Editing North American Free Trade Agreement

{{short description|Agreement between Canada, Mexico, and the United States (1994–2020)}}
{{redirect|NAFTA|other uses|Nafta (disambiguation)}}
{{For|the current free trade agreement in North America|United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement}}
{{pp-vