USMCA Trade Deal Enters Six-Year Trilateral Review

The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, better known as USMCA, is moving into its required six-year trilateral review, with the first formal meeting of the three countries set for July 1, 2026. What makes this review particularly interesting is that the president who personally negotiated the deal as a replacement for NAFTA has publicly expressed he would “rather not have” it.

The agreement, which governs trade rules among the US, Canada, and Mexico, has a built-in mechanism requiring all three countries to sit down every six years and decide whether to keep things going. If all three parties agree to extend the deal, it continues for another 16-year term. If any country decides not to extend, the agreement enters a 10-year phase-out period punctuated by annual reviews, during which the remaining parties can still choose to recommit.

The USMCA replaced NAFTA in 2020 after Trump, during his first term, argued that the original free trade deal was catastrophically unfair to American workers and manufacturers. The renegotiated agreement included updated provisions on digital trade, labor standards, auto manufacturing rules of origin, and agricultural market access.

Companies that have built supply chains around the assumption of free or reduced-tariff access between the US, Canada, and Mexico would face a particularly uncomfortable recalculation. Automakers, for instance, have structured entire production networks to comply with USMCA’s rules of origin requirements. If those rules become irrelevant because the agreement is winding down, the cost calculus for manufacturing on the continent changes dramatically.

For agricultural producers, the implications are similarly weighty. Canada and Mexico are the two largest export markets for US farm products, and the USMCA locked in market access provisions that many producers treat as foundational to their business models.

For now, the key date to watch is July 1. The tone and substance of that first trilateral meeting will tell us whether this review is a formality or the opening move in a much larger negotiation. Given Trump’s stated preference, betting on a quick rubber stamp feels optimistic.