North American Free Trade Agreement

Last updated

North American Free Trade Agreement
  • Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte (Spanish)
  • Accord de Libre-échange Nord-Américain (French)
NAFTA logo.svg
Logo of the NAFTA Secretariat
North American Agreement (orthographic projection).svg
Type Free trade area
Member statesCanada
United States
January 1, 1994
  USMCA in force
July 1, 2020
21,578,137 km2 (8,331,365 sq mi)
 Water (%)
 2018 estimate
22.3/km2 (57.8/sq mi)
GDP  (PPP)2018 estimate
$24.8 trillion [1]
 Per capita
NAFTA GDP - 2012 : IMF - World Economic Outlook Databases (Oct 2013) RCEP GDP.png
NAFTA GDP – 2012 : IMF – World Economic Outlook Databases (Oct 2013)

The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA /ˈnæftə/ NAF-tə; Spanish : Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte, TLCAN; French : Accord de libre-échange nord-américain, ALÉNA) was an agreement signed by Canada, Mexico, and the United States that created a trilateral trade bloc in North America. The agreement came into force on January 1, 1994, and superseded the 1988 Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement between the United States and Canada. The NAFTA trade bloc formed one of the largest trade blocs in the world by gross domestic product.


The impetus for a North American free trade zone began with U.S. president Ronald Reagan, who made the idea part of his 1980 presidential campaign. After the signing of the Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement in 1988, the administrations of U.S. president George H. W. Bush, Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari, and Canadian prime minister Brian Mulroney agreed to negotiate what became NAFTA. Each submitted the agreement for ratification in their respective capitals in December 1992, but NAFTA faced significant opposition in both the United States and Canada. All three countries ratified NAFTA in 1993 after the addition of two side agreements, the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC) and the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC).

Passage of NAFTA resulted in the elimination or reduction of barriers to trade and investment between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The effects of the agreement regarding issues such as employment, the environment, and economic growth have been the subject of political disputes. Most economic analyses indicated that NAFTA was beneficial to the North American economies and the average citizen, [2] [3] [4] but harmed a small minority of workers in industries exposed to trade competition. [5] [6] Economists held that withdrawing from NAFTA or renegotiating NAFTA in a way that reestablished trade barriers would have adversely affected the U.S. economy and cost jobs. [7] [8] [9] However, Mexico would have been much more severely affected by job loss and reduction of economic growth in both the short term and long term. [10]

After U.S. President Donald Trump took office in January 2017, he sought to replace NAFTA with a new agreement, beginning negotiations with Canada and Mexico. In September 2018, the United States, Mexico, and Canada reached an agreement to replace NAFTA with the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (USMCA), and all three countries had ratified it by March 2020. NAFTA remained in force until USMCA was implemented. [11] In April 2020, Canada and Mexico notified the U.S. that they were ready to implement the agreement. [12] The USMCA took effect on July 1, 2020, replacing NAFTA. The new law involved only small changes. [13]

Negotiation, signing, ratification, and revision (1988–94)


The impetus for a North American free trade zone began with U.S. president Ronald Reagan, who made the idea part of his campaign when he announced his candidacy for the presidency in November 1979. [14] Canada and the United States signed the Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement (FTA) in 1988, and shortly afterward Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari decided to approach U.S. president George H. W. Bush to propose a similar agreement in an effort to bring in foreign investment following the Latin American debt crisis. [14] As the two leaders began negotiating, the Canadian government under Prime Minister Brian Mulroney feared that the advantages Canada had gained through the Canada–US FTA would be undermined by a US–Mexican bilateral agreement, and asked to become a party to the US–Mexican talks. [15]


Back row, left to right: Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari, U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, at the initialing of the draft North American Free Trade Agreement in October 1992. In front are Mexican Secretary of Commerce and Industrial Development Jaime Serra Puche, United States Trade Representative Carla Hills, and Canadian Minister of International Trade Michael Wilson. President Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas participate in the... - NARA - 186460.jpg
Back row, left to right: Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari, U.S. President George H. W. Bush, and Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney, at the initialing of the draft North American Free Trade Agreement in October 1992. In front are Mexican Secretary of Commerce and Industrial Development Jaime Serra Puche, United States Trade Representative Carla Hills, and Canadian Minister of International Trade Michael Wilson.

Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1990, the leaders of the three nations signed the agreement in their respective capitals on December 17, 1992. [16] The signed agreement then needed to be ratified by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.



The earlier Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement had been controversial and divisive in Canada, and featured as an issue in the 1988 Canadian election. In that election, more Canadians voted for anti-free trade parties (the Liberals and the New Democrats), but the split of the votes between the two parties meant that the pro-free trade Progressive Conservatives (PCs) came out of the election with the most seats and so took power. Mulroney and the PCs had a parliamentary majority and easily passed the 1987 Canada–US FTA and NAFTA bills. However, Mulroney was replaced as Conservative leader and prime minister by Kim Campbell. Campbell led the PC party into the 1993 election where they were decimated by the Liberal Party under Jean Chrétien, who campaigned on a promise to renegotiate or abrogate NAFTA. Chrétien subsequently negotiated two supplemental agreements with Bush, who had subverted the LAC [17] advisory process [18] and worked to "fast track" the signing prior to the end of his term, ran out of time and had to pass the required ratification and signing of the implementation law to incoming president Bill Clinton. [19]

United States

Before sending it to the United States Senate, Clinton added two side agreements, the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC) and the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC), to protect workers and the environment, and to also allay the concerns of many House members. The U.S. required its partners to adhere to environmental practices and regulations similar to its own.[ citation needed ] After much consideration and emotional discussion, the U.S. House of Representatives passed the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act on November 17, 1993, 234–200. The agreement's supporters included 132 Republicans and 102 Democrats. The bill passed the Senate on November 20, 1993, 61–38. [20] Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Republican Representative David Dreier of California, a strong proponent of NAFTA since the Reagan administration, played a leading role in mobilizing support for the agreement among Republicans in Congress and across the country. [21] [22]

Chicago Congressman Luis Gutiérrez in particular was a vocal opponent of NAFTA, ultimately voting against the measure because of what he considered its failure to sufficiently provide for displaced worker retraining, protections against American job loss, and protections of collective bargaining rights for Mexican workers. [23] He criticized the role of Rahm Emanuel in particular for the deficiencies. [24]

The U.S. required its partners to adhere to environmental practices and regulations similar to its own. [25]

Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; the agreement went into effect on January 1, 1994. [26] [27] At the signing ceremony, Clinton recognized four individuals for their efforts in accomplishing the historic trade deal: Vice President Al Gore, Chairwoman of the Council of Economic Advisers Laura Tyson, Director of the National Economic Council Robert Rubin, and Republican Congressman David Dreier. [28] Clinton also stated that "NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement." [29] NAFTA replaced the previous Canada-US FTA.


NAFTA (TLCAN in Spanish) was approved by the Mexican Senate on November 22, 1993, and was published in the Official Gazette of the Federation on December 8, 1993. [30]

The decree implementing NAFTA and the various changes to accommodate NAFTA in Mexican law was promulgated on December 14, 1993, with entry into force on January 1, 1994. [30]



The roster of NAFTA adjudicators included many retired judges, such as Alice Desjardins, John Maxwell Evans, Constance Hunt, John Richard, Arlin Adams, Susan Getzendanner, George C. Pratt, Charles B. Renfrew and Sandra Day O'Connor.



Historical context

Obama, Pena Nieto and Harper at the IX North American Leaders' Summit (informally known as the Three Amigos Summit) in Toluca Obama, Pena y Harper. IX Cumbre de Lideres de America del Norte.jpg
Obama, Peña Nieto and Harper at the IX North American Leaders' Summit (informally known as the Three Amigos Summit) in Toluca

In 2008, Canadian exports to the United States and Mexico were at $381.3 billion, with imports at $245.1 billion. [61] According to a 2004 article by University of Toronto economist Daniel Trefler, NAFTA produced a significant net benefit to Canada in 2003, with long-term productivity increasing by up to 15 percent in industries that experienced the deepest tariff cuts. [62] While the contraction of low-productivity plants reduced employment (up to 12 percent of existing positions), these job losses lasted less than a decade; overall, unemployment in Canada has fallen since the passage of the act. Commenting on this trade-off, Trefler said that the critical question in trade policy is to understand "how freer trade can be implemented in an industrialized economy in a way that recognizes both the long-run gains and the short-term adjustment costs borne by workers and others". [63]

A study in 2007 found that NAFTA had "a substantial impact on international trade volumes, but a modest effect on prices and welfare". [64]

According to a 2012 study, with reduced NAFTA trade tariffs, trade with the United States and Mexico only increased by a modest 11% in Canada compared to an increase of 41% for the U.S. and 118% for Mexico. [65] :3 Moreover, the U.S. and Mexico benefited more from the tariff reductions component, with welfare increases of 0.08% and 1.31%, respectively, with Canada experiencing a decrease of 0.06%. [65] :4

