Trade Cases

USMCA Implementation Not Likely Before July
Written by Sandy Williams
April 9, 2020
Implementation of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, the replacement for NAFTA, is now likely to occur July 1, possibly with portions of the agreement subject to a transition period.
Canada and Mexico have completed their entry-into-force notifications and the U.S. is expected to submit its notice soon. Procedure rules dictate that the agreement will go into effect three months after the last country submits its notification. The July 1 date is a month later than the Trump administration had hoped, but attempts at moving the date to June 1 were met with pushback from concerned parties.
Auto industry groups have requested more time to comply with the new rules-of-origin measures in the USMCA. The COVID-19 crisis has complicated the issue by causing the shutdown of automotive plants in North America as well as refocusing government attention from the agreement to fighting the pandemic.
The president of the Mexican auto industry says that it will take more than 90 days to make supply chain adaptations to meet the new origin requirements. Director Fausto Cuevas has asked for rules-of-origin implementation to be delayed until January 2021.
Mexican Undersecretary for Foreign Trade Luz María de la Mora said he could see a scenario where the agreement enters into force with a transition period allowed for the automotive sector.
“We have put this issue on the table many times, but unfortunately this is not a Mexican decision. This is a trilateral decision,” said de la Mora. “If there were to be flexibility on the part of the U.S. and Canada, we’re more than happy to do that.”
Rep. Debbie Dingell (D-MI) and Senate Finance Committee Chairman Chuck Grassley have urged the U.S. Trade Representative to delay the entry-into-force.
“We, a lot of people on my committee, see that [early date] as being a major problem, particularly for the supply chain for automobiles, and we’re asking for a later starting date,” Grassley told reporters on a conference call. “And I think that Lighthizer believes he doesn’t have leverage if he delays it, particularly on agriculture…. [But] we haven’t heard those sorts of concerns from agriculture.”
During a webinar on Monday focusing on trade during the COVID-19 emergency, Dingell said a delay of USMCA is necessary.
“We are — and I can’t believe that I myself am saying this — probably going to have to postpone some of the implementation of the NAFTA 2.0 because we have devastated the supplier base, but we can’t do it for a long period of time,” she said.

Sandy Williams
Read more from Sandy WilliamsLatest in Trade Cases

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.

US rebar producers seek import relief with new trade case
The four countries targeted for duties are currently the top offshore suppliers of rebar to the US market: Algeria, Bulgaria, Egypt, and Vietnam.

CRU Insight: A 50% S232 tariff will raise US steel prices and shift trade flows
This CRU Insight examines how the increase in Section 232 tariffs on steel to challenging levels will lead to significatively higher prices for end consumers in the US market.

Canacero hits out at new US steel tariffs
Mexican steel trade group Canacero has condemned the US’ actions of raising tariffs on steel and aluminum to 50% from 25%.