When Britain was scrambling to implement Brexit, a senior European negotiator quipped: “They want to move out, but take all our furniture and keep the WiFi password.”
Indeed, the political satisfaction of leaving the European Union was soon surpassed by the economic costs and logistical challenges. Today, almost exactly six years after Britain’s formal departure, a majority of Britons say the decision was a mistake, despite their governments’ efforts to construct a new international architecture to take its place.
While not a perfect comparison, the intensity of North American integration means any attempt to disentangle our markets in the ongoing review of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement would be far worse, and dangerously disruptive during an important election year – a risk that may ultimately dissuade the Trump administration from killing the deal.
Under the review, the parties have three options as of July 1, 2026: A) extend the agreement as-is for another sixteen years, B) extend the agreement with a “joint review every year” for ten years, or C) terminate the agreement.
Option A is unrealistic in an era when tariff threats are viewed as leverage in Washington. Negotiations are never “finished” with this White House. In fact, President Donald Trump flirted with termination – not for the first time – in early December 2025 and again during a recent Detroit visit. Yet, the U.S. economy depends on cross-border trade and services, demanding a path forward even as political rhetoric distracts.
My bet is on Option B. Jamieson Greer, the U.S. Trade Representative, has recently attempted to soften the edges on withdrawal threats. In Greer’s congressional report last month, he noted that despite the agreement’s “shortcomings…trade within North America is more conducive to bolstering national security relative to trading with other parts of the world.”
[…]