Current issues

According to a 2017 report by the New York City based public policy think tank report, Council on Foreign Relations (CFR), bilateral trade in agricultural products tripled in size from 1994 to 2017 and is considered to be one of the largest economic effects of NAFTA on U.S.-Canada trade with Canada becoming the U.S. agricultural sectors' leading importer. [66] Canadian fears of losing manufacturing jobs to the United States did not materialize with manufacturing employment holding "steady". However, with Canada's labour productivity levels at 72% of U.S. levels, the hopes of closing the "productivity gap" between the two countries were also not realized. [66]

According to a 2018 Sierra Club report, Canada's commitments under NAFTA and the Paris agreement conflicted. The Paris commitments were voluntary, and NAFTA's were compulsory. [67]

According to a 2018 report by Gordon Laxter published by the Council of Canadians, NAFTA's Article 605, energy proportionality rule ensures that Americans had "virtually unlimited first access to most of Canada's oil and natural gas" and Canada could not reduce oil, natural gas and electricity exports (74% its oil and 52% its natural gas) to the U.S., even if Canada was experiencing shortages. These provisions that seemed logical when NAFTA was signed in 1993 are no longer appropriate. [68] :4 The Council of Canadians promoted environmental protection and was against NAFTA's role in encouraging development of the tar sands and fracking. [68]

US President Donald Trump, angered by Canada's dairy tax of "almost 300%", threatened to leave Canada out of the NAFTA. [69] Since 1972, Canada has been operating on a "supply management" system, which the United States is attempting to pressure it out of, specifically focusing on the dairy industry. However, this has not yet taken place, as Quebec, which holds approximately half the country's dairy farms, still supports supply management. [69]


Former President Enrique Pena Nieto with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada and then-President Barack Obama of the United States at the 2016 North American Leaders' Summit The Three Amigos 2016.jpg
Former President Enrique Peña Nieto with Prime Minister Justin Trudeau of Canada and then-President Barack Obama of the United States at the 2016 North American Leaders' Summit

Maquiladoras (Mexican assembly plants that take in imported components and produce goods for export) became the landmark of trade in Mexico. They moved to Mexico from the United States[ citation needed ], hence the debate over the loss of American jobs. Income in the maquiladora sector had increased 15.5% since the implementation of NAFTA in 1994. [70] Other sectors also benefited from the free trade agreement, and the share of exports to the U.S. from non-border states increased in the last five years[ when? ] while the share of exports from border states decreased. This allowed for rapid growth in non-border metropolitan areas such as Toluca, León, and Puebla, which were all larger in population than Tijuana, Ciudad Juárez, and Reynosa.

The overall effect of the Mexico–U.S. agricultural agreement is disputed. Mexico did not invest in the infrastructure necessary for competition, such as efficient railroads and highways. This resulted in more difficult living conditions for the country's poor. Mexico's agricultural exports increased 9.4 percent annually between 1994 and 2001, while imports increased by only 6.9 percent a year during the same period. [71]

One of the most affected agricultural sectors was the meat industry. Mexico went from a small player in the pre-1994 U.S. export market to the second largest importer of U.S. agricultural products in 2004, and NAFTA may have been a major catalyst for this change. Free trade removed the hurdles that impeded business between the two countries, so Mexico provided a growing market for meat for the U.S., and increased sales and profits for the U.S. meat industry. A coinciding noticeable increase in the Mexican per capita GDP greatly changed meat consumption patterns as per capita meat consumption grew. [72]

One of concerns raised by the implementation of NAFTA in Mexico was wealth inequality. National Bureau of Economic Research found that NAFTA increased the wage gap between the lowest and highest earners, directly affecting wealth inequality. [73] According to Global Trade Watch, under NAFTA Mexico observed a decline in real average annual wages, with this decline mainly affecting those who earned the least - the real average wage of minimum wage workers decreased by 14 percent. GTW concluded that "inflation-adjusted wages for virtually every category of Mexican worker decreased over NAFTA’s first six years, even as hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs were being shifted from the United States to Mexico". [74] Similar effects were found in a study published in the International Journal of Economic Sciences, which found that NAFTA had a direct impact on wage inequality in Mexico; from 1994 onwards, the wage gap between the poorest and the richest workers noticeably increased. [75]

Production of corn in Mexico increased since NAFTA. However, internal demand for corn had increased beyond Mexico's supply to the point where imports became necessary, far beyond the quotas Mexico originally negotiated. [76] Zahniser & Coyle pointed out that corn prices in Mexico, adjusted for international prices, have drastically decreased, but through a program of subsidies expanded by former president Vicente Fox, production remained stable since 2000. [77] Reducing agricultural subsidies, especially corn subsidies, was suggested as a way to reduce harm to Mexican farmers. [78]

A 2001 Journal of Economic Perspectives review of the existing literature found that NAFTA was a net benefit to Mexico. [4] By 2003, 80% of the commerce in Mexico was executed only with the U.S. The commercial sales surplus, combined with the deficit with the rest of the world, created a dependency in Mexico's exports. These effects were evident in the 2001 recession, which resulted in either a low rate or a negative rate in Mexico's exports. [79]

A 2015 study found that Mexico's welfare increased by 1.31% as a result of the NAFTA tariff reductions and that Mexico's intra-bloc trade increased by 118%. [65] Inequality and poverty fell in the most globalization-affected regions of Mexico. [80] 2013 and 2015 studies showed that Mexican small farmers benefited more from NAFTA than large-scale farmers. [81] [82]

NAFTA had also been credited with the rise of the Mexican middle class. A Tufts University study found that NAFTA lowered the average cost of basic necessities in Mexico by up to 50%. [83] This price reduction increased cash-on-hand for many Mexican families, allowing Mexico to graduate more engineers than Germany each year. [84]

Growth in new sales orders indicated an increase in demand for manufactured products, which resulted in expansion of production and a higher employment rate to satisfy the increment in the demand. The growth in the maquiladora industry and in the manufacturing industry was of 4.7% in August 2016. [85] Three quarters of the imports and exports are with the U.S.

Tufts University political scientist Daniel W. Drezner argued that NAFTA made it easier for Mexico to transform to a real democracy and become a country that views itself as North American. This has boosted cooperation between the United States and Mexico. [86]

United States

Economists generally agreed that the United States economy benefited overall from NAFTA as it increased trade. [87] [88] In a 2012 survey of the Initiative on Global Markets' Economic Experts Panel, 95% of the participants said that, on average, U.S. citizens benefited from NAFTA while none said that NAFTA hurt US citizens, on average. [3] A 2001 Journal of Economic Perspectives review found that NAFTA was a net benefit to the United States. [4] A 2015 study found that US welfare increased by 0.08% as a result of NAFTA tariff reductions, and that US intra-bloc trade increased by 41%. [65]

A 2014 study on the effects of NAFTA on US trade jobs and investment found that between 1993 and 2013, the US trade deficit with Mexico and Canada increased from $17.0 to $177.2 billion, displacing 851,700 US jobs. [89]

In 2015, the Congressional Research Service concluded that the "net overall effect of NAFTA on the US economy appears to have been relatively modest, primarily because trade with Canada and Mexico accounts for a small percentage of US GDP. However, there were worker and firm adjustment costs as the three countries adjusted to more open trade and investment among their economies." The report also estimated that NAFTA added $80 billion to the US economy since its implementation, equivalent to a 0.5% increase in US GDP. [90]

The US Chamber of Commerce credited NAFTA with increasing U.S. trade in goods and services with Canada and Mexico from $337 billion in 1993 to $1.2 trillion in 2011, while the AFL–CIO blamed the agreement for sending 700,000 American manufacturing jobs to Mexico over that time. [91]

University of California, San Diego economics professor Gordon Hanson said that NAFTA helped the US compete against China and therefore saved US jobs. [92] [93] While some jobs were lost to Mexico as a result of NAFTA, considerably more would have been lost to China if not for NAFTA. [92] [93]

Trade balances

The US had a trade surplus with NAFTA countries of $28.3 billion for services in 2009 and a trade deficit of $94.6 billion (36.4% annual increase) for goods in 2010. This trade deficit accounted for 26.8% of all US goods trade deficit. [94] A 2018 study of global trade published by the Center for International Relations identified irregularities in the patterns of trade of NAFTA ecosystem using network theory analytical techniques. The study showed that the US trade balance was influenced by tax avoidance opportunities provided in Ireland. [95]

A study published in the August 2008 issue of the American Journal of Agricultural Economics , found NAFTA increased US agricultural exports to Mexico and Canada, even though most of the increase occurred a decade after its ratification. The study focused on the effects that gradual "phase-in" periods in regional trade agreements, including NAFTA, have on trade flows. Most of the increases in members' agricultural trade, which was only recently brought under the purview of the World Trade Organization, was due to very high trade barriers before NAFTA or other regional trade agreements. [96]


