Trump says he would 'rather not have' NAFTA agreement

President Trump on Wednesday said he would "rather not have" the North American trade agreement that was negotiated during his first term.

Objective Facts

President Trump on Wednesday said he would "rather not have" the North American trade agreement that was negotiated during his first term. Trump told reporters in Paris that "I would rather not have the USMCA" and "I'd rather leave it unsigned, I'd rather have it terminated," though he added that he "may sign it." The mandatory joint review of the USMCA requires the three countries to decide by July 1 whether to extend the agreement for another 16 years. Trump explained that "The primary reason I wanted [the USMCA] was because there was no way out of NAFTA, which was the worst trade agreement ever made." The risk of the deal collapsing now appears greater than before. On June 1, 2026, Canada formally asked the United States and Mexico to renew the agreement for another 16 years, with Canadian Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc stating that the USMCA "is highly beneficial to each of our countries."

Left-Leaning Perspective

Dozens of Democrats in Congress and hundreds of unions and civil society groups seek a major renegotiation of the USMCA. U.S. Representative Debbie Dingell (D-Mich.) told reporters that "While we knew that the USMCA was an important step forward from NAFTA, the agreement was always intended to be a floor, not a ceiling, and we knew we'd have to reevaluate its impact and come back to it." According to the Economic Policy Institute, the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico and Canada reached a projected $263 billion in 2025, up from $125 billion in 2020, and manufacturers shed or furloughed more than 576,000 jobs since the agreement was signed. Labor leaders have called for the 2026 sunset review to identify concrete revisions to address problems of offshoring and wage stagnation. Rep. Marcy Kaptur (D-Ohio) told media that Trump's tariff policies had hit farmers in her northwest Ohio district especially hard, making it more challenging to export goods, and stated "Trump isn't making it better. He's making it worse." Left-leaning coverage has not emphasized the internal contradiction of Trump now opposing his own deal, instead focusing on the opportunity the 2026 review presents to strengthen labor protections and reduce trade deficits—areas where even progressive critics acknowledge USMCA fell short.

Right-Leaning Perspective

The Conservative Treehouse argues that "the USMCA was the optimal way to get out of the quicksand NAFTA trade agreement" and that "Once that NAFTA break was finished, the inherent value of the USMCA ended," with Trump now wanting "two bilateral trade agreements – one with Mexico and one with Canada." According to the Cato Institute, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer told Congress the administration would not rubber-stamp an extension of the agreement, noting that "Threats are also a staple of Trump's approach to trade" and that "Trump's announcement is best interpreted as a negotiating tactic." Just the News reports that "the president has long sounded an alarm about the United States' persistent trade deficits with most countries, including Mexico and Canada." Right-leaning outlets frame Trump's skepticism not as a reversal but as continuation of his original negotiating strategy—viewing USMCA as a temporary mechanism to escape NAFTA rather than a permanent framework. They downplay the threat of termination as rhetoric and cite his exemption of USMCA-compliant goods from tariffs as evidence he understands the deal's value.

Deep Dive

Trump negotiated the USMCA during his first stint in office as a replacement for NAFTA, which connected the three economies in 1994. When signing the agreement in January 2020, Trump called it "the largest, fairest, most balanced, and modern trade agreement ever achieved" and "This is a colossal victory for our farmers, ranchers, energy workers, factory workers and American workers in all 50 states." The reversal now stems from two factors: first, the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico and Canada reached $263 billion in 2025 versus $125 billion in 2020, and manufacturers shed over 576,000 jobs since the agreement was signed—data that contradicts Trump's original promise to rebalance trade. Second, escalating trade tensions, especially between the United States and Canada, have undermined Trump's support, as Canada's newly elected prime minister Mark Carney has attempted to pivot away from the United States and is actively courting China, which has rankled the Trump administration. Trump's claim that "we don't need anything that [Canada and Mexico] have" is economically questionable, as "many Americans would be harmed if negotiations on a USMCA extension drag on for a prolonged period or, worse, if the agreement ceases to exist." What each side gets right: Right-leaning analysts correctly identify that threats are part of Trump's standard negotiating playbook, and that his exemption of USMCA-compliant goods from tariffs suggests he recognizes the deal's value. Left-leaning critics rightly highlight that USMCA failed to deliver its core promise of reducing trade deficits and offshoring. What they miss: Right-leaning coverage underplays the genuine economic risk of prolonged uncertainty, while left-leaning analysis doesn't adequately address that even flawed agreements create supply chain dependencies that make sudden termination costly. The critical unresolved question is whether the president actually has the power to withdraw from USMCA without congressional consent, as the Republican-led Senate Finance Committee concluded in 2020 that "The United States cannot withdraw from a congressionally approved trade agreement without the consent of Congress." Many expect the nations will blow past the July 1 deadline, moving the agreement into annual review status—a middle ground that satisfies neither Trump's stated preference for bilateral deals nor Canada and Mexico's call for a 16-year extension.

Regional Perspective

On June 1, 2026, Canada formally asked the United States and Mexico to renew the agreement for another 16 years, with Canadian Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc stating in a letter that the USMCA "is highly beneficial to each of our countries" while acknowledging that the United States and Mexico "may wish to propose areas where improvements may be warranted." Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum also expressed her wish to renew the deal in a press conference from this week. Canadian and Mexican media coverage frames Trump's comments as part of a broader pattern of escalating trade tensions, but the two countries are diverging sharply in their responses. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum chose to accommodate American demands by cooperating on trade negotiations, boosting security cooperation with the United States to combat Mexican drug cartels and imposing its own tariffs on other countries to reduce Mexico's attractiveness as a pass-through for cheap goods to the U.S. However, Canada immediately escalated, imposing retaliatory tariffs, and Canada's newly elected prime minister, Mark Carney, has attempted to pivot his country away from the United States and is actively courting China, India, and European partners to reduce dependence on American markets, a strategy that has raised alarms. Canadian international trade lawyer William Pellerin told CBC News that "Fundamentally, there are 10 years left to this trade agreement unless the U.S. president triggers the escape clause," and noted "it's no surprise that Trump would threaten 'the nuclear option' of withdrawing from the trade deal because his way of negotiating has always been to talk tough in public." For Canada, which depends heavily on U.S. market access, Trump's termination threat carries existential economic weight. CUSMA covers some $1.3 trillion in cross-border trade with the U.S. and shields roughly 90 per cent of Canada's exports from Trump's tariffs. Regional media emphasizes this vulnerability while Mexico's outlets stress the opportunity for improved terms through negotiation rather than confrontation.

OBJ SPEAKING

Create StoryTimelinesVoter ToolsRegional AnalysisPolicy GuideAll StoriesCommunity PicksUSWorldPoliticsBusinessHealthEntertainmentTechnologyAbout

Trump says he would 'rather not have' NAFTA agreement

President Trump on Wednesday said he would "rather not have" the North American trade agreement that was negotiated during his first term.

Jun 17, 2026· Updated Jun 18, 2026
What's Going On

President Trump on Wednesday said he would "rather not have" the North American trade agreement that was negotiated during his first term. Trump told reporters in Paris that "I would rather not have the USMCA" and "I'd rather leave it unsigned, I'd rather have it terminated," though he added that he "may sign it." The mandatory joint review of the USMCA requires the three countries to decide by July 1 whether to extend the agreement for another 16 years. Trump explained that "The primary reason I wanted [the USMCA] was because there was no way out of NAFTA, which was the worst trade agreement ever made." The risk of the deal collapsing now appears greater than before. On June 1, 2026, Canada formally asked the United States and Mexico to renew the agreement for another 16 years, with Canadian Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc stating that the USMCA "is highly beneficial to each of our countries."

Left says: Democratic Representative Debbie Dingell argues the USMCA was "always intended to be a floor, not a ceiling," while union and labor groups push for major renegotiation to strengthen labor standards and reduce offshoring.
Right says: Conservative commentators frame Trump's USMCA skepticism as fulfilling his original agenda—using it as a tool to escape NAFTA rather than as a permanent trade arrangement—and now moving toward bilateral deals instead.
Region says: Canadian Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum both called for renewal of the deal, but Canada and Mexico are responding very differently to Trump's threat—Mexico accommodating his demands while Canada pursues alternative trading partners.
✓ Common Ground
Some voices across the political spectrum acknowledge that "Influential lobby groups representing every major sector of the U.S. economy are urging the Trump administration to renew CUSMA, or USMCA," including manufacturing sectors that Trump argues will benefit from tariff policy.
Both trade experts skeptical of the agreement and those who support it agree that "walking away from the six-year-old deal would be as much a disaster as allowing it to continue without improvements."
There is emerging consensus that "The United States does, in fact, need Canada and Mexico," with the two countries accounting for large shares of U.S. imports and exports, and that "Undermining the USMCA would impose costs on many Americans, especially if it results in USMCA-compliant Canadian and Mexican imports being subjected to the administration's tariff wall."
Objective Deep Dive

Trump negotiated the USMCA during his first stint in office as a replacement for NAFTA, which connected the three economies in 1994. When signing the agreement in January 2020, Trump called it "the largest, fairest, most balanced, and modern trade agreement ever achieved" and "This is a colossal victory for our farmers, ranchers, energy workers, factory workers and American workers in all 50 states." The reversal now stems from two factors: first, the U.S. trade deficit with Mexico and Canada reached $263 billion in 2025 versus $125 billion in 2020, and manufacturers shed over 576,000 jobs since the agreement was signed—data that contradicts Trump's original promise to rebalance trade. Second, escalating trade tensions, especially between the United States and Canada, have undermined Trump's support, as Canada's newly elected prime minister Mark Carney has attempted to pivot away from the United States and is actively courting China, which has rankled the Trump administration.

Trump's claim that "we don't need anything that [Canada and Mexico] have" is economically questionable, as "many Americans would be harmed if negotiations on a USMCA extension drag on for a prolonged period or, worse, if the agreement ceases to exist." What each side gets right: Right-leaning analysts correctly identify that threats are part of Trump's standard negotiating playbook, and that his exemption of USMCA-compliant goods from tariffs suggests he recognizes the deal's value. Left-leaning critics rightly highlight that USMCA failed to deliver its core promise of reducing trade deficits and offshoring. What they miss: Right-leaning coverage underplays the genuine economic risk of prolonged uncertainty, while left-leaning analysis doesn't adequately address that even flawed agreements create supply chain dependencies that make sudden termination costly.

The critical unresolved question is whether the president actually has the power to withdraw from USMCA without congressional consent, as the Republican-led Senate Finance Committee concluded in 2020 that "The United States cannot withdraw from a congressionally approved trade agreement without the consent of Congress." Many expect the nations will blow past the July 1 deadline, moving the agreement into annual review status—a middle ground that satisfies neither Trump's stated preference for bilateral deals nor Canada and Mexico's call for a 16-year extension.

◈ Tone Comparison

Canadian outlet CBC News noted that Trump's comments "failed to acknowledge the facts about a deal that covers some $2.7 trillion in annual goods and services trade between the countries." Left-leaning coverage emphasizes economic data and policy failures, while right-leaning outlets frame Trump's rhetoric as consistent with his long-standing trade strategy and use phrases like "negotiating tactic" and "flexing his power" rather than "threat."