Legislative Power to Shield North American Trade Pact
Congress Mexico and Canada hold a USMCA – During his initial presidency, Donald Trump proclaimed the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement as the finest free trade arrangement ever created by humanity. Its principal designer, Ambassador Robert Lighthizer, similarly characterized the accord as the “gold standard” among international trade pacts.
However, Trump’s second administration has installed officials who undermine this achievement. Among them are economist Peter Navarro and Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick, both described as destructive forces. Canada, traditionally America’s closest partner, has endured particularly harsh treatment. The nation was even referred to as the “51st state” by administration figures. Secretary Lutnick went further, bluntly stating that Canadians “suck.” Consequently, hostility toward the United States within Canada has reached unprecedented heights. Diplomatic tensions between the two nations have not been this severe since the War of 1812.
Congress Holds the Decisive Card
Trump appears to have embraced this antagonistic approach, signaling his belief that America would fare better without the USMCA. Before accepting any modifications or abandoning the agreement entirely, lawmakers in Washington alongside their counterparts in Ottawa and Mexico City must grasp the economic consequences of obstructing commerce.
Our three national legislatures possess the ultimate leverage against presidential overreach. Should negotiations fail to produce amendments during the designated review phase, the USMCA automatically persists in its existing configuration, subject to periodic evaluations, through July 1, 2036. Crucially, the president cannot unilaterally exit the agreement without legislative consent. The administration is constructing a false narrative of urgency. The sensible approach involves maintaining strong positions against any erosion of the deal’s provisions.
Both the USMCA and its predecessor, NAFTA, have functioned as powerful economic drivers for North America since 1993. The thirty years following NAFTA’s passage witnessed one of the longest periods of prosperity expansion in U.S. economic records. American exports nearly tripled when adjusted for inflation, surpassing $2 trillion each year. Contrary to widespread assumptions, domestic manufacturing production grew by over fifty percent and reached record levels.
Americans also secured employment in higher-compensation industries as lower-wage positions relocated abroad. Real median weekly earnings climbed by nineteen percent, reversing a five percent decline that occurred during the fifteen years before NAFTA took effect. Adult participation in the workforce among those aged twenty-five to thirty-four rose significantly. Foreign direct investment surged, drawn by the reliability and accessibility of American markets.
Tariffs as Hidden Taxes
Commerce with Canada and Mexico has benefited American workers, agricultural producers, and industrial facilities. For households with limited income, tariff reductions constituted one of the most substantial tax relief measures ever enacted. Conversely, Trump’s tariffs represent the greatest tax burden increase relative to GDP since 1993. The extra $185 billion collected through tariffs in 2025 translates to an annual tax increase exceeding $2,000 for each American family. Both entrepreneurs and everyday citizens shoulder this financial weight.
Trump also committed a significant mistake early in his first term by exiting the Trans-Pacific Partnership discussions. That partnership would have established a rules-based trading system across Pacific nations and offered substantial resistance to China’s growing economic power. Rather than strengthening alliances, Trump has pursued numerous meetings with Chinese leadership. While the Trump administration wages an unprovoked trade conflict with friendly nations, China invites those same countries to conduct business.
Now the president exploits the USMCA review process to compel renegotiation according to his preferences. Any outcome resulting from this pressure will extend beyond his time in office. Weakening the agreement will create consequences that outlast any single presidency.
The architects of the USMCA thoughtfully incorporated a ten-year renegotiation period before the agreement’s eventual expiration. They recognized the political realities of three democratic nations. Elections occur, priorities evolve, and circumstances for productive dialogue change. This decade-long window allows time to manage these shifting variables.
Between now and 2036, Americans will vote in two additional presidential elections. Substantial changes could occur. It seems unlikely that either major party would nominate someone as automatically hostile to free trade as the current White House occupant, particularly as economic hardships become more apparent to ordinary families.
Mathematics will eventually reveal a political coalition supporting the USMCA. Free-market supporters resist tariffs on principle: economic freedom, competitive markets, and growth that elevates living standards while generating profits. Center-left politicians will reach similar conclusions through different reasoning.
“The president may not withdraw from USMCA without congressional approval.”
“Additional tariff revenue of $185 billion in 2025 represents a more than $2,000 annual tax hike per American household.”