The U.S. foreign direct investment (FDI) in NAFTA countries (stock) was $327.5 billion in 2009 (latest data available)[ when? ], up 8.8% from 2008. [94] The US direct investment in NAFTA countries was in non-bank holding companies and the manufacturing, finance/insurance, and mining sectors. [94] The foreign direct investment of Canada and Mexico in the United States (stock) was $237.2 billion in 2009 (the latest data available), up 16.5% from 2008. [94] [97]

Economy and jobs

In their May 24, 2017 report, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) wrote that the economic impacts of NAFTA on the U.S. economy were modest. In a 2015 report, the Congressional Research Service summarized multiple studies as follows: "In reality, NAFTA did not cause the huge job losses feared by the critics or the large economic gains predicted by supporters. The net overall effect of NAFTA on the U.S. economy appears to have been relatively modest, primarily because trade with Canada and Mexico accounts for a small percentage of U.S. GDP. However, there were worker and firm adjustment costs as the three countries adjusted to more open trade and investment among their economies." [98] :2

Many American small businesses depended on exporting their products to Canada or Mexico under NAFTA. According to the U.S. Trade Representative, this trade supported over 140,000 small- and medium-sized businesses in the US. [99]

According to University of California, Berkeley professor of economics Brad DeLong, NAFTA had an insignificant impact on US manufacturing. [100] The adverse impact on manufacturing was exaggerated in US political discourse according to DeLong [100] and Harvard economist Dani Rodrik. [101]

According to a 2013 article by Jeff Faux published by the Economic Policy Institute, California, Texas, Michigan and other states with high concentrations of manufacturing jobs were most affected by job loss due to NAFTA. [102] According to a 2011 article by EPI economist Robert Scott, about 682,900 U.S. jobs were "lost or displaced" as a result of the trade agreement. [103] More recent studies agreed with reports by the Congressional Research Service that NAFTA only had a modest impact on manufacturing employment and automation explained 87% of the losses in manufacturing jobs. [104]


According to a study in the Journal of International Economics , NAFTA reduced pollution emitted by the US manufacturing sector: "On average, nearly two-thirds of the reductions in coarse particulate matter (PM10) and sulfur dioxide (SO2) emissions from the U.S. manufacturing sector between 1994 and 1998 can be attributed to trade liberalization following NAFTA." [105]

According to the Sierra Club, NAFTA contributed to large-scale, export-oriented farming, which led to the increased use of fossil fuels, pesticides and GMO. [106] NAFTA also contributed to environmentally destructive mining practices in Mexico. [106] It prevented Canada from effectively regulating its tar sands industry, and created new legal avenues for transnational corporations to fight environmental legislation. [106] In some cases, environmental policy was neglected in the wake of trade liberalization; in other cases, NAFTA's measures for investment protection, such as Chapter 11, and measures against non-tariff trade barriers threatened to discourage more vigorous environmental policy. [107] The most serious overall increases in pollution due to NAFTA were found in the base metals sector, the Mexican petroleum sector, and the transportation equipment sector in the United States and Mexico, but not in Canada. [108]

Mobility of persons

According to the Department of Homeland Security Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, during fiscal year 2006 (October 2005 – September 2006), 73,880 foreign professionals (64,633 Canadians and 9,247 Mexicans) were admitted into the United States for temporary employment under NAFTA (i.e., in the TN status). Additionally, 17,321 of their family members (13,136 Canadians, 2,904 Mexicans, as well as a number of third-country nationals married to Canadians and Mexicans) entered the U.S. in the treaty national's dependent (TD) status. [109] Because DHS counts the number of the new I-94 arrival records filled at the border, and the TN-1 admission is valid for three years, the number of non-immigrants in TN status present in the U.S. at the end of the fiscal year is approximately equal to the number of admissions during the year. (A discrepancy may be caused by some TN entrants leaving the country or changing status before their three-year admission period has expired, while other immigrants admitted earlier may change their status to TN or TD, or extend TN status granted earlier).

According to the International Organization for Migration, deaths of migrants have been on the rise worldwide with 5,604 deaths in 2016. [110] An increased number of undocumented farmworkers in California may be due to the initial passing of NAFTA. [111]

Canadian authorities estimated that on December 1, 2006, 24,830 U.S. citizens and 15,219 Mexican citizens were in Canada as "foreign workers". These numbers include both entrants under NAFTA and those who entered under other provisions of Canadian immigration law. [112] New entries of foreign workers in 2006 totalled 16,841 U.S. citizens and 13,933 Mexicans. [113]

Disputes and controversies

1992 U.S. presidential candidate Ross Perot

In the second 1992 presidential debate, Ross Perot argued:

We have got to stop sending jobs overseas. It's pretty simple: If you're paying $12, $13, $14 an hour for factory workers and you can move your factory south of the border, pay a dollar an hour for labor, ... have no health care—that's the most expensive single element in making a car—have no environmental controls, no pollution controls and no retirement, and you don't care about anything but making money, there will be a giant sucking sound going south. ... when [Mexico's] jobs come up from a dollar an hour to six dollars an hour, and ours go down to six dollars an hour, and then it's leveled again. But in the meantime, you've wrecked the country with these kinds of deals. [114]

Perot ultimately lost the election, and the winner, Bill Clinton, supported NAFTA, which went into effect on January 1, 1994.

In 1996, the gasoline additive MMT was brought to Canada by Ethyl Corporation, an American company when the Canadian federal government banned imports of the additive. The American company brought a claim under NAFTA Chapter 11 seeking US$201 million, [115] from the Canadian federal government as well as the Canadian provinces under the Agreement on Internal Trade (AIT). They argued that the additive had not been conclusively linked to any health dangers, and that the prohibition was damaging to their company. Following a finding that the ban was a violation of the AIT, [116] the Canadian federal government repealed the ban and settled with the American company for US$13 million. [117] Studies by Health and Welfare Canada (now Health Canada) on the health effects of MMT in fuel found no significant health effects associated with exposure to these exhaust emissions. Other Canadian researchers and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency disagreed citing studies that suggested possible nerve damage. [118]

The United States and Canada argued for years over the United States' 27% duty on Canadian softwood lumber imports. Canada filed many motions to have the duty eliminated and the collected duties returned to Canada. [119] After the United States lost an appeal before a NAFTA panel, spokesperson for U.S. Trade Representative Rob Portman responded by saying: "we are, of course, disappointed with the [NAFTA panel's] decision, but it will have no impact on the anti-dumping and countervailing duty orders." [120] On July 21, 2006, the United States Court of International Trade found that imposition of the duties was contrary to U.S. law. [121] [122]

Change in income trust taxation not expropriation

On October 30, 2007, American citizens Marvin and Elaine Gottlieb filed a Notice of Intent to Submit a Claim to Arbitration under NAFTA, claiming thousands of U.S. investors lost a total of $5 billion in the fall-out from the Conservative Government's decision the previous year to change the tax rate on income trusts in the energy sector. On April 29, 2009, a determination was made that this change in tax law was not expropriation. [123]

Impact on Mexican farmers

Several studies rejected NAFTA responsibility for depressing the incomes of poor corn farmers. The trend existed more than a decade before NAFTA existed. Also, maize production increased after 1994, and there wasn't a measurable impact on the price of Mexican corn because of subsidized[ who? ] corn from the United States. The studies agreed that the abolition of U.S. agricultural subsidies would benefit Mexican farmers. [124]

Zapatista Uprising in Chiapas, Mexico

Preparations for NAFTA included cancellation of Article 27 of Mexico's constitution, the cornerstone of Emiliano Zapata's revolution in 1910–1919. Under the historic Article 27, indigenous communal landholdings were protected from sale or privatization. However, this barrier to investment was incompatible with NAFTA. Indigenous farmers feared the loss of their remaining land and cheap imports (substitutes) from the US. The Zapatistas labelled NAFTA a "death sentence" to indigenous communities all over Mexico and later declared war on the Mexican state on January 1, 1994, the day NAFTA came into force. [125]

Criticism from 2016 U.S. presidential candidates

In a 60 Minutes interview in September 2015, 2016 presidential candidate Donald Trump called NAFTA "the single worst trade deal ever approved in [the United States]", [126] and said that if elected, he would "either renegotiate it, or we will break it". [127] [128] Juan Pablo Castañón  [ es ], president of the trade group Consejo Coordinador Empresarial, expressed concern about renegotiation and the willingness to focus on the car industry. [129] A range of trade experts said that pulling out of NAFTA would have a range of unintended consequences for the United States, including reduced access to its biggest export markets, a reduction in economic growth, and higher prices for gasoline, cars, fruits, and vegetables. [130] Members of the private initiative in Mexico noted that to eliminate NAFTA, many laws must be adapted by the U.S. Congress. The move would also eventually result in legal complaints by the World Trade Organization. [129] The Washington Post noted that a Congressional Research Service review of academic literature concluded that the "net overall effect of NAFTA on the U.S. economy appears to have been relatively modest, primarily because trade with Canada and Mexico accounts for a small percentage of U.S. GDP". [65]

