The White House has been relentless in terms of persisting with Trump’s vision of a near-global tariff, despite the United States Supreme Court’s February 2026 verdict, that shot down the Republican’s “reciprocal” duties of 10% to 50%, that were imposed ‌under a national emergencies law to try to shrink Uncle Sam’s trade deficit.

The new tariffs, announced in a Federal Register notice, cover 99.4% of US imports. They also include numerous product exemptions, such as oil and gas, fertilizer, and certain food items.

“The United States has had a forced labor import ban for nearly a century and rigorously enforces it. It’s well past time for our trading partners to do the same. Today’s action will begin to correct what is both a human rights abuse and a distortive trade practice to improve the welfare of workers everywhere,” US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said while announcing the tariffs.

Imposed under Section 301 of the Trade Act ⁠of 1974, the new duties allow the Trump administration to maintain a tariff floor on virtually all US imports despite the Supreme Court setback. Also, Section 301 has a prior history of surviving court challenges.

Argentina, Bangladesh, Britain, Cambodia, Canada, Ecuador, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, India, Indonesia, Jordan, Malaysia, Mexico, Pakistan, Sri Lanka, and Trinidad and Tobago will face a 10% tariff on their exports. The European Union, Taiwan, Japan, South Korea, and Switzerland have been assigned rates that, combined with pre-existing most-favored-nation (MFN) tariff rates, totaled 10% or 12.5%.

Vietnam, which issued a new decree this week to ban imports of goods made with forced labor, has been kept at the 12.5% slab. China, often accused by Washington of detaining Uyghur minorities in work camps, got featured in the same bracket too.

For the countries already having trade deals with Washington, the new forced labor duties would not push them above the caps decided under the bilateral arrangements.

However, the action has drawn stronger protests from trade partners like Australia and Brazil, who described the new tariffs as unjustified and said they would seek to have them removed, while Norway said there was “no basis” for them.

Canada, hit on Monday with new Trump tariffs on USD 20 billion worth of goods, saw its minister in charge of US trade, Dominic LeBlanc, commenting, “We will continue engaging constructively with the United States on this matter, as well as other outstanding issues, over the coming ⁠weeks to the mutual benefit of our citizens.”

However, the response from Prime Minister Mark Carney was a severe one, as he said, “Canada ‌will do whatever it takes to defend itself in a trade war with the United States, including possible retaliatory measures. We are intensifying our trade negotiations with the United States and will not hesitate ⁠to defend our interests if we have to.”

Carney, who was attending a meeting of provincial premiers after Washington’s new 50% tariff announcements, which would take effect on August 19, described the whole situation as an “unwarranted” one.

While Trump and Carney previously agreed to intensify bilateral trade talks, Washington’s latest tariff aggression, along with the White House’s non-commitment on extending the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) for another 16 years, have complicated things now.

The US is negotiating with Canada and Mexico on separate tracks, and Washington has said it is making more progress with Mexico. As per the analysts, this statement also raises the risk of Uncle Sam possibly seeking to force concessions on Canada that Mexico agrees to.

Talking about the US-Mexico talks, officials from both nations will meet for a fourth round of negotiations to revamp ‌the North American trade pact in September, after talks this week exposed disagreements over changes to automotive content rules and other issues.

Greer met with Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum and Economy Minister Marcelo Ebrard this week during a third round of talks over the USMCA. The officials discussed sectors like autos, economic security, labor, agriculture, and electronic payment services, as well as steel and aluminum products.

While the US and Mexico are neogtiating the six-year-old USMCA, which underpins nearly USD 1.6 trillion in regional trade that was once duty-free, if the negotiations spill into 2027, it will only result into a prolong business and investment uncertainty, something that both Mexico and Canada have been seeking to ease with Uncle Sam.

Washington has been demanding that vehicles contain 50% of US-made content to qualify for preferential market access into the world’s largest economy. The proposal, however, has been a non-starter for the Mexican government, with reports suggesting that the Latin American nation being unwilling to accept “even 1%” of American content, as ‌such a ⁠provision “opens the door for a potential increase in the future” and sets a “problematic precedent.”

“Under the current trade pact, vehicles must contain 75% North American content to qualify for duty-free treatment, with 40% produced by workers earning at least USD 16 per hour—a threshold met in the US and Canada. The agreement, however, does not require that a fixed share of content come from any one country,” sources told the Reuters.

Mexico also wants Washington to reduce “Section 232” national security tariffs of 25% on autos and 50% on steel and aluminum before making concessions on other issues. But Trump has shown no sign of easing the tariffs.

