They have to treat us better
On the day a decision was due, Donald Trump chose neither renewal nor rupture — he chose perpetual uncertainty. The trade agreement he once called America's finest now survives on a year-by-year basis, its future subject to annual renegotiation rather than the sixteen-year horizon it was designed to provide. What governs two trillion dollars in North American commerce is no longer a settled framework but an ongoing negotiation, held open by the same hand that once closed it.
- Trump refused to renew the USMCA on its existing terms, rejecting the deal he personally championed in 2020 as no longer good enough for America.
- The shift from six-year to annual reviews injects chronic uncertainty into a $2 trillion trading framework that businesses across three countries depend on for long-term planning.
- The administration's core grievance — persistent US trade deficits with Mexico and Canada — remains unresolved, keeping the renegotiation pressure alive and unpredictable.
- Mexico signaled openness to talks, with its economy minister insisting no gap between the three nations is too large to bridge, but goodwill alone cannot substitute for stability.
- Supply chains and investment decisions built on the assumption of a durable North American trade order now face the prospect of being relitigated every twelve months.
The deadline came and went on Wednesday without a renewal. Rather than extend the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement through 2036 as the pact's own terms allowed, the Trump administration announced it would keep the deal alive but subject it to review every year instead of every six — a third path between full renewal and outright collapse.
The decision carried a particular irony: Trump had negotiated and signed the USMCA in 2020 as a replacement for NAFTA, calling it the fairest trade agreement America had ever signed. Now, six years on, he was refusing to renew it, citing trade deficits with Mexico and Canada that he argued the deal had failed to correct. In the weeks before the deadline, he had threatened to abandon it entirely, telling reporters that both neighbors needed America far more than America needed them.
Trade Representative Jamieson Greer framed the decision as a refusal to rubber-stamp a flawed agreement, signaling that Washington intended to keep pressing its neighbors on what it saw as the deal's shortcomings. Mexico's economy minister, Marcelo Ebrard, responded with measured optimism, saying no disagreement between the three countries was too large to resolve and that his government was ready to engage.
But the structural consequences of annual reviews are significant. The USMCA currently underpins roughly two trillion dollars in annual trade across North America. Businesses that built supply chains and investment strategies around a stable, long-term framework now face a world in which the rules governing that commerce could shift — or be threatened — every twelve months. The deal survived the deadline. Whether the certainty it once provided can survive Trump's annual judgment is another question entirely.
On Wednesday, the deadline arrived for the United States, Mexico, and Canada to decide whether to renew the trade pact that Donald Trump had once called the fairest agreement America had ever signed. He refused. Instead of committing the three nations to another sixteen years under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, Trump's administration chose to keep the deal on life support—alive, but subject to review every single year.
The USMCA was set to expire in 2036. The renewal decision was supposed to be straightforward: either all three countries agreed to extend it, or they didn't. Trump chose a third path. After virtual talks between officials from Washington, Mexico City, and Ottawa, the US trade representative's office announced that America would not renew the agreement in its current form. The pact would remain in force while negotiations continued, but the review cycle would tighten from once every six years to once every year.
A senior administration official explained the reasoning on a call with reporters: Trump had decided not to simply rubber-stamp the renewal without addressing what he saw as persistent problems. The United States, the official said, had not agreed to renew the USMCA as it stood. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer added that Washington would continue engaging with its neighbors to address what the administration viewed as the agreement's shortcomings. The message was clear: this deal, as written, was not good enough.
Trump has spent recent months attacking the USMCA publicly. Just the month before, he had threatened to abandon it altogether, telling reporters in the Oval Office that America needed nothing from Canada or Mexico, but that both countries needed everything from the United States. "They have to treat us better," he said. The complaint centered on trade deficits—the gap between what America imports from its neighbors and what it exports to them.
The irony was not lost on observers. Trump himself had negotiated and signed the USMCA in 2020, during his first term, as a replacement for the 1992 North American Free Trade Agreement. At that moment, he had described it in glowing terms: the fairest, most balanced, and most beneficial trade agreement the country had ever signed into law. Now, six years later, he was rejecting it.
Mexico's economy minister, Marcelo Ebrard, responded to the decision by signaling openness to negotiation. He told reporters that his government wanted to address the concerns the US had raised about foreign dependence in the agreement. "There is no difference that I can identify between Mexico, the United States and Canada that is so big that we cannot resolve it," he said. The door remained open, at least in tone.
But the shift to annual reviews carried real consequences. The USMCA currently governs roughly two trillion dollars in annual trade in goods and services across North America. Businesses that depend on the stability of that framework now faced a new reality: every year, the agreement could be renegotiated, threatened, or fundamentally altered. The prospect of that kind of uncertainty could discourage investment and destabilize supply chains that had been built on the assumption of a predictable, long-term trading environment.
The deal stayed alive. The three countries would keep talking. But the short leash Trump had chosen to keep it on meant that nothing was settled, nothing was secure, and everything was subject to his annual judgment about whether America was getting a fair shake.
Notable Quotes
There is no difference that I can identify between Mexico, the United States and Canada that is so big that we cannot resolve it— Marcelo Ebrard, Mexico's economy minister
They have to treat us better— Trump, on why the US needed better terms from Mexico and Canada
The Hearth Conversation Another angle on the story
Why would Trump reject a deal he created and praised just six years ago?
Because the trade deficits with Mexico and Canada bothered him then, and they still do now. He sees the numbers as proof the deal isn't working in America's favor, regardless of what economists might say about the broader benefits.
But doesn't annual review create more uncertainty, not less?
Exactly. That's the point, in a way. Trump is using uncertainty as leverage. If Mexico and Canada know the deal could be renegotiated or scrapped every year, they have incentive to make concessions he wants.
What do businesses do with that kind of instability?
They hesitate. A company deciding whether to build a factory in Mexico or invest in cross-border supply chains now has to factor in the risk that the rules could change dramatically. That hesitation ripples through the whole system.
Did Mexico and Canada have any choice in this?
Not really. Trump made the decision unilaterally. They can negotiate and signal willingness to address his concerns, but they can't force him to renew the deal on the original terms.
So what happens next?
A year of talks, probably. Mexico and Canada will try to make enough concessions to satisfy him. If they don't, he could push for more dramatic changes or threaten withdrawal again. The deal survives, but it's no longer a foundation—it's a negotiation that never ends.