On July 28, 2026, the Inter-American Dialogue’s Mexico Program, along with Grupo Estrategia Política (GEP), convened a high-level discussion on the joint review of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) following the third round of U.S.-Mexico trade negotiations in Mexico City. Lila Abed, director of the Dialogue’s Mexico Program, opened the event by noting that the USMCA is now discussed in Washington mainly through a national security lens, while Gustavo Almaraz, executive president of GEP, added that annual reviews make the agreement’s technical details just as important as any headline topics such as tariffs and security. 

Maricarmen Barron Esper, research analyst at the Brookings Institution, moderated the discussion, noting that the U.S. list of issues had narrowed from fifty-four to fourteen during the third round of negotiations, while Mexico’s own list of thirteen priorities, including Section 232 tariffs and the labor rapid-response mechanism, remains largely unresolved. When asked what success would look like for the U.S. negotiating team, Alex Perkins, principal at Mehlman Consulting, said simply reaching a good deal would count as success. He cited rules of origin, electronic payments, industrial policy, and economic security as U.S. priorities, noting that talks are further along with Mexico than with Canada, and that rules of origin are expected to take until 2027 to resolve.  

In discussions on what Mexico could bring to the negotiating table, Juan Carlos Baker, principal and CEO of Consultores Internacionales Ansley and a member of Mexico’s USMCA negotiating team, shared that Mexico has faced pressure to concede to U.S. requests without receiving anything in return. Baker argued that this imbalance limits how much Mexican negotiators are willing to offer. He framed the underlying U.S. objective as reducing its trade deficit. With the July 1 deadline now behind them, he said a full renewal of the agreement is unlikely any time soon. Baker instead expects both countries to work toward a smaller set of near-term agreements that could ease tariffs in exchange for Mexico committing to a longer negotiating process. He added that this shift would also create room for more substantive discussion of issues, such as digital commerce and artificial intelligence, that the earlier rush to meet the deadline had left aside. 

On the Canadian side, Beth Burke, CEO of the Canadian American Business Council, said the United States and Canada are not yet formally negotiating, but are instead having conversations. She noted that the two governments often interpret the same developments differently, which has made it harder to advance issues in the relationship. Burke also pointed to domestic politics in Canada as a factor limiting the government’s room to negotiate. As a result, she expects the outcome to take the form of smaller, targeted agreements rather than a full renewal of USMCA. Perkins agreed, adding that trade relationships in the current environment should not be expected to reach a final resolution, and suggested that progress be measured by the overall direction of the relationship rather than by any single, fixed outcome. 

Looking beyond the current round of talks, Duncan Wood, advisory council member of the Mexico Program and visiting fellow for North America at the Wilson Center, pointed to energy and critical minerals as areas where integration has outpaced the agreement’s text, noting that U.S. energy exports to Mexico exceeded $60 billion in 2022 despite few detailed energy provisions, and that mining activity in Arizona and Sonora remains largely disconnected despite sharing a supply chain. Burke added that Canadian provinces hold different priorities but have generally presented a unified position, naming closer regulatory coordination as a shared opportunity.  

The discussion also turned to whether topics unrelated to trade belong in the negotiations. Baker said this is likely unavoidable, since the U.S. administration has approached the review as a broader policy exercise rather than a narrow trade discussion. He suggested Mexico respond by engaging constructively, for instance by proposing a shared regional approach to artificial intelligence and to competing with China. Wood affirmed North America would be better served by building stronger economic ties across the region rather than becoming more closed off and self-reliant. Perkins suggested that the administration treats the total size of the global economy as roughly fixed, meaning that expanding the U.S. share inherently depends on restricting access for other economies, particularly China. He noted that this thinking is partly a response to concerns about China producing more than global markets can absorb. 

On this note, Abed observed that in conversations with U.S. officials, USMCA itself is rarely the central topic, instead, security considerations tend to dominate. Baker suggested incorporating security considerations into existing parts of the agreement, such as customs and investment review, and proposed new provisions for goods with civilian and military uses. Burke said security discussions often reflect a sense in Washington that the United States has carried a disproportionate share of the burden of protecting the region, comparable to how it views the trade deficit, and suggested that closer cooperation on law enforcement and more information sharing could help ease that perception rather than singling out one specific issue. In turn, Wood said Canada and Mexico could strengthen their position by becoming more essential suppliers within U.S. defense-related supply chains.  

Across the discussion, speakers converged on the idea that near-term progress is more likely to come through smaller, targeted agreements than a full renewal, while structural questions such as energy integration, critical minerals, and workforce skills will continue to shape the region’s competitiveness.