Democratic candidate Bernie Sanders, opposing the Trans-Pacific Partnership trade agreement, called it "a continuation of other disastrous trade agreements, like NAFTA, CAFTA, and permanent normal trade relations with China". He believes that free trade agreements have caused a loss of American jobs and depressed American wages. Sanders said that America needs to rebuild its manufacturing base using American factories for well-paying jobs for American labor rather than outsourcing to China and elsewhere. [131] [132] [133]

Policy of the Trump administration


Chrystia Freeland, Luis Videgaray Caso and Rex Tillerson in Mexico City in 2018 Chrystia Freeland, Luis Videgaray Caso and Rex Tillerson in Mexico City - 2018 (40013111732).jpg
Chrystia Freeland, Luis Videgaray Caso and Rex Tillerson in Mexico City in 2018

Shortly after his election, U.S. President Donald Trump said he would begin renegotiating the terms of NAFTA, to resolve trade issues he had campaigned on. The leaders of Canada and Mexico had indicated their willingness to work with the Trump administration. [134] Although vague on the exact terms he sought in a renegotiated NAFTA, Trump threatened to withdraw from it if negotiations failed. [135]

In July 2017, the Trump administration provided a detailed list of changes that it would like to see to NAFTA. [136] The top priority was a reduction in the United States' trade deficit. [136] [137] The administration also called for the elimination of provisions that allowed Canada and Mexico to appeal duties imposed by the United States and limited the ability of the United States to impose import restrictions on Canada and Mexico. [136]

Being "consistent with the president's stance on liking trade barriers, liking protectionism", Chad Bown of the Peterson Institute for International Economics suggested that the proposed changes would make NAFTA "in many respects less of a free-trade agreement." [136] Additional concerns expressed by the US Trade Representative over subsidized state-owned enterprises and currency manipulation were not thought to apply to Canada and Mexico, but were intended rather to send a message to countries beyond North America. [136]

John Murphy, vice-president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce declared that a number of the proposals tabled by the United States had "little or no support" from the U.S. business and agriculture community." [138] Pat Roberts, the senior U.S. senator from Kansas, said it was not clear "who they're intended to benefit", and called for push back against the anti-NAFTA moves as the "issues affect real jobs, real lives and real people". Kansas is a major agricultural exporter, and farm groups warned that just threatening to leave NAFTA might cause buyers to minimize uncertainty by seeking out non-US sources. [138]

A fourth round of talks included a U.S. demand for a sunset clause that would end the agreement in five years, unless the three countries agreed to keep it in place, a provision U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross has said would allow the countries to kill the deal if it was not working. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau met with the House Ways and Means Committee, since Congress would have to pass legislation rolling back the treaty's provisions if Trump tries to withdraw from the pact. [139]

From June to late August 2018, Canada was sidelined as the United States and Mexico held bilateral talks. [140] On 27 August 2018 Mexico and the United States announced they had reached a bilateral understanding on a revamped NAFTA trade deal that included provisions that would boost automobile production in the U.S., [141] a 10-year data protection period against generic drug production on an expanded list of products that benefits pharmaceutical companies, particularly US makers producers of high-cost biologic drugs, a sunset clause—a 16-year expiration date with regular 6-year reviews to possibly renew the agreement for additional 16-year terms, and an increased de minimis threshold in which Mexico raised the de minimis value to $100 from $50 regarding online duty- and tax-free purchases. [142] [143] According to an August 30 article in The Economist , Mexico agreed to increase the rules of origin threshold which would mean that 75% as opposed to the previous 62.5% of a vehicle's components must be made in North America to avoid tariffs. [144] Since car makers currently import less expensive components from Asia, under the revised agreement, consumers would pay more for vehicles. [145] As well, approximately 40 to 45 per cent of vehicle components must be made by workers earning a minimum of US$16 per hour, in contrast to the current US$2.30 an hour that a worker earns on average in a Mexican car manufacturing plant. [144] [145] The Economist described this as placing "Mexican carmaking into a straitjacket". [144]

Trudeau and Canadian Foreign Minister Chrystia Freeland announced that they were willing to join the agreement if it was in Canada's interests. [146] Freeland returned from her European diplomatic tour early, cancelling a planned visit to Ukraine, to participate in NAFTA negotiations in Washington, D.C. in late August. [147] According to an August 31 Canadian Press published in the Ottawa Citizen , key issues under debate included supply management, Chapter 19, pharmaceuticals, cultural exemption, the sunset clause, and de minimis thresholds. [143]

Although President Donald Trump warned Canada on September 1 that he would exclude them from a new trade agreement unless Canada submitted to his demands, it is not clear that the Trump administration had the authority to do so without the approval of Congress. [148] :34–6 [149] [150] [151]

On September 30, 2018, the day of the deadline for the Canada–U.S. negotiations, a preliminary deal between the two countries was reached, thus preserving the trilateral pact when the Trump administration submits the agreement before Congress. [152] The new name for the agreement was the "United States—Mexico—Canada Agreement" (USMCA) and came into effect on July 1, 2020. [153] [154]

Impact of withdrawing from NAFTA

Following Donald Trump's election to the presidency, a range of trade experts said that pulling out of NAFTA as Trump proposed would have a range of unintended consequences for the U.S., including reduced access to the U.S.'s biggest export markets, a reduction in economic growth, and increased prices for gasoline, cars, fruits, and vegetables. [8] The worst affected sectors would be textiles, agriculture and automobiles. [9] [155]

According to Tufts University political scientist Daniel W. Drezner, the Trump administration's desire to return relations with Mexico to the pre-NAFTA era are misguided. Drezner argued that NAFTA made it easier for Mexico to transform to a real democracy and become a country that views itself as North American. If Trump acts on many of the threats that he has made against Mexico, it is not inconceivable that Mexicans would turn to left-wing populist strongmen, as several South American countries have. At the very least, US-Mexico relations would worsen, with adverse implications for cooperation on border security, counterterrorism, drug-war operations, deportations and managing Central American migration. [86]

According to Chad P. Bown (senior fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics), "a renegotiated NAFTA that would reestablish trade barriers is unlikely to help workers who lost their jobs—regardless of the cause—take advantage of new employment opportunities". [156]

According to Harvard economist Marc Melitz, "recent research estimates that the repeal of NAFTA would not increase car production in the United States". [7] Melitz noted that this would cost manufacturing jobs. [7] [ clarification needed ]

Trans-Pacific Partnership

If the original Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) had come into effect, existing agreements such as NAFTA would be reduced to those provisions that do not conflict with the TPP, or that require greater trade liberalization than the TPP. [157] However, only Canada and Mexico would have the prospect of becoming members of the TPP after U.S. President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the agreement in January 2017. In May 2017, the 11 remaining members of the TPP, including Canada and Mexico, agreed to proceed with a revised version of the trade deal without U.S. participation. [158]

American public opinion on NAFTA

The American public was largely divided on its view of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), with a wide partisan gap in beliefs. In a February 2018 Gallup Poll, 48% of Americans said NAFTA was good for the U.S., while 46% said it was bad. [159]

According to a journal from the Law and Business Review of the Americas (LBRA), U.S. public opinion of NAFTA centers around three issues: NAFTA's impact on the creation or destruction of American jobs, NAFTA's impact on the environment, and NAFTA's impact on immigrants entering the U.S. [160]

After President Trump's election in 2016, support for NAFTA became very polarized between Republicans and Democrats. Donald Trump expressed negative views of NAFTA, calling it "the single worst trade deal ever approved in this country". [161] Republican support for NAFTA decreased from 43% support in 2008 to 34% in 2017. Meanwhile, Democratic support for NAFTA increased from 41% support in 2008 to 71% in 2017. [162]

The political gap was especially large in concern to views on free trade with Mexico. As opposed to a favorable view of free trade with Canada, whom 79% of American described as a fair trade partner, only 47% of Americans believed Mexico practices fair trade. The gap widened between Democrats and Republicans: 60% of Democrats believed Mexico is practicing fair trade, while only 28% of Republicans did. This was the highest level from Democrats and the lowest level from Republicans ever recorded by the Chicago Council Survey. Republicans had more negative views of Canada as a fair trade partner than Democrats as well. [162]

NAFTA had strong support from young Americans. In a February 2017 Gallup poll, 73% of Americans aged 18–29 said NAFTA was good for the U.S, showing higher support than any other U.S. age group. [159] It also had slightly stronger support from unemployed Americans than from employed Americans. [163]

See also


    Related Research Articles

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Economy of Canada</span>

    The economy of Canada is a highly developed mixed economy, with the world's tenth-largest economy as of 2023, and a nominal GDP of approximately US$2.117 trillion. Canada is one of the world's largest trading nations, with a highly globalized economy. In 2021, Canadian trade in goods and services reached $2.016 trillion. Canada's exports totalled over $637 billion, while its imported goods were worth over $631 billion, of which approximately $391 billion originated from the United States. In 2018, Canada had a trade deficit in goods of $22 billion and a trade deficit in services of $25 billion. The Toronto Stock Exchange is the tenth-largest stock exchange in the world by market capitalization, listing over 1,500 companies with a combined market capitalization of over US$3 trillion.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Canada–United States relations</span> Bilateral relations

