In Washington, there are still those who speak of the USMCA as an agreement designed to facilitate trade between the United States, Mexico, and Canada, though their numbers are dwindling, because that discussion belongs to another era. Today, the treaty follows a different logic, as it is part of a national security strategy that goes beyond trade policy.
Many observers remain convinced that the first round of substantive negotiations on the agreement will revolve around tariffs, rules of origin, or labor disputes. But recent hints from the U.S. have shown that this is an outdated interpretation, because while none of those issues has disappeared, they have all been subordinated to a greater concern. The United States has stopped asking itself how much trade it can generate with its neighbors; it now asks what risks it is willing to accept to guarantee its own economic and national security.
That is why the USMCA has a different meaning and no longer serves solely to facilitate trade among three countries. The goal is to protect the U.S. market. That is the priority, and there is no reason whatsoever to apologize for it.
From now on, every review of the treaty will be an opportunity to ask ourselves whether the agreement continues to serve our national interests. If Chinese companies use Mexican territory to enter our market, we must close that door. If certain investments compromise our supply chains, we must review them. If certain actions jeopardize our security—such as Mexico’s protection of narco-governors and cartels—we must act before the problem becomes irreversible.
From this perspective, the treaty serves a different function than the one that inspired its creation because it helps protect sectors considered essential to the U.S. economy and limit vulnerabilities to foreign competitors. Trade policy is no longer separate from foreign policy; today, both are guided by the same calculations.
That is why it is surprising how easily some governments interpret any U.S. demand as a hostile gesture. It is not. Washington acts in accordance with a doctrine that spans both Republican and Democratic administrations. No U.S. president will refrain from using his country’s economic power to protect industries deemed indispensable or to prevent its trade rivals from expanding their influence in North America.
Those who expect the review of the USMCA to result in a purely technical negotiation have also failed to grasp the moment. Legal discussions will certainly take place, but the substantive debate will be political. The United States will evaluate the treaty each year, and its continued participation in the agreement will depend on whether it strengthens or weakens its national security.
Those who fail to grasp this shift will continue to view the USMCA as a treaty from the last century. Washington has long since begun using it as a tool to demonstrate that it is the greatest power of the 21st century.
Read More: Nova Scotia Orders Study on MacKay Bridge Future Options
