For all the noise surrounding the future of the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), one thing is clear: the treaty is not falling apart. But it is also no longer just a trade agreement. It has become a political instrument, vulnerable to election cycles, security rhetoric, and the unpredictable impulses of Donald Trump.
Mexico’s Economy Minister Marcelo Ebrard struck a confident tone this week, insisting that CUSMA remains firmly intact and that the three countries are on track to complete the treaty’s mandatory review by July 1. Speaking at President Claudia Sheinbaum’s daily morning press conference, Ebrard emphasized that progress has been made on all major points of concern and framed the review as a procedural milestone rather than an existential threat.
On paper, Ebrard is right. The treaty itself is clear: the three partners must conduct a joint review this year. If they agree to extend it, CUSMA remains in force for another 16 years. If they do not, the agreement does not vanish it simply enters an annual review cycle. That is not a collapse; it is a pressure mechanism.
Yet politics, not legal text, is driving the anxiety.
U.S. President Donald Trump’s latest remarks calling the agreement “irrelevant” and saying it offers “no real advantage” were vintage Trump. The irony, of course, is that CUSMA was negotiated during his first term and sold as a major win over NAFTA. What has changed is not the treaty’s structure, but Trump’s political incentives.
With U.S. midterm elections looming in November, there is little reason for Trump to offer certainty to Mexico or Canada. Uncertainty plays well with a domestic audience that responds to tough talk on trade, borders, and national security. Extending CUSMA quietly and cleanly before the elections would deprive Trump of a useful campaign lever.
This is why many analysts expect negotiations to drag well beyond the July 1 deadline, potentially into late 2026. The deadline matters procedurally, but politically, delay is not a failure it is a strategy.
What makes this review especially fragile is the way trade is increasingly entangled with security. Trump’s renewed threats of military action against Mexican drug cartels have injected an entirely new dimension into the process. As former diplomat Alexia Bautista notes, the risk is not that talks fail outright, but that Washington reframes the review as a political and security negotiation rather than a commercial one.
If that happens, Mexico’s bargaining position weakens. Trade agreements rely on predictability and rules. Security negotiations rely on power and pressure.
The irony is that even if the treaty is formally extended, its economic value is already being eroded. The Trump administration has imposed sweeping tariffs that directly undermine the spirit if not always the letter of CUSMA. Steel and aluminum exports face 50 per cent duties. Mexican-made vehicles are hit with 25 per cent tariffs, even when they comply with the agreement’s rules of origin.
Pedro Casas of the American Chamber of Commerce of Mexico captures this contradiction well. The most likely outcome, he argues, is a “positive” review that extends the treaty for another 16 years while punitive tariffs remain firmly in place. In other words, CUSMA survives, but weakened.
For Mexico, whose economy depends heavily on access to the U.S. market, this is an uncomfortable reality. The treaty may continue to exist as a legal framework, but its ability to shield exporters from political shocks is diminishing. For businesses, that distinction matters more than official statements of confidence.
Ebrard’s optimism is understandable. Publicly projecting calm is part of his job, and Mexico has little to gain from escalating tensions prematurely. But confidence should not be confused with certainty. The window for a clean, technical review is narrowing, and every new security-related headline pushes CUSMA further away from its original purpose.
The agreement is not dead. It is, however, evolving into something far messier an economic pact held hostage by politics. Whether that evolution ultimately weakens North American integration or merely reshapes it will depend less on trade negotiators, and more on the political calculations unfolding in Washington.