    Canada's long and complex relationship with the United States has had a significant impact on its history, economy, and culture. The two countries consider themselves among the "closest [of] allies". They share the longest border between any two nations in the world, and also have significant military interoperability. Both Americans and Canadians have generally ranked each other as one of their respective "favorite nations". Canadian peacekeeping is deeply embedded in Canadian culture and a distinguishing feature that Canadians feel sets their foreign policy apart from the United States. Canadian Anti-Americanism manifests itself in a variety of ways, ranging from political, to cultural.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Economy of Mexico</span>

    The economy of Mexico is a developing mixed-market economy. It is the 12th largest in the world in nominal GDP terms and by purchasing power parity according to the International Monetary Fund. Since the 1994 crisis, administrations have improved the country's macroeconomic fundamentals. Mexico was not significantly influenced by the 2002 South American crisis, and maintained positive, although low, rates of growth after a brief period of stagnation in 2001. However, Mexico was one of the Latin American nations most affected by the 2008 recession with its gross domestic product contracting by more than 6% in that year.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Free Trade Area of the Americas</span> Failed 2005 trade agreement for North and South America

    The Free Trade Area of the Americas (FTAA) was a proposed agreement to eliminate or reduce the trade barriers among all countries in the Americas, excluding Cuba. Negotiations to establish the FTAA ended in failure, however, with all parties unable to reach an agreement by the 2005 deadline they had set for themselves.

    The Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement (CUSFTA), official name as the Free Trade Agreement between Canada and the United States of America, was a bilateral trade agreement reached by negotiators for Canada and the United States on October 4, 1987, and signed by the leaders of both countries on January 2, 1988. The agreement phased out a wide range of trade restrictions in stages, over a ten-year period, and resulted in a substantial increase in cross-border trade as an improvement to the last replaced trade deal. With the addition of Mexico in 1994, CUSFTA was superseded by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Economy of North America</span>

    The economy of North America comprises more than 596 million people in its 24 sovereign states and 15 dependent territories. It is marked by a sharp division between the predominantly English speaking countries of Canada and the United States, which are among the wealthiest and most developed nations in the world, and countries of Central America and the Caribbean in the former Latin America that are less developed. Mexico and Caribbean nations of the Commonwealth of Nations are between the economic extremes of the development of North America.

    The economic policies of Bill Clinton administration, referred to by some as Clintonomics, encapsulates the economic policies of president of the United States Bill Clinton that were implemented during his presidency, which lasted from January 1993 to January 2001.

    TN status is a special non-immigrant classification of foreign nationals in the United States, which offers expedited work authorization to a citizen of Canada or a national of Mexico. It was created as a result of provisions of the North American Free Trade Agreement that mandated simplified entry and employment permission for certain professionals from each of the three NAFTA member states in the other member states. The provisions of NAFTA relevant to TN status were then carried over almost verbatim to the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement that replaced NAFTA in 2020.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Trans-Pacific Partnership</span> 2016 proposed trade agreement

    The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), or Trans-Pacific Partnership Agreement (TPPA), was a proposed trade agreement between 12 Pacific Rim economies: Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, Vietnam, and the United States. In the United States, the proposal was signed on 4 February 2016 but not ratified as a result of significant domestic political opposition. After taking office, the newly elected President Donald Trump formally withdrew the United States from TPP in January 2017, therefore ensuring the TPP could not be ratified as required and did not enter into force. The remaining countries negotiated a new trade agreement called Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership, which incorporated most of the provisions of the TPP and which entered into force on 30 December 2018.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Canada–Mexico relations</span> Bilateral relations

    The nations of Canada and Mexico established formal diplomatic relations in 1944. Initially, ties between the two nations were dormant, but since the 1990s relations between Canada and Mexico have positively developed as both countries brokered NAFTA.

    The trade relationship of the United States with Canada is the largest in the world. In 2016, the goods and services trade between the two countries totalled $627.8 billion. U.S. exports were $320.1 billion, while imports were $307.6 billion. The United States has a $12.5 billion trade surplus with Canada in 2016. Canada has historically held a trade deficit with the United States in every year since 1985 in net trade of goods, excluding services. The trade relationship between the two countries crosses all industries and is vitally important to both nations' success as each country is one of the largest trade partners of the other.

    North American Free Trade Agreement's impact on United States employment has been the object of ongoing debate since the 1994 inception of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) with Canada and Mexico. NAFTA's proponents believe that more jobs were ultimately created in the USA. Opponents see the agreements as having been costly to well-paying American jobs.

    North American integration is the process of economic and political integration in North America, largely centered on the integration of Canada, Mexico, and the United States.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Free trade agreements of Canada</span> Canadas membership in multinational trade pacts

    The free trade agreements of Canada represents Canada's cooperation in multinational trade pacts and plays a large role in the Canadian economy. Canada is regularly described as a trading nation, considering its total trade is worth more than two-thirds of its GDP. Of that total trade, roughly 75% is done with countries that are part of free trade agreements with Canada—primarily the United States through the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), and its predecessor the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). By the end of 2014, Canadas bilateral trade hit Can$1 trillion for the first time. Canada is a signatory to 15 free trade agreements with 51 different countries.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Dairy and poultry supply management in Canada</span> Agricultural policy framework in Canada

    Canada's supply management, abbreviated SM, is a national agricultural policy framework used across the country, which controls the supply of dairy, poultry and eggs through production and import controls and pricing mechanisms. The supply management system was authorized by the 1972 Farm Products Agencies Act, which established the two national agencies that oversee the system. The Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada federal department is responsible for both the Canadian Dairy Commission and its analogue for eggs, chicken and turkey products, the Farm Products Council of Canada. Five national supply management organizations, the SM-5 Organizations — Egg Farmers of Canada (EFC), Turkey Farmers of Canada (TFC), Chicken Farmers of Canada (CFC), the Canadian Hatching Egg Producers (CHEP) and the Ottawa-based Canadian Dairy Commission (CDC), a Crown corporation — in collaboration with provincial and national governing agencies, organizations and committees, administer the supply management system.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Effects of NAFTA on Mexico</span>

    The North American Free Trade Agreement of 1994's effects on Mexico have long been overshadowed by the debate on the Agreement's effects on the economy of the United States. As a kind partner in the agreement, the effects that NAFTA has had on the Mexican economy is essential to understanding NAFTA on a whole. A key factor in this discussion is the way the Agreement was presented to Mexico; namely, that it would increase development of the Mexican economy by providing more middle class jobs that would enable more Mexicans to lift themselves out of the lower classes. Thus, wages, employment, attitudes, and migration all present essential areas of analyses to understand effects NAFTA has had on the Mexican economy.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Trump tariffs</span> Tariffs imposed during the presidency of Donald Trump

    The Trump tariffs are a series of United States tariffs imposed during the presidency of Donald Trump as part of his "America First" economic policy to reduce the United States trade deficit by shifting American trade policy from multilateral free trade agreements to bilateral trade deals. In January 2018, Trump imposed tariffs on solar panels and washing machines of 30 to 50 percent. In March 2018, he imposed tariffs on steel (25%) and aluminum (10%) from most countries, which, according to Morgan Stanley, covered an estimated 4.1 percent of U.S. imports. In June 2018, this was extended to the European Union, Canada, and Mexico. The Trump administration separately set and escalated tariffs on goods imported from China, leading to a trade war.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement</span> Free trade agreement

    The Agreement between the United States of America, Mexico, and Canada (USMCA) is a free trade agreement between the United States, Mexico, and Canada. It replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) implemented in 1994, and is sometimes characterized as "NAFTA 2.0", or "New NAFTA", since it largely maintains or updates the provisions of its predecessor. USMCA created one of the world's largest free trade zones, with a population of more than 510 million people and an economy of $30.997 trillion in nominal GDP — nearly 30 percent of the global economy.

    <span class="mw-page-title-main">Trump administration farmer bailouts</span> Farmer bailouts during the presidency of Donald Trump

    Trump administration farmer bailouts are a series of United States bailout programs introduced during the presidency of Donald Trump as a consequence of his "America First" economic policy to help US farmers suffering due to the US-China trade war and trade disputes with European Union, Japan, Canada, Mexico, and others. China and respectively European reconcilable tariffs imposed on peanut butter, soybeans, orange juice, and other agriculture products had hit hard, especially swing states, such as Iowa, Ohio, and Wisconsin.


