Trade Cases
Report Questions Trump’s Authority to Withdraw U.S. from NAFTA
Written by Tim Triplett
March 13, 2019
The president’s authority to unilaterally withdraw the U.S. from NAFTA under U.S. law is unclear, according to a new report from the Congressional Research Service, but it does appear that the president would need congressional approval to terminate the U.S. law implementing NAFTA. The report’s conclusions could embolden lawmakers pushing back against President Trump’s threats to withdraw from NAFTA unless Congress approves the new U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement designed to replace it.
The report states that the U.S. approved NAFTA as a congressional-executive agreement by a majority vote of each house of Congress rather than as a treaty ratified by the president after Senate approval by a two-thirds majority vote. NAFTA was not a self-executing agreement; instead, Congress approved and implemented the agreement through the NAFTA Implementation Act, which provided domestic legal authorities with the power to enforce and comply with the agreement’s provisions.
President Trump has repeatedly suggested that he may unilaterally withdraw the U.S. from NAFTA in an effort to prompt Congress to approve the USMCA. However, the report calls into question what the effect of any such action would be.
According to CRS, it does not appear that any U.S. statute expressly gives the president authority to terminate NAFTA on his own. The most recent congressional grant of trade promotion authority does not speak to this issue, the report states, and in fact the nature of this law could prompt a court to find that congressional action is needed before the U.S. may withdraw from an agreement negotiated under TPA, including NAFTA. In addition, neither Section 125 nor Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 appears to authorize the president to terminate U.S. international obligations under NAFTA. These sections may provide the president with broad authority to suspend individual trade concessions granted to NAFTA countries and thereby establish barriers to trade with Canada and Mexico, the report notes, but the president’s use of such authority would likely be subject to review on various grounds by domestic or international tribunals.
Further, the report states, given that Supreme Court precedent generally requires the repeal of laws to conform to the same bicameral process used to enact them, it would appear that the president lacks authority to terminate the domestic effect of the NAFTA Implementation Act without going through the full legislative process for repeal.
Source: the Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg Trade Report.
Tim Triplett
Read more from Tim TriplettLatest in Trade Cases
China opens WTO dispute with Canada over steel, aluminum
China has requested dispute consultations with Canada at the WTO about Canadian measures on Chinese steel and aluminum imports.
Inclusion requests result in 400+ additions to S232’s derivatives list
The Commerce Department has added over 400 HTS codes to the list of steel and aluminum derivative products covered under the Section 232 tariffs.
Leibowitz on Trade: The New World Orders
The question of the new world order was on many minds last week when I spoke on another SMU Community Chat. The short answer is that nobody knows in detail what the effects of all the economic and geopolitical developments will be.
Canadian agency launches OCTG import probe
Canada has launched an investigation into the alleged dumping of imports of oil country tubular goods (OCTG) by five countries – Korea, the Philippines, Turkey, Mexico, and the United States.
US and China delay reciprocal tariffs, Section 232 tariffs stand
US President Donald Trump extended the US and China’s 90-day pause on planned reciprocal tariffs on Monday.