The auto tariffs have also put Mexican auto factories at a cost disadvantage to competitors in Japan, South Korea, and the European Union (EU), which face a 15% levy to export cars to the US with no regional content requirements.

The US has reportedly nudged Mexican officials to propose alternative ways to meet Trump’s goals ⁠of bringing more automotive production back to the American shores, displacing Asian components (read China) in the North American supply chain, and reducing Washington’s trade deficit with Mexico.

The post Amid USMCA uncertainties, Trump imposes fresh tariffs on 60 economies appeared first on International Finance.

The three-day talks, which do not include Ottawa, are also the first formal discussions on changes to the US-Mexico-Canada Agreement since the Trump administration decided not to extend the six-year-old regional trade pact on July 1.

As the USMCA faces the threat of being shut down within 10 years if the three countries don’t agree on changes, the US Chamber of Commerce has already urged Trump to keep intact the trade pact’s trilateral structure, tariff-free access and strong enforcement that underpin exchange of goods worth USD 1.6 trillion across the North America.

US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer has already laid out his administration’s number one priority: Making sure Washington, through the USMCA talks, lowers its trade deficits with Canada and Mexico, apart from reshoring ⁠more manufacturing to mainland America.

The United States’ trade deficit with Mexico, in 2025, grew by USD 28 billion, or 17%, to USD 197 billion, according to data from the US Census Bureau, which comes under the Commerce Department. The trade gap with Canada, on the other hand, fell by USD 12.9 billion, or 21%, last year to USD 48.3 billion.

“We want the outcomes to make sense. We want to have more auto manufacturing here, and we’re seeing it,” Greer told CNBC, citing moves by automakers to open new assembly capacity in the US, including Toyota’s expansion of a Texas plant to build trucks now assembled in Mexico.

General Motors will incur some USD 1.5 billion in expenses this year in part to move some vehicle production to the US. In 2025, the Detroit automaker has disclosed plans to build two Chevrolet SUV models in the world’s largest economy while shifting some of its manufacturing from Mexico from 2027 onwards.

“That’s the outcome that (Trump) wants. I think also if we can have an arrangement with Mexico, with Canada, that we are trying to emphasize Canadian, Mexican, and US content in goods traded in North America, that’s a good outcome because that helps get supply chains back here in North America,” Greer added.

During bilateral USMCA talks with Mexico in May this year, in a significant departure from the existing provisions, USTR proposed requiring that 50% of the value of North American-built vehicles originate in the United States. The demand will be a difficult one to meet for the automakers in terms of making logistical changes in their highly integrated regional supply chains.

Mexico’s new ambassador to the US, Roberto Lazzeri, said that the Latin American country was expecting to reach a new deal by the 2026-end, and that he thinks the United States and Canada are aiming for the same goal.

“Every moment that we’re losing, I think we are losing competitiveness, market share, and investment, so it’s in the best interest of all three of us to get to a position of resolution soon. Mexico shares the Trump administration’s goal of bringing more manufacturing to North America, including to the US,” said Lazzeri, a former investment banker and finance ministry official.

Talking about the new tariff warfare between the United States and Canada, the Trump administration’s new levies on nearly USD 20 billion worth of Canadian goods came as a response against Ottawa’s import taxes on American autos, steel, aluminum, and dairy, as well as provincial alcohol bans.

That move deepens a rift that has kept Canada largely sidelined in the USMCA negotiations, as Greer has said there has been little movement towards concessions.

Defending the Trump administration’s decision, Treasury ‌Secretary Scott Bessent, during an interaction with the Fox Business Network, accused the Mark Carney government of being “highly discriminatory” on dairy products, apart from ⁠pointing toward US alcohol and beverages being moved from Canadian shelves.

“This is really just ⁠reciprocity in terms of what they’ve done to our great US ⁠companies,” Bessent told the “Mornings with Maria” program.

Mexico has found appreciations for itself, with Greer lauding the Latin American nation for its “lack of retaliation to US tariffs” and “pragmatic” approach to negotiations that include working to align Mexico’s export controls with those of the Uncle Sam, steps to ⁠protect intellectual property rights (IPR) and moving to curb the export of avocados grown on illegally deforested land.

As per Greer’s office, the talks in Mexico City will dig into technical details of the US-Mexico trade in crucial sectors like autos, steel, aluminum, agriculture, and labor.