    1. "Report for Selected Countries and Subjects". Archived from the original on February 14, 2021. Retrieved September 5, 2017.
    2. "NAFTA's Economic Impact". Council on Foreign Relations. Archived from the original on July 21, 2017. Retrieved July 18, 2017.
    3. 1 2 "Poll Results | IGM Forum". March 13, 2012. Archived from the original on June 22, 2016. Retrieved January 1, 2016.
    4. 1 2 3 Burfisher, Mary E; Robinson, Sherman; Thierfelder, Karen (February 1, 2001). "The Impact of NAFTA on the United States". Journal of Economic Perspectives. 15 (1): 125–44. CiteSeerX . doi:10.1257/jep.15.1.125. ISSN   0895-3309. S2CID   154817996.
    5. Hiltzik, Michael (January 30, 2017). "NAFTA doesn't count for much economically, but it's still a huge political football. Here's why". Los Angeles Times . ISSN   0458-3035. Archived from the original on August 29, 2017. Retrieved July 18, 2017.
    6. Rodrik, Dani (June 2017). "Populism and the Economics of Globalization". NBER Working Paper No. 23559. doi: 10.3386/w23559 .
    7. 1 2 3 "Driving Home the Importance of NAFTA | Econofact". Econofact. Retrieved February 15, 2017.
    8. 1 2 Eric Martin, Trump Killing Nafta Could Mean Big Unintended Consequences for the U.S., Bloomberg Business (October 1, 2015).
    9. 1 2 "Which American producers would suffer from ending NAFTA?". The Economist. Retrieved February 19, 2017.
    10. "Nafta withdrawal would hit US GDP without helping trade deficit – report". Financial Times. Archived from the original on December 10, 2022.
    11. "United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement". USTR. Retrieved October 1, 2018.
    12. CBC News, "Mexico joins Canada, notifies U.S. it's ready to implement new NAFTA" 2020/04/04 Archived 2020-11-26 at the Wayback Machine accessed 06 April 2020
    13. Eugene Beaulieu and Dylan Klemen. "You Say USMCA or T-MEC and I Say CUSMA: The New NAFTA-Let's Call the Whole Thing On." The School of Public Policy Publications (2020) online.
    14. 1 2 "North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)". The Canadian Encyclopedia . Historica Canada . Retrieved November 19, 2017.
    15. Foreign Affairs and International trade Canada: Canada and the World: A History – 1984–1993: "Leap of Faith Archived October 27, 2007, at the Wayback Machine
    16. NAFTA: Final Text, Summary, Legislative History & Implementation Directory . New York: Oceana Publications. 1994. pp.  1–3. ISBN   978-0-379-00835-7.
    17. Labor Advisory Committee for Trade Negotiations and Trade Policy; established under the Trade Act of 1974.
    18. Preliminary Report of the Labor Advisory Committee for Trade Negotiations and Trade Policy on the North American Free Trade Agreement , dated Sept. 16, 1992 (Washington, D.C.: Executive Office of the President, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, 1992), i, 1.
    19. For an overview of the process, see Noam Chomsky, "'Mandate for Change', or Business as Usual", Z Magazine 6, no. 2 (February 1993), 41.
    20. "H.R.3450 – North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act". December 8, 1993. Retrieved December 29, 2014.
    21. "Trump says many trade agreements are bad for Americans. The architects of NAFTA say he's wrong". Los Angeles Times. October 28, 2016. Retrieved July 10, 2020.
    22. Rudin, Ken (December 27, 2011). "Remembering Those Who Left Us In 2011". Retrieved July 10, 2020.
    23. Luis Gutierrez on Why Rahm Emanuel Should Not Be Mayor, Chicago Magazine , Carol Felsenthal, January 11, 2011. Retrieved July 2, 2022.
    24. [9311150020_1_anti-nafta-forces-nafta-debate-undecided-house-members Gutierrez Resists Party Pressure, Vows He'll Vote Against Nafta], Chicago Tribune , November 13, 1993. Retrieved July 1, 2022.
    25. Learning From The Experience Of NAFTA Labor And Environmental Governance, Forbes Magazine , Mark Aspinwall, August 10, 2017. Retrieved July 1, 2022.
    26. "Clinton Signs NAFTA – December 8, 1993". Miller Center. University of Virginia. Archived from the original on October 10, 2010. Retrieved January 27, 2011.
    27. "NAFTA Timeline". Fina-nafi. Archived from the original on January 14, 2011. Retrieved July 4, 2011.
    28. "YouTube". Archived from the original on October 30, 2021. Retrieved July 10, 2020.
    29. "Signing NaFTA". History Central. Retrieved February 20, 2011.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
    30. 1 2 "Decreto de promulgación del Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte" [Decree of promulgation of the North American Free Trade Agreement]. Decree of December 20, 1993 (PDF) (in Spanish). Senate of the Republic (Mexico).
    31. Floudas, Demetrius Andreas & Rojas, Luis Fernando; "Some Thoughts on NAFTA and Trade Integration in the American Continent" Archived 2017-10-21 at the Wayback Machine , 52 (2000) International Problems 371
    32. Gantz, DA (1999). "Dispute Settlement Under the NAFTA and the WTO:Choice of Forum Opportunities and Risks for the NAFTA Parties". American University International Law Review. 14 (4): 1025–106.
    33. "Pest Management Regulatory Agency". Health Canada. Branches and Agencies. nd. Retrieved September 3, 2018.
    34. GPO, P.L. 103-182, Section 334
    35. ML-497 (March 1995), Docket No. RM 93-13C, Library of Congress Copyright Office
    36. Carpentier, Chantal Line (December 1, 2006). "IngentaConnect NAFTA Commission for Environmental Cooperation: ongoing assessment". Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal. 24 (4): 259–272. doi: 10.3152/147154606781765048 .
    37. Analytic Framework for Assessing the Environmental Effects of the North American Free Trade Agreement. Commission for Environmental Cooperation (1999)
    38. "Trade and Environment in the Americas". Archived from the original on December 7, 2014. Retrieved November 9, 2008.
    39. 1 2 3 McDowell, Manfred (1995). "NAFTA and the EC Social Dimension". Labor Studies Journal. 20 (1). Retrieved September 11, 2020.
    40. Schliefer, Jonathan (December 1992). "What price economic growth?". The Atlantic Monthly: 114.
    41. Bureau of International Labor Affairs, U.S. National Administrative Office. "North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation: A Guide". U.S. Department of Labor. Retrieved September 12, 2020.
    42. "Accords fail to redraw battle lines over pact". The New York Times . August 14, 1993.
    43. Witt, Matt (April 1990). "Don't trade on me: Mexican, U.S. and Canadian workers confront free trade". Dollars and Sense.
    44. Compa, Lance (2001). "NAFTA's Labour Side Agr s Labour Side Agreement and International Labour Agreement and International Labour Solidarity" (PDF). Cornell University ILR School. Retrieved September 12, 2020.
    45. "NAFTA, Chapter 11". Retrieved July 4, 2011.
    46. Government of Canada, Global Affairs Canada (July 31, 2002). "The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) – Chapter 11 – Investment" . Retrieved January 20, 2017.
    47. "'North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)', Public Citizen". January 1, 1994. Retrieved July 4, 2011.
    48. Red Mexicana de Accion Frente al Libre Comercio. "NAFTA and the Mexican Environment". Archived from the original on December 16, 2000.
    49. "The Council of Canadians". Archived from the original on May 25, 2019. Retrieved July 4, 2011.
    50. Commission for Environmental Cooperation. "The NAFTA environmental agreement: The Intersection of Trade and the Environment". Archived from the original on June 11, 2007. Retrieved July 4, 2011.
    51. PEJ News. "Judge Rebuffs Challenge to NAFTA'S Chapter 11 Investor Claims Process". Archived from the original on July 26, 2011. Retrieved July 4, 2011.
    52. Ontario Court of Appeal. "Council of Canadians v. Canada (Attorney General), 2006 CanLII 40222 (ON CA)". CanLII. Retrieved December 11, 2019.
    53. "Arbitration award between Methanex Corporation and United States of America" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on June 16, 2007. (1.45 MB)
    54. "Arbitration award between Metalclad Corporation and The United Mexican States" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on June 16, 2007. (120 KB)
    55. Government of Canada, Foreign Affairs Trade and Development Canada (July 16, 2014). "Eli Lilly and Company v. Government of Canada" . Retrieved January 20, 2017.
    56. 1 2 3 McKenna, Barrie (November 24, 2013). "Canada must learn from NAFTA legal battles". The Globe and Mail . Retrieved January 20, 2017.
    57. Government of Canada, Foreign Affairs Trade and Development Canada (December 5, 2012). "Lone Pine Resources Inc. v. Government of Canada" . Retrieved January 20, 2017.
