The 2026 review of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) is one of the most consequential economic and strategic discussions for North America in the coming years. The technical debate is framed around trade irritants, rules of origin, tariffs and sectoral disputes, and the political incentives surrounding the review process –political cycles, elections, control over the House or the Senate. Yet the deeper issue is whether the three countries will actively preserve and strengthen the 40-year-old model of regional integration that has become central to competitiveness, supply chain resilience, and economic security.
The conversation held during the U.S. Policy Outlook underscored a core point: USMCA is not a conventional trade agreement. It is the institutional framework for a production platform in which the United States, Mexico, and Canada are simultaneously major customers, suppliers, investors, and strategic partners. The three countries offer complementarities to the production platform. Over the past five years, Mexico and Canada together have become the United States’ largest customer base, and most important supplier network. This matters because the future of industrial competitiveness -starting with advanced technology manufacturing- will depend increasingly on the ability to produce with trusted partners, reduce strategic vulnerabilities, and respond to geopolitical disruptions.
In the current view of the US, economic security and supply-chain resilience are considered national security matters.
The Review Matters Deeply to the United States
Given the weight of the external sector in Mexico’s economy, the importance of the review is enormous, but it is equally consequential for the United States. North American integration has strengthened U.S. economic performance, supported jobs across congressional districts, and positioned the region to compete more effectively with other countries, particularly with China. The agreement’s value is most visible in sectors where production is deeply integrated across borders and where businesses depend on predictable access to suppliers, customers, and inputs throughout the region. This means that our countries produce together; rather than compete with each other, we complement each other’s production platforms.
The broader public opinion does not necessarily follow the review process of the USMCA. People are looking for affordability and certainty, and not into trade agreements.
Despite its technical complexities being confined to specialized government officials and private firm negotiators, the USMCA continues to enjoy significant political backing in the United States. This support is broad, particularly for trade with Mexico and Canada, and is strong among the informed public, including exporters, importers, business communities, and specific niche think tanks.
In Congress, the agreement continues to benefit from its unusually strong bipartisan legacy. The main challenge is not rebuilding support from scratch, but ensuring that new lawmakers understand the scale of the agreement’s impact on manufacturing, agriculture, technology, and employment in their own states and districts.
U.S. Priorities: Enforcement, Rules of Origin, and Economic Security
According to my conversation with Kevin Brady, Former U.S. Congressman and Former USMCA Negotiator, the review is likely to revolve around two layers of priorities. The first is enforcement and improvement. Members of Congress will remain attentive to longstanding sectoral irritants and to whether existing commitments are being implemented effectively. This includes politically salient issues in agriculture, energy, and other sectors with direct constituency relevance.
The second layer is broader and more strategic: economic security. In that sense, the United States is likely to place strong emphasis on:
- Rules of origin and whether they should be strengthened or extended to additional sectors;
- Transshipment and the use of North American trade preferences by third countries –mostly within the Chinese sphere of influence;
- Investment screening and the traceability of capital in sensitive industries;
- Critical minerals, innovation ecosystems, and supply chains essential to advanced manufacturing;
- Coordination among the USMCA countries to reduce dependence on non-market economies where that dependence creates strategic risk.
This agenda has the potential to become a constructive platform for deeper North American co-production. The strategic opportunity is to use the USMCA review to build more secure integration, and therefore guarantee our national and economic security.
Mexico Should Prepare Solutions, Not Merely Positions
One of the strongest takeaways from the conversation with Mr. Brady, was that successful negotiation will require flexibility, clarity, and credible problem-solving. The timing of the review remains uncertain. The agreement may not be finalized by July 1, 2026, but prolonging uncertainty for years would be costly for all three countries. A hasty deal would be damaging; so would an open-ended process that weakens investment confidence.
Mexico should be arriving at the ongoing review with concrete proposals in areas where U.S. concerns are already visible. That includes economic security, investment screening, standards for strategic sectors, and measures against transshipment. Mexico has already shown a willingness to engage on some of these issues. The next step is to demonstrate that it can be a proactive architect of a stronger regional framework, rather than a reactive participant in a U.S.-driven agenda.
Congress Will Matter, Even if the White House Leads
During our conversation, Kevin Brady highlighted the complicated balance between executive authority and congressional oversight. Trade policy falls within Congress’s constitutional purview, even though significant authority has been delegated to the executive branch over time. The White House will likely seek to manage the review without bringing the agreement back for a full congressional vote, but Congress will play a central role through hearings, oversight, political pressure, and direct engagement with the administration.
This matters because there is a practical boundary between interpreting, enforcing, and improving the agreement and fundamentally altering its architecture. If major changes were to disrupt the agreement’s core design, congressional pressure would likely increase sharply. The private sector, agricultural interests, manufacturers, technology firms, and other stakeholders are already mobilizing to make the case that USMCA must be strengthened without undermining the very integration that gives it value.
Withdrawal Is Possible in Theory, but Costly in Practice
Could the United States walk away from USMCA? In legal and political terms, the possibility cannot be dismissed. But a full withdrawal is unlikely to be the preferred outcome, in part because the agreement benefits almost every U.S. state and a very large number of congressional districts. The political geography of USMCA matters: many of the states most dependent on trade with Mexico and Canada are also politically important in national elections.
The more realistic risk is not abrupt termination, but the use of withdrawal threats, tariffs, or prolonged uncertainty as negotiating tools. That can still inflict real damage. Investment in advanced manufacturing, artificial intelligence, energy, and strategic supply chains depends on long-term certainty. The shorter and more fragile the extension of the agreement, the smaller the incentive to make large, fixed investments in North America.
The private sector isn’t a spectator
Companies operating in highly integrated North American sectors should prepare operationally for uncertainty, including by assessing supply chain flexibility. But the more urgent task is policy engagement. Businesses must explain why the agreement’s core design matters –in terms of production, growth, competitiveness, investment, and jobs–, and therefore aim to get an engagement that ensures:
- Zero –or low— tariffs among the three countries;
- Exemptions from disruptive tariff measures where possible;
- Regulatory and production integration;
- Predictable rules that support investment decisions.
Conclusion
The 2026 USMCA review is a strategic opportunity to reaffirm North America as a resilient production platform. The review must address real concerns regarding enforcement and economic security while preserving the foundations of regional competitiveness. The evolution of the USMCA should prioritize generating certainty and resilience for all three nations.