The discussions will also focus on “economic security,” USTR’s term for raising regional trade protections to keep China and other Asian countries from using Mexico and Canada to access the lucrative American market ⁠on preferential terms.

The China point will be a contentious one, given Beijing’s growing footprint in Mexico’s car market.

As per the new distribution figures, Chinese car sales rose 30% in the first half of 2026, despite 50% tariffs imposed in January, with Chinese brands raising their market share to 17% from 14% a year earlier.

The post USMCA review: US and Mexico resume trade talks amid Canada tariff dispute appeared first on International Finance.

Factories on both sides of every border pass parts back and forth. A car built in Michigan contains components machined in Ontario and wiring from Monterrey. The arrangement, now formalised under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, underpins roughly $1.6 trillion in annual trade between the three countries. It has made North America one of the most tightly integrated manufacturing regions on Earth.

That arrangement is now under serious strain. The second Donald Trump administration has used its opening years to challenge the foundations of the deal, deploying tariffs, legal threats, and negotiating pressure to push both neighbours toward a version of the agreement that serves American interests far more narrowly.

Formal bilateral talks between the United States and Mexico began in Mexico City on May 28. Canada has been left out of those opening rounds entirely. On July 1, the agreement faces its first mandatory review, at which all three countries must decide by consensus whether to extend it for another 16 years.
The outcome of that review will shape the economic geography of North America for decades. To understand what is at stake, it helps to start at the beginning.

How the Integrated Economy Was Built

NAFTA, signed in 1993, was the agreement that first stitched the three economies together. Earlier, each country maintained its own tariffs and trade barriers, and manufacturers largely sourced components domestically, or from global suppliers.

NAFTA changed the incentive structure fundamentally. If you could produce something more cheaply across the border, it suddenly made sense to do so. Over the following decades, supply chains reorganised themselves around that logic.

By 2024, the total value of goods and services moving between the three countries had reached an estimated $1.93 trillion annually. Canada and Mexico are now the United States’ two largest trading partners, ahead of China. The depth of integration shows up in a striking statistic.

Nearly 74 cents of every dollar of manufactured goods exported from Mexico to the United States contains value that originated somewhere within North America. For vehicles and automotive parts specifically, that figure rises to nearly 77 cents. The borders between the three countries have, in economic terms, become largely administrative lines that goods cross and recross during production.

The USMCA, which replaced NAFTA in July 2020, was meant to modernise this arrangement. It updated rules around digital trade, labour standards, and intellectual property. It also tightened the rules that determine whether a manufactured good qualifies for duty-free status, most notably in the automotive sector.

The Tariff Shock of 2025

The first major disruption to this integrated system came on February 1, 2025, when the Trump administration announced near-universal tariffs of 25% on all imports from Canada and Mexico. The stated justification was national security.

The administration claimed that illegal immigration and fentanyl trafficking from both countries constituted an emergency under a law called the ‘International Emergency Economic Powers Act’, which gives the president broad powers in genuine crises.

The move sent immediate shockwaves through integrated industries. At Port Laredo, which handles a large share of US-Mexico vehicle trade, imports of vehicles fell by $4.1 billion in the first half of 2025. Metals imports across the border dropped by more than 13%. Canada responded quickly, announcing 25% retaliatory tariffs on $30 billion of American goods, then another $29 billion.

Ottawa prepared a third package worth $125 billion. The integrated economy that had been built over three decades was suddenly operating under conditions it had never been designed for.

The administration eventually exempted goods that met USMCA’s rules of origin from the universal tariffs, meaning most trade between the three countries continued duty-free. But the tactic had demonstrated something important. Washington was willing to use the threat of comprehensive tariffs as a lever.
That lever broke in February 2026. The US Supreme Court ruled 6-3 that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act does not actually give the president authority to impose tariffs unilaterally. The court held that levying tariffs is a power reserved to Congress, and that it had not been properly delegated to the executive branch. The ruling invalidated the administration’s primary tool for rapid, large-scale trade pressure.

The administration quickly pivoted to a different legal authority, invoking Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 to impose a temporary 10% global surcharge on imports. But this surcharge has a hard 150-day limit built into the law, scheduling it to expire on July 24, 2026. With its main tariff weapon gone and a deadline approaching, Washington turned its attention to the USMCA Joint Review as the primary arena for extracting concessions.

The Fight Over Cars

The automotive sector sits at the centre of the current negotiations, and understanding why requires a brief explanation of how the rules work.