    58. 1 2 3 4 Gray, Jeff (November 22, 2012). "Quebec's St. Lawrence fracking ban challenged under NAFTA". The Globe and Mail . Retrieved January 20, 2017.
    59. "Stock:Lone Pine Resources". Archived from the original on January 30, 2017. Retrieved January 20, 2017.
    60. 1 2 3 Millán, Juan. "North American Free Trade Agreement; Invitation for Applications for Inclusion on the Chapter 19 Roster" (PDF). Federal Register. Office of the United States Trade Representative. Retrieved March 19, 2016.
    61. "NAFTA – Fast Facts: North American Free Trade Agreement". April 4, 2012. Archived from the original on October 30, 2013. Retrieved October 26, 2013.
    62. Trefler, Daniel (September 2004). "The Long and Short of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement" (PDF). American Economic Review. 94 (4): 870–895. doi:10.1257/0002828042002633.
    63. Bernstein, William J. (May 16, 2009). A Splendid Exchange: How Trade Shaped the World. Grove Press.
    64. Romalis, John (July 12, 2007). "NAFTA's and CUSFTA's Impact on International Trade" (PDF). Review of Economics and Statistics. 89 (3): 416–35. doi:10.1162/rest.89.3.416. ISSN   0034-6535. S2CID   57562094.
    65. 1 2 3 4 5 Caliendo, Lorenzo; Parro, Fernando (January 1, 2015). "Estimates of the Trade and Welfare Effects of NAFTA". The Review of Economic Studies. 82 (1): 1–44. CiteSeerX . doi:10.1093/restud/rdu035. ISSN   0034-6527. S2CID   20591348.
    66. 1 2 McBride, James; Sergie, Mohammed Aly (2017) [February 14, 2014]. "NAFTA's Economic Impact". Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) think tank. Archived from the original on May 16, 2017. Retrieved September 3, 2018.
    67. "NAFTA and Climate Report 2018" (PDF). Sierra Club.
    68. 1 2 Laxer, Gordon. "Escaping Mandatory Oil Exports: Why Canada needs to dump NAFTA's energy proportionality rule" (PDF). p. 28.
    69. 1 2 "The coddling of the Canadian cow farmer". The Economist. Retrieved September 12, 2018.
    70. Hufbauer, GC; Schott, JJ (2005). "NAFTA Revisited" . Washington, DC: Institute for International Economics.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)
    71. Greening the Americas, Carolyn L. Deere (editor). MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.
    72. Clark, Georgia Rae (2006). Mexican meat demand analysis: A post-NAFTA demand systems approach (MS thesis). Texas Tech University. hdl:2346/18215 . Retrieved November 12, 2022.
    73. Matt Nesvisky (September 2003). "What Happened to Wages in Mexico Since NAFTA?".
    74. "NAFTA's Legacy for Mexico: Economic Displacement, Lower Wages for Most, Increased Migration". September 1, 2019.
    75. Martha Rodriguez-Villalobos; Antonio Julián-Arias; Alejandro Cruz-Montaño (2019). "Effect of NAFTA on Mexico's Wage Inequality". International Journal of Economic Sciences. 8 (1): 131–149. doi:10.52950/ES.2019.8.1.009 (inactive January 31, 2024).{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: DOI inactive as of January 2024 (link)
    76. "NAFTA, Corn, and Mexico's Agricultural Trade Liberalization" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on January 9, 2007. (152 KB) p. 4
    77. Steven S. Zahniser & William T. Coyle, U.S.-Mexico Corn Trade During the NAFTA Era: New Twists to an Old Story Archived 2021-02-14 at the Wayback Machine , Outlook Report No. FDS04D01 (Economic Research Service/USDA, May 2004), 22 pp.
    78. Becker, Elizabeth (August 27, 2003). "U.S. Corn Subsidies Said to Damage Mexico". The New York Times. Retrieved July 21, 2019.
    79. Ruiz Nápoles, Pablo. "El TLCAN y el balance comercial en México". Economía Informa. UNAM. 2003
    80. H, Hanson, Gordon (March 9, 2007). "Globalization, Labor Income, and Poverty in Mexico". University of Chicago Press: 417–456.{{cite journal}}: Cite journal requires |journal= (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
    81. Prina, Silvia (August 2013). "Who Benefited More from the North American Free Trade Agreement: Small or Large Farmers? Evidence from Mexico". Review of Development Economics. 17 (3): 594–608. doi:10.1111/rode.12053. S2CID   154627747.
    82. Prina, Silvia (January 2015). "Effects of Border Price Changes on Agricultural Wages and Employment in Mexico". Journal of International Development. 27 (1): 112–132. doi:10.1002/jid.2814.
    83. O'Neil, Shannon (March 2013). "Mexico Makes It". Foreign Affairs. 92 (2). Retrieved March 19, 2016.
    84. Taylor, Guy (May 14, 2012). "NAFTA key to economic, social growth in Mexico". The Washington Times. Retrieved March 19, 2016.
    85. "Economic Report of the exportations in the manufacturer industry" Consejo Nacional de Industria Maquiladora Manufacturera A.C. 2016
    86. 1 2 "The missing dimension in the NAFTA debate". Washington Post. Retrieved February 12, 2017.
    87. "Trump administration formally launches NAFTA renegotiation". Washington Post. Retrieved July 18, 2017.
    88. Frankel, Jeffrey (April 24, 2017). "How to Renegotiate NAFTA". Project Syndicate. Retrieved July 18, 2017.
    89. Scott, Robert E. (July 21, 2014). "The effects of NAFTA on US trade, jobs, and investment, 1993â€"2013". Review of Keynesian Economics. 2 (4): 429–441. doi:10.4337/roke.2014.04.02 . Retrieved July 21, 2019 via
    90. "The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)" (PDF).
    91. "Contentious Nafta pact continues to generate a sparky debate". Financial Times. December 2, 2013. Archived from the original on May 7, 2015. Retrieved January 20, 2017.
    92. 1 2 "NAFTA's Economic Impact". Council on Foreign Relations. Archived from the original on February 4, 2017. Retrieved February 7, 2017.
    93. 1 2 Porter, Eduardo (March 29, 2016). "Nafta May Have Saved Many Autoworkers' Jobs". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved February 7, 2017.
    94. 1 2 3 4 "North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)". Office of the United States Trade Representative. Archived from the original on March 17, 2013. Retrieved December 3, 2014.
    95. Lavassani, Kayvan (June 2018). "Data Science Reveals NAFTA's Problem" (PDF). International Affairs Forum. No. June 2018. Center for International Relations. Archived from the original (PDF) on July 7, 2018. Retrieved July 7, 2018.
    96. "Free Trade Agreement Helped U.S. Farmers". Archived 2009-01-29 at the Wayback Machine Newswise. Retrieved on June 12, 2008.
    97. "North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) —". Archived from the original on November 25, 2011. Retrieved November 28, 2011.
    98. Villarreal, M. Angeles; Fergusson, Ian F. (May 24, 2017). The North American Free Trade Agreement (PDF). Congressional Research Service (CRS) (Report). Retrieved September 2, 2018.
    99. "North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) | United States Trade Representative". Archived from the original on May 8, 2020. Retrieved October 12, 2016.
    100. 1 2 DeLong, J. Bradford. "NAFTA and other trade deals have not gutted American manufacturing – period". Vox. Retrieved February 7, 2017.
    101. "What did NAFTA really do?". Dani Rodrik's weblog. Retrieved February 7, 2017.
    102. Faux, Jeff (December 9, 2013). "NAFTA's Impact on U.S. Workers". Economic Policy Institute. Retrieved October 12, 2016.
    103. "U.S. Economy Lost Nearly 700,000 Jobs Because Of NAFTA, EPI Says". The Huffington Post. July 12, 2011.
    104. Long, Heather (February 16, 2017). "U.S. auto workers hate NAFTA ... but love robots". CNNMoney. Archived from the original on February 14, 2021. Retrieved February 21, 2017. The problem, they argue, is that machines took over. One study by Ball State University says 87% of American manufacturing jobs have been lost to robots. Only 13% have disappeared because of trade ... But workers in Michigan think the experts have it wrong.
    105. Cherniwchan, Jevan (2017). "Trade Liberalization and the Environment: Evidence from NAFTA and U.S. Manufacturing". Journal of International Economics. 105: 130–49. doi: 10.1016/j.jinteco.2017.01.005 .
    106. 1 2 3 "Environmental Damages Underscore Risks of Unfair Trade". Archived from the original on March 15, 2014. Retrieved March 4, 2014.
    107. "IngentaConnect NAFTA Commission for Environmental Cooperation: ongoing assessment of trade liberalization in North America". Archived from the original on June 6, 2011. Retrieved November 9, 2008.
    108. Kenneth A. Reinert and David W. Roland-Holst The Industrial Pollution Impacts of NAFTA: Some Preliminary Results. Commission for Environmental Cooperation (November 2000)
