Trump’s approach to the USMCA review is all about leverage, and that matters because this is not supposed to be a rubber stamp. The agreement helped deepen North American trade, but the scheduled review exists for a reason, which is to check whether the deal is still doing what it was meant to do and to fix the parts that are failing.
That is the point behind the current negotiations. There has been progress, especially with Mexico, but the big issues are still on the table, and rushing to extend the pact before they are resolved would give away one of the few moments the United States has real bargaining power.
The biggest concern is the way China can work around the system. Mexico has become a major channel for steel tied to countries with heavy subsidies and excess capacity, and that creates a back door into the North American market that undercuts American workers and producers.
The numbers tell the story. From 2020 to 2024, Mexican steel imports from South Korea, China and Vietnam jumped sharply, and overall steel imports into Mexico rose as well. Those products then gained preferred access to the U.S. market, even though they came from places that have spent years distorting competition.
The U.S. market has already felt the pressure. Imports of Mexican rebar in 2024 were far above pre-USMCA levels, even as American steel demand fell by more than 11 million tons compared with the period when the agreement was being negotiated.
Canada raises similar alarms. Canadian imports of Chinese steel also climbed significantly from 2020 through 2024, which means the same basic problem is showing up through a different route. China remains the world’s biggest source of excess steel capacity, and that extra supply drives down prices, squeezes factories, and wipes out jobs.
That is why the review cannot be treated like a ceremony. If the goal is a strong North American manufacturing base, then the rules have to stop rewarding countries that exploit loopholes and move steel around in ways that dodge the spirit of the deal.
The fixes are not mysterious. Canada and Mexico need tougher border protections that match the U.S. approach to unfairly traded steel, and they should also limit investment from non-market economies in industries that matter to national security and manufacturing strength.
Rules of origin also need teeth. A real “melted and poured” standard would make sure steel getting preferential treatment is actually made in North America from the start, not just processed here after being imported from somewhere else.
That kind of reform would protect the gains American steelmakers have already fought hard to win. Without it, the benefits of USMCA can be chipped away by trade diversion, and that means more pressure on domestic production and fewer good-paying jobs here at home.
Some critics say business needs certainty and that an early extension would calm the waters. But certainty was never the only point of the review system, and the people who built it clearly understood that periodic scrutiny is how you keep a major trade pact from drifting off course.
There is also no sudden collapse waiting in the wings. If the agreement is not renewed immediately, it does not vanish, and that gives the Trump administration room to keep pressing for stronger terms instead of settling for a weak shortcut.
Mexico may be the furthest along in talks, and a solid bilateral deal there could make sense if it truly fixes the underlying problems. Canada could then be expected to meet the same standards if it wants the same benefits, because the point is not to preserve a three-country arrangement just for appearances.
America’s market is the big prize in all of this, and that should come with real reciprocity. If North American trade is going to work, it has to block unfair imports, strengthen supply chains, and shut the door on non-market economies that keep slipping through cracks in the system.
President Trump’s refusal to rush this process is the right move. A stronger USMCA is worth demanding, and there is no reason to hand out a free extension when the better answer is a tougher deal that actually protects American industry.