Under the USMCA, a vehicle qualifies for duty-free treatment only if it meets a set of regional content thresholds. At least 75% of a vehicle’s value must originate within North America. 70% of the steel and aluminium used must come from North American sources. A certain share of the vehicle’s value must be produced in facilities that pay workers an average of at least $16 per hour.

These are strict rules. The previous agreement, NAFTA, only required 62.5% regional content. When the USMCA was negotiated in 2018 and 2019, the Trump administration’s first term pushed for these tighter thresholds specifically to encourage more manufacturing to remain in the region.

The practical result has been unexpected. Because the standard US tariff on imported passenger vehicles from anywhere in the world is only 2.5%, many manufacturers have simply decided that it is cheaper to pay the tariff, and ignore the USMCA rules than to reorganise their complex global supply chains to meet the thresholds.

Between 2020 and 2025, non-compliance rates for vehicles imported into the United States quintupled. Rather than pulling manufacturing back into North America, the rules pushed some producers out of the preferential system altogether.

The labour requirement has also produced mixed results. The rule was designed to raise wages for Mexican automotive workers by requiring that a percentage of a vehicle’s value come from facilities paying at least $16 an hour. In 2024, the average Mexican automotive worker earned $5.66 per hour, compared to $30.86 in the United States. Manufacturers have mostly met the labour threshold by counting their American and Canadian operations, where wages are already high, rather than raising pay in Mexico.

Now the Trump administration is pushing for something more radical. They want a US-specific minimum content rule. This would require that a defined share of the value of every vehicle made in Mexico come specifically from the United States, not just from North America in general.

The logic is that this would force manufacturers to relocate high-value assembly and component work from Mexico to American factories. For Mexico, this is a fundamental challenge to the deal’s structure. For Canada, it is a sign of where Washington’s priorities lie.

Canada on the Outside

Canada has been excluded from the opening rounds of negotiations entirely. The current schedule runs bilateral US-Mexico talks through late July 2026 without Ottawa at the table.

This exclusion comes at an awkward moment for Canada’s new government. Justin Trudeau resigned in early 2025, and Mark Carney became Prime Minister in March of that year. Carney is a former central banker, respected internationally for his economic expertise. His government won a majority in April 2026, giving him a stronger political base. But seven months into formal trade tensions with the United States, Canada’s trade minister has managed only a single day of in-person talks with the US Trade Representative.

Washington’s demands of Canada go beyond the core trade agreement. The administration has insisted that Canada scrap its ‘Online Streaming Act’, a law that requires streaming platforms like Netflix and Disney+ to contribute a percentage of their Canadian revenue to funding domestic Canadian content.

US negotiators argue this unfairly targets American companies. Washington also wants changes to Canada’s supply management system, which uses quotas and price controls to support the domestic dairy industry, and the removal of provincial bans on American alcohol imports.

Canada abolished its 3% digital services tax in mid-2025 as a goodwill gesture. But Carney’s government has made clear it will not accept humiliating terms to preserve the deal.

Speaking directly to an American audience at the Economic Club of New York on May 28, Carney called for a re-imagination of continental trade, stating: “There should be a ‘true partnership’ that re-imagines cooperation in specific sectors challenged by global competition.”

Furthermore, upon launching his government’s Advisory Committee on Canada-US Economic Relations to tackle the crisis, his office reinforced this stance: “Canada is approaching its economic relationship with the United States with focus, discipline, and unity… Our goal is a strong economic partnership with the United States that creates greater certainty, security, and prosperity for all.”

Carney has simultaneously been pushing a domestic agenda centred on reducing Canada’s extreme dependence on the US market, advocating economic diversification into Asia and Europe. The problem is that more than three-quarters of Canada’s total goods exports go to the United States. That dependence does not disappear because a government decides to reduce it.

Mexico’s Careful Balancing Act

Mexico is in a different position. President Claudia Sheinbaum came to power in 2024 with a mandate to manage the country’s complex relationship with Washington carefully. Her approach has been to offer security cooperation in exchange for trade goodwill.

When the Trump administration threatened tariffs in early 2025, Mexico deployed more than 10,000 National Guard troops to its borders, cracked down on fentanyl labs, and extradited prominent cartel figures to the United States, including Rafael Caro Quintero, one of the founders of the Sinaloa Cartel. The message was that Mexico could deliver results that Washington wanted on the security front, and those results were worth more than a trade war.

