Features

Ethan Bernard, SMU Team

Final Thoughts

Written by Ethan Bernard


The fighters have gone to their corners to prepare for the bout. OK, it’s not quite that dramatic. The fellow North American partners in the USMCA agreement are gearing up to retool the trade pact next summer.

The US has kicked off the consultation process ahead of the joint review of the agreement on July 1, 2026.

As directed by Congress, the Office of the US Trade Representative (USTR) is seeking public comments on the functioning of the agreement. A 45-day window has opened.

Also, USTR will hold a public hearing on Nov. 17 – because a consultation process is required by US law. (You can view the notice in the Federal Register here.)

According to a USTR release on Sept. 16, solicited issues could revolve around compliance, implementation, actions USTR should propose ahead of the review, and many, many other things. Speak now, or…

Of course, with all the tariff hijinks that have occurred since the second Trump administration took power, this joint review is more relevant than ever.

Will a new agreement look similar to the one already on the books, or will it be entirely different? Could Section 232 tariffs be removed from Canada and Mexico? That’s what happened in May 2019 ahead of the first USMCA going into force in 2020. Or could tariffs remain on one or both of our USMCA partners?

With the way things have gone so far this year, by the time we get to July 2026, there’s no telling where we will be.

US not the only game in town

Of course, Canada and Mexico aren’t sleepwalking into negotiations ready to rubberstamp any proposed deal the US might hand them.

Mexico recently opened up a 60-day consultation period, according to an article in Mexico Daily on Sept. 17.

Mexican Economy Minister Marcelo Ebrard described the consultation process as “extremely important,” the article said. Here at SMU, we definitely agree.

Canada, meanwhile, announced a consultation period on Sept. 19 that will last from Sept. 20 until Nov. 3, according to a Canadian government release.

‘Fortress North America’ or ‘elevated cooperation’?

So, will the three nations arrive as sober partners looking to broker an honest agreement? Maybe.

Barry Zekelman, executive chairman and CEO of steel pipe and tube producer Zekelman Industries, called for a “Fortress North America” trade policy last month at Steel Summit. It was notable because Zekelman, a Canadian, is staunchly pro-Trump and also operates mills on both sides of the border. Other speakers and attendees voiced support for such policies on stage and along the sidelines of the event.

But since Canada and Mexico are up against the largest economy on the planet, they might also want to team up to bolster their position.

Another article in Mexico Daily, from Sept. 19, highlights how Canada and Mexico have agreed to “deepen ties” ahead of the review process. Matters discussed in a meeting between Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney included “transnational crime and drug-smuggling.” Perhaps other issues are at play?

Carney spoke in the article of a “new era of elevated cooperation” between the two nations.

We all know the stroke of a US president’s pen can double a tariff rate overnight. Shoring up your friendships and getting on the same page before negotiations is not such a bad idea.

But could such actions end up upsetting “The Donald”? I won’t even try to hazard a guess.

Still, for an interconnected North American steel market that seems allergic to the current uncertainty, it’s in the interest of all three nations to arrive at some kind of comprehensive agreement. Working out the nuts and bolts on issues such as transshipment and making clearer rules on fabricated products would seem to benefit all parties involved.

Latin American steelmaker Ternium has operations in the US. Steel Dynamics Inc. (SDI) wants to export to Mexico from its mill in Sinton, Texas. And Cleveland-Cliffs bought Stelco, a steelmaker as iconic in Canada as U.S. Steel is in the US. (And that’s just a few examples of cross-border holdings). So, clearly clarity and open channels can only be a good thing. But, as always, the devil is in the details.

Keeping that in mind, whichever of the three countries you find yourself and your company in, make your voice heard. And feel free to share what you’d like to see happen in the joint review with us here at SMU. The proceedings promise to be spirited, and we’ll keep you informed every step of the way.

Ethan Bernard

Read more from Ethan Bernard

Latest in Features