So, what does Mexico want from the 2026 USMCA Review?

Well, Mexico’s goals fall into three categories, preserve stability, protect manufacturing competitiveness, and strengthen trilateral cooperation. Their biggest priority is operational certainty for exporters and investors. Mexico has seen record breaking FDI in the last year and wants that surge to continue. They see the review as an opportunity to protect the continuity of integrated supply chains, especially in autos, electronics, and nearshoringdriven manufacturing. The government wants to avoid changes that would disrupt rules of origin, increase compliance burdens, or introduce volatility. This is why Mexico is approaching the review as a stability exercise, not a renegotiation. Industry consultations show Mexico is concerned about Automotive ROO (Rules of Origin) tightening, and new content requirements and changes that could undermine nearshoring momentum. Their position is to keep ROO predictable (substantial transformation, or not) and avoid new constraints that would raise costs or push production out of North America. As far a strengthening the trilateral Cooperation Mexico wants the review to reinforce—not weaken—North American integration. IMO, Mexico is making a lot of sense. According to the Mexico Business News analysis, Mexico wants stronger trilateral coordination to support longterm competitiveness. Therefore, their position is that the review should be used to consolidate North America’s position in global supply chains, not fragment it. Obviously, this approach is in direct conflict with that of the U.S. They also wish to protect all the nearshoring gains that Mexico has acquired since the introduction of Section 301 back in 2018. Mexico’s manufacturing boom is driven by U.S. reshoring/nearshoring, integrated supply chains and predictable market access. Their goal is to lock in these advantages by ensuring the review does not introduce uncertainty that could scare off investment. They did their homework to address practical industry concerns by conducting a 60day public consultation with 30 industrial sectors, all 32 states, along with exporters and logistics operators. This process identified concerns around ROO, Customs procedures, regulatory coordination, supply chain resilience, and predictability of enforcement mechanisms. Mexico wants these issues addressed without reopening the entire agreement. They also would like to avoid U.S. tariff escalation. Who wouldn’t? Good luck there. President Sheinbaum and Economy Minister Marcelo Ebrard have been clear on this stating that Mexico wants to avoid inflationary shocks or production disruptions caused by ongoing tariff battles. However, currently on display, Mexico is adjusting its own tariffs (which primarily affect China) to protect domestic industry while keeping North American supply chains stable. As a result, there is now a 50% tariff on Chinese vehicles and 35% on 1,463 product categories. Believe it or not, and it’s hard to, BYD is still considering building a plant in Mexico.

What does Canada want from the 2026 USMCA Review?

Well, much like Mexico, Canada’s objectives fall into similar categories such as protecting the status quo and avoiding a destabilizing renegotiation, an unrealistic wish in this writer’s opinion. They want to secure relief from U.S. tariffs being weaponized, and they want to defend key Canadian policy areas (dairy, alcohol, digital services) Canada’s goals include keeping the agreement intact, avoiding a return to bilateral deals, preventing the U.S. from tightening rules of origin or adding new constraints, and maintaining predictable market access for the 75% of Canadian exports that go to the U.S. When it comes to the tariffs, Canada is under pressure from U.S. tariffs on steel, aluminum, autos, and lumber. I put together a very short, somewhat humorous video on the Canadian lumber tariff: “How much wood could a woodchuck chuck? https://www.braumillerlaw.com/tariffs-on-canadian-lumber/ Canada wants the review to roll back these tariffs, stabilize crossborder industrial supply chains, and reduce inflationary pressure on Canadian manufacturers. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer flagged several Canadian policies as irritants such as the dairy market access, alcohol distribution rules, digital services laws. Carney acknowledged these issues but framed them as part of a “much bigger discussion” about continental trade—not something Canada wants to renegotiate chapterbychapter. Canada’s position is that these “irritants” can be discussed, but they want to avoid reopening entire chapters and keep the review narrow and technical which could otherwise drag on for months. They also want the discussion to be based on facts. One of which is that the U.S. has never even come close to filling the dairy quotas that would trigger Canada’s high overquota tariffs. Canada’s dairy import system uses tariffrate quotas (TRQs), and inside the quota there is a low or zero tariff. And above the quota there are very high tariffs reaching 200–300%. I have even heard 500% from the Trump administration. But the key point here is that U.S. exporters have never been able to fill those quotas. U.S. dairy groups say they “aren’t able to get anywhere near that cap” even when Canadian buyers want the product. The tariff “trigger” exists on paper, but the quota has never been met, so the punitive tariffs never activate. The real dispute isn’t about tariffs being charged, but instead Canada preventing the quota from being filled in the first place.When it comes to leverage, Carney made a pointed statement that U.S. access to Canada’s critical minerals is not guaranteed and is part of a broader negotiation. Canada wants to use its position as the largest supplier of steel, aluminum, uranium, and a major source of critical minerals as leverage to secure a stable, predictable USMCA renewal. They want to maintain integrated North American supply chains as Canada’s economy is deeply tied to U.S. manufacturing with 85% of U.S. electricity imports coming from Canada, as well as 60% of U.S. crude imports. (Think Venezuelan oil at the forefront of a U.S. solution) Bottomline, Canada wants the review to reinforce, not disrupt, this integration. Maybe a little bit Pollyanna in its approach, but it’s the right one. Just look at what the tariffs on the auto sector have done to General Motors. Their tariffrelated losses in 2025 are estimated at $4–$5 billion for the full year, based on GM’s own earnings disclosures and industry analysis. Layoffs and plant closures are also a big part of the rather dismal picture.

USMCA Review: Renegotiation, Revisions, or Exit Analysis

What are the options for the upcoming USMCA/CUSMA/T-MEC review?

The upcoming USMCA/CUSMA/T-MEC review in July 2026 presents several options: a full renegotiation, a few revisions, or a formal exit by one of the member countries. This critical six-year review will determine the future of the trade agreement, which currently facilitates over $1.3 trillion in annual trade and supports 17 million jobs across North America. The geopolitical landscape among the U.S., Canada, and Mexico is complex, with each country having distinct objectives and concerns regarding the agreement's future. The U.S. seeks to address 'structural issues' and policy concessions, while Mexico prioritizes stability and protecting manufacturing competitiveness, and Canada aims to preserve the status quo and secure relief from tariffs. Various scenarios, from the agreement surviving intact to a formal withdrawal, are being considered as the countries prepare for this pivotal meeting.

What are the options for the upcoming USMCA/CUSMA/T-MEC review?

Links

Locations

© 2025 Braumiller Law Group. Any copying or distribution is prohibited.