On the trade side, Sheinbaum sought early on to anchor the coming milestone within the strict boundaries of the original text. In a press conference, she clarified her country’s legal position: “A ‘review’ of the USMCA free trade pact will take place next year rather than a ‘renegotiation’… The agreement says that.”

Following up on US political pressure later in the cycle, she maintained a pragmatic front, stating plainly: “I do not believe the US will withdraw from USMCA.”

Mexico has moved to align its own tariffs with Washington’s concerns about China. In December 2025, Mexico raised tariffs by up to 50% on goods from countries with which it does not have a free trade agreement, a measure primarily aimed at Chinese manufacturing imports. Mexico also launched investigations into hundreds of domestic firms that were importing Chinese steel through special programmes and re-exporting it to the United States, effectively using Mexico as a conduit to avoid American tariffs.

ALSO READ | Trade wars push Mexico toward Saudi Arabia

But the China problem is not easily resolved, and the reason becomes clear when you look at what some major US companies are actually doing. General Motors sold roughly 198,000 vehicles in Mexico in 2025. Of those, 64.1% were manufactured in China.

Only 11.3% were made in Mexico itself. Only 7.8% came from the United States. In other words, the American company most associated with North American manufacturing was selling vehicles in the region’s second-largest economy that were almost entirely made in China.

This is not an aberration. It reflects 20 years of decisions by American multinationals to integrate Chinese manufacturing into their global operations. Any aggressive push to decouple from Chinese supply chains does not just inconvenience Chinese companies. It disrupts the business models of General Motors, Ford, and dozens of other US corporations. That is the bind that Washington is navigating, and it makes the demand for complete decoupling considerably more complicated than the political rhetoric suggests.

Four Possible Outcomes

As the July deadline approaches, analysts see four realistic scenarios for what happens next.

The most likely outcome is what might be called the painful extension. The three countries fail to meet the July deadline, but eventually, sometime in late 2026 or early 2027, reach a new deal. Mexico and Canada accept stricter automotive content rules, tougher labour standards, and tighter restrictions on Chinese goods moving through their territory into the American market.

In exchange, Washington agrees to extend the agreement for 16 years and provides some relief on the tariffs that remain in place. Nobody is happy with the result, but the integrated economy survives largely intact.

The second scenario is – serial annual reviews. If the three countries cannot agree by July, the core mechanism laid out in Chapter 34 of the deal dictates the framework. According to Article 34.7 of the USMCA text:

“This Agreement shall terminate 16 years after the date of its entry into force, unless each Party confirms it wishes to continue this Agreement for a new 16-year term… If, as part of the joint review, one or more Parties do not confirm their desire to extend, the FTC [Free Trade Commission] shall conduct joint reviews annually thereafter…”

The deal stays technically in force under this rolling loop, but every year brings another round of negotiations and another period of uncertainty. For companies trying to decide whether to build a factory or sign a long-term supplier contract in North America, that uncertainty is costly. Investment slows. Supply chains gradually diversify away from the region.

The third scenario is a split into bilateral agreements. A US-Mexico deal and a separate US-Canada deal. This would preserve some market access for both countries but would fracture the trilateral supply chains that have made North American manufacturing competitive. Canada and Mexico would lose the leverage that comes from negotiating together, and each would be more exposed to American pressure individually.

The fourth scenario is withdrawal. Any country can leave the USMCA with six months’ notice. The Trump administration has repeatedly used the threat of withdrawal as a negotiating tactic. The risk is that the threat becomes reality, either by design or by miscalculation.

If the United States were to actually withdraw, goods from Canada and Mexico would lose their tariff-exempt status overnight, and the integrated manufacturing networks of three decades would face an immediate, severe shock.

Why It Matters Beyond North America

The agreement has functioned as a model for how wealthy economies can integrate production across borders while managing political sensitivities around jobs and wages. If that model breaks down, it signals to the rest of the world that no regional trade arrangement is secure when one large partner decides to renegotiate the terms by force.

For businesses operating across North America, the immediate concern is the certainty about the rules that determine where factories get built, where suppliers are contracted, and how supply chains are designed. The longer the uncertainty continues, the more those decisions get deferred or redirected elsewhere.

The livelihoods of millions of people depend on integrated industries that exist because the trade framework made them possible. Automotive plants, logistics networks, agricultural supply chains, technology manufacturing. All of it was built around the assumption that the rules would remain stable.

What happens in Mexico City and Washington over the next several months will determine whether that assumption remains valid.

The post NAFTA: North America’s Trade Glue Is In Turmoil appeared first on International Finance.