    109. "DHS Yearbook 2006. Supplemental Table 1: Nonimmigrant Admissions (I-94 Only) by Class of Admission and Country of Citizenship: Fiscal Year 2006". Archived from the original on February 28, 2011. Retrieved July 21, 2019.
    110. Jones, Reese. Borders & Walls: Do Barriers Deter Unauthorized Migration. Migration Policy Institute. web page October 5, 2016.
    111. Bacon, David (October 11, 2014). "Globalization and NAFTA Caused Migration from Mexico". Political Research Associates. Retrieved April 3, 2017.
    112. Facts and Figures 2006 Immigration Overview: Temporary Residents Archived February 23, 2008, at the Wayback Machine (Citizenship and Immigration Canada)
    113. "Facts and Figures 2006 – Immigration Overview: Permanent and Temporary Residents". June 29, 2007. Archived from the original on August 22, 2008. Retrieved November 9, 2008.
    114. "THE 1992 CAMPAIGN; Transcript of 2d TV Debate Between Bush, Clinton and Perot". The New York Times. October 16, 1992. Archived from the original on December 29, 2018. Retrieved May 16, 2016.
    115. "Notice of Arbitration" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on June 16, 2007. (1.71 MB), 'Ethyl Corporation vs. Government of Canada'
    116. "Agreement on Internal Trade" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on August 22, 2006. (118 KB)
    117. "Dispute Settlement". October 15, 2010. Archived from the original on January 15, 2008. Retrieved July 4, 2011.
    118. "MMT: the controversy over this fuel additive continues". Retrieved July 4, 2011.
    119. softwood Lumber Archived June 16, 2008, at the Wayback Machine
    120. "Statement from USTR Spokesperson Neena Moorjani Regarding the NAFTA Extraordinary Challenge Committee decision in Softwood Lumber". Archived from the original on May 9, 2008. Retrieved July 21, 2019.
    121. "Tembec, Inc vs. United States" (PDF). Archived from the original (PDF) on September 23, 2006. (193 KB)
    122. "Statement by USTR Spokesman Stephen Norton Regarding CIT Lumber Ruling". Archived from the original on May 9, 2008. Retrieved July 21, 2019.
    123. Canada, Global Affairs; Canada, Affaires mondiales (June 26, 2013). "Global Affairs Canada". Archived from the original on August 2, 2012. Retrieved January 20, 2017.
    124. Fiess, Norbert; Daniel Lederman (November 24, 2004). "Mexican Corn: The Effects of NAFTA" (PDF). Trade Note. The World Bank Group. 18. Archived from the original (PDF) on June 16, 2007. Retrieved March 12, 2007.
    125. Subcomandante Marcos, Ziga Voa! 10 Years of the Zapatista Uprising. AK Press 2004
    126. Politico Staff (September 27, 2016). "Full transcript: First 2016 presidential debate". Politico. Retrieved September 27, 2016.
    127. Jill Colvin, Trump: NAFTA trade deal a 'disaster,' says he'd 'break' it Archived 2016-03-14 at the Wayback Machine , Associated Press (September 25, 2015).
    128. Mark Thoma, Is Donald Trump right to call NAFTA a "disaster"?, CBS News (October 5, 2015).
    129. 1 2 Gonzales, Lilia (November 14, 2016). "El Economista". Archived from the original on November 16, 2016. Retrieved November 16, 2016.
    130. Eric Martin, Trump Killing NAFTA Could Mean Big Unintended Consequences for the U.S., Bloomberg Business (October 1, 2015).
    131. "Sen. Bernie Sanders on taxes, trade agreements and Islamic State". PBS. May 18, 2015. Retrieved May 20, 2015. (transcript of interview with Judy Woodruff)
    132. Sanders, Bernie (May 21, 2015). "The TPP Must Be Defeated". The Huffington Post. Retrieved May 22, 2015.
    133. Will Cabaniss for Punditfact. September 2, 2015 How Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton differ on the Trans-Pacific Partnership
    134. "Canada, Mexico talked before making NAFTA overture to Trump" . Retrieved April 3, 2018.
    135. Irwin, Neil (January 25, 2017). "What Is Nafta, and How Might Trump Change It?". The New York Times. Archived from the original on April 28, 2017. Retrieved April 5, 2017.
    136. 1 2 3 4 5 Rappeport, Alan (July 17, 2017). "U.S. Calls for 'Much Better Deal' in Nafta Overhaul Plan". The New York Times. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved July 18, 2017.
    137. "U.S. makes lower trade deficit top priority in NAFTA talks". Reuters. July 18, 2017. Retrieved July 18, 2017.
    138. 1 2 Alexander Panetta (November 1, 2017). "U.S. pro-NAFTA campaign ramps up to defend deal: Concerns in Congress heighten over 'potential catastrophe' from withdrawal". Vancouver Sun. Canadian Press.
    139. Laura Stone; Robert Fife (October 13, 2017). "Canada, Mexico vow to remain at NAFTA negotiating table". The Globe and Mail. p. A1.
    140. Gollom, Mark (August 30, 2018). "Canada had little choice but to play it cool in NAFTA talks, trade experts say". CBC News. Retrieved September 2, 2018. Charm offensive hadn't worked with U.S., so there was not much Trudeau could have done to save NAFTA, say some
    141. Lee, Don (August 27, 2018). "U.S. and Mexico strike preliminary accord on NAFTA; Canada expected to return to bargaining table". Los Angeles Times . Retrieved August 27, 2018.
    142. "Trump Reaches Revised Trade Deal With Mexico, Threatening to Leave Out Canada". The New York Times. August 27, 2018. Retrieved September 30, 2018.
    143. 1 2 "NAFTA's sticking points: Key hurdles to clear on the way to a deal". The Ottawa Citizen via Canadian Press. Ottawa, Ontario. August 30, 2018. Retrieved September 2, 2018.
    144. 1 2 3 "America's deal with Mexico will make NAFTA worse". The Economist . Going south. August 30, 2018. Retrieved September 2, 2018. Its costly new regulations result from flawed economic logic
    145. 1 2 Mcleod, James (August 30, 2018). "Trump's Mexico deal is a roadmap to higher car prices, industry analysts say". Financial Post. Toronto, Ontario. Retrieved September 2, 2018. Rules of origin and labour requirements will pass costs on to consumers
    146. "Trump announces 'incredible' trade deal with Mexico". BBC News. August 27, 2018. Retrieved September 2, 2018.
    147. Ukrainian Independent Information Agency, Canada's Foreign Minister postpones visit to Ukraine over urgent talks in U.S., 29 August 2018
    148. Villarreal, M. Angeles; Fergusson, Ian F. (July 26, 2018). NAFTA Renegotiation and Modernization (PDF). Congressional Research Service (CRS) (Report). p. 47. Retrieved September 2, 2018.
    149. "Trump: Canada 'will be out' of trade deal unless it's 'fair'". BBC. September 2, 2018. Archived from the original on November 21, 2018. Retrieved September 2, 2018.
    150. Aleem, Zeeshan (October 26, 2017). "We asked 6 experts if Congress could stop Trump from eliminating NAFTA". VOX. Retrieved September 2, 2018.
    151. "Donald Trump threatens to cancel NAFTA entirely if Congress interferes with his plans". Edmonton Journal. September 2, 2018. Retrieved September 2, 2018.
    152. "US and Canada reach deal on NAFTA". CNN. September 30, 2018. Retrieved September 30, 2018.
    153. "U.S. and Canada Reach Deal to Salvage Nafta". The New York Times. September 30, 2018. Retrieved September 30, 2018.
    154. Swanson, Ana (July 1, 2020). "As New NAFTA Takes Effect, Much Remains Undone". The New York Times. Retrieved August 12, 2020.
    155. Journal, Julie Wernau | Photographs by Mark Mahaney for The Wall Street (February 12, 2017). "Denim Dilemma". Wall Street Journal. ISSN   0099-9660 . Retrieved February 12, 2017.
    156. "What is NAFTA, and what would happen to U.S. trade without it?". Washington Post. Retrieved February 15, 2017.
    157. Isfeld, Gordon (October 12, 2015). "Forget NAFTA, the TPP is the new 'gold standard' of global trade". Financial Post. National Post. Retrieved December 31, 2015.
    158. Shaffer, Sri Jegarajah, Craig Dale, Leslie (May 21, 2017). "TPP nations agree to pursue trade deal without US". CNBC. Archived from the original on July 3, 2019. Retrieved July 4, 2017.{{cite web}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
    159. 1 2 Inc., Gallup. "Americans Split on Whether NAFTA Is Good or Bad for U.S." Retrieved April 30, 2018.{{cite news}}: |last= has generic name (help)
    160. "Redirecting ..." Retrieved April 30, 2018.
    161. "Transcript of the First Debate". The New York Times. September 27, 2016. ISSN   0362-4331 . Retrieved April 30, 2018.
    162. 1 2 Affairs, Chicago Council on Global. "Pro-Trade Views on the Rise, Partisan Divisions on NAFTA Widen | Chicago Council on Global Affairs". Archived from the original on November 26, 2020. Retrieved April 30, 2018.
    163. Inc., Gallup. "Opinion Briefing: North American Free Trade Agreement". Retrieved April 30, 2018.{{cite news}}: |last= has generic name (help)

    Further reading