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

Industry cautiously optimistic despite lack of steel specifics in US-UK trade deal
Details of a new tariff-rate quota on US imports of British steel are lacking in the new US-UK trade deal.

Mexico shuts down steel importer amid trade talks
The Mexican government shut down two plants and warehouses operated by US-based LAU Industries.

US and Canada talk trade, market contemplates fate of S232 steel protections
Trade talks are progressing between the US and the market is contemplating the future of Section 232 tariffs.

Leibowitz: Tariffs are the trade version of going nuclear
In short, when tariffs go up, jobs in consuming industries go down. There is conclusive evidence from past actions: safeguard tariffs in 2002 and Section 232 tariffs in 2018. It is happening again in 2025. The Trump administration wants foreign producers (and US retailers) to absorb tariff increases (except in antidumping cases, where foreign absorption of tariffs is illegal).

Nippon exec responds after Trump ‘golden share’ comments: Report
A Nippon executive has hit back regarding the deal for USS following President Trump's talk of a "golden share" on Thursday.