As the review of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) approaches , scheduled for 2026, experts warned that the process could lead to a complex renegotiation, given the explicit interest of the U.S. government in rethinking the terms of the agreement and using tariffs as an instrument of political and economic pressure.
Kenneth Smith, president of the Mexico-United States Bilateral Business Committee of the Mexican Business Council for Foreign Trade, Investment and Technology (Comce Nacional ) and partner of AGON , warned that Washington “has signaled its intention to renegotiate the agreement,” so Mexico must prepare for a review that could go beyond a simple technical adjustment.
He stressed that one of the objectives of the Mexican government must be to preserve the trilateral nature of the treaty and ” defend the principle of free trade tooth and nail ,” given the risk that the United States may seek to introduce schemes of base tariffs and sectoral quotas, similar to those proposed in agreements with the European Union or Japan.
“North American value chains have been built over 30 years thanks to the elimination of trade barriers. Reinstating tariffs would go against the very spirit of the USMCA,” warned Smith, who called for maintaining a joint position with Canada.
China, the invisible fourth player
For his part, Antonio Ortiz Mena, president of the T-MEC Strategy Technical Committee of the National Business Council for Foreign Trade, Investment and Technology (Comce Nacional), pointed out that, regardless of whether the review is bilateral or trilateral, “ it will be a negotiation between four ”: Mexico, the United States, Canada… and China.
“China will not be at the table, but it will be in the discussion,” he stated.
He recalled that the USMCA already contains a clause that prevents partners from signing agreements with economies that are not considered market economies, which indirectly points to China.
Ortiz-Mena explained that one of the most sensitive issues will be the review of rules of origin, which could incorporate restrictions related to the origin of capital and technology. She also considered that the negotiations “ will be tense, but if there are shared objectives—such as strengthening regional integration and ensuring fair trade—a successful outcome is possible .”
Infrastructure, logistics and security: pillars of competitiveness
When asked about logistics costs and infrastructure, Kenneth Smith stressed that Mexico must accompany any trade negotiations with domestic public policies that strengthen logistical capacity and promote investment in road, rail, and port infrastructure.
“The key is to develop, over the next three or four years, the capabilities that will allow Mexico to compete globally. Without infrastructure and efficient logistics, we cannot take advantage of our proximity to the United States,” he noted.
Along the same lines, Ortiz Mena maintained that infrastructure and logistics are what truly “shorten distances.” He also emphasized the need to link security and trade issues, noting that Mexico, as a member of the Wassenaar Arrangement , can strengthen its role as a supplier of dual-use goods (civilian and military) for strategic North American industries.
Regarding the Labor Rapid Response Mechanism (LRRM) , Smith warned about its use as “a form of covert protectionism” by some US unions seeking to impose sanctions even before investigations are resolved.
Ortiz-Mena agreed and pointed out that “there is a risk of abuse and even extortion” against companies through anonymous complaints, although he considered that the labor chapter of the USMCA remains a strategic asset for Mexico, positioning it as an attractive country for investment under fair trade standards and respect for labor rights.
Tariffs: political pressure and a source of revenue
Experts agreed that it is unlikely the United States will eliminate tariffs before the treaty review.
Kenneth Smith explained that President Donald Trump views tariffs as a tool of industrial policy and negotiating pressure, rather than as a temporary measure.
Ortiz Mena added that tariffs are also being used as a source of tax revenue, following the tax cuts implemented during Joe Biden’s administration.
“This reinforces the idea that tariffs are here to stay,” he said.
However, he stressed that the main objective of the review should not be to completely eliminate tariffs, but to reduce uncertainty.
“NAFTA wasn’t aiming for zero tariffs, but for certainty. Businesses prefer a low but stable tariff to a variable and unpredictable one,” he emphasized.
Juan Pablo Cervantes, advisor at Galicia Abogados, pointed out that multiple investment projects are on hold awaiting that regulatory certainty.
“A 0% tariff is not necessarily required, but rather the confidence that the rule will be followed,” he noted.
Experts agreed that the challenge for Mexico will be to safeguard legal certainty and free trade, while strengthening its infrastructure and its role as a reliable partner in North America.
Comment and follow us on X: @jenna_GH_ / @GrupoT21
