and automatic rejection of every presidential decision, whatever its nature.

Hope for a swift clarification

I sincerely hope, Mr. President, that this open letter will modestly contribute to fueling a deeper public reflection on the strategic importance of preserving a stable North American trade relationship, for the ultimate benefit of workers and businesses in all three countries involved.

The economic future of millions of North American citizens deserves better than prolonged uncertainty, and I hope your administration will quickly clarify its position on this trade file of such vital importance to the entire continent.

The European example as a point of comparison

How the European Union manages its own internal trade tensions

The European Union, despite its own internal trade tensions among member states, has generally managed to maintain more predictable dispute resolution mechanisms than those currently observed in the North American relationship, a model that could inspire future reform of the trilateral USMCA framework.

This comparison, Mr. President, is not a gratuitous criticism of your approach, but an invitation to consider institutional mechanisms proven elsewhere to reduce the uncertainty currently weighing on North American trade relations.

Transferable lessons for North America

Without fully copying the European model, certain prior consultation and structured review mechanisms could usefully apply to the North American trilateral relationship, thereby reducing the risks of sudden uncertainty like what we are experiencing now.

This institutional reflection deserves, in my view, serious attention from all three governments involved, beyond the short-term electoral considerations that currently seem to dominate the North American trade debate.

Conclusion: a decision that still belongs to history

Time is running out, but nothing is irreversible

Mr. President, this decision not to formally renew USMCA by the scheduled deadline does not yet constitute a definitive point of no return. The annual review mechanisms still offer a window of opportunity to clarify and stabilize this essential trade relationship before the current uncertainty causes lasting economic damage.

This window of opportunity, though limited in time, remains open, and I sincerely hope your administration will seize it before the patience of your North American partners erodes further in the face of this prolonged uncertainty.

A final call for strategic clarity

In conclusion, Mr. President, I respectfully invite you to quickly clarify your real intentions regarding the future of this trilateral trade relationship, in the interest of the workers, businesses, and economic stability of the entire North American continent you lead and for which you bear, whether you like it or not, significant historical responsibility.

The West needs your firmness against its geopolitical adversaries, but it needs just as much your clarity and your loyalty toward its closest and most reliable allies.

By Maxime Marquette, columnist

Columnist's transparency note

Who I am and my acknowledged biases

I am Maxime Marquette, a pro-Western, pro-Ukraine columnist and analyst, convinced that Trump remains a necessary evil against the major geopolitical threats posed by China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea. This conviction does not stop me from openly questioning trade decisions I consider strategically inconsistent.

My analysis relies on reporting corroborated by several established media outlets, including CBC News, CNBC, USA Today, the New York Post, and Al Jazeera. No element of this text rests on an anonymous source or an unverifiable personal testimony.

What I don't know

I cannot predict with certainty whether the trilateral negotiations will result in a formal renewal before the American midterm elections, nor can I precisely establish the exact strategic motivations behind this choice to let the initial deadline lapse.

Sources

Primary sources

CBC News — What's next for CUSMA/USMCA — July 2, 2026

CNBC — Trump won't renew USMCA trade treaty — July 1, 2026

Al Jazeera — Why has Trump refused to renew the USMCA — July 2, 2026

Secondary sources

USA Today — Trump won't renew Canada Mexico trade agreement — July 1, 2026

New York Post — Trump won't renew USMCA deal — July 1, 2026

Reuters — Politics US Newsletter: Supreme victory — July 2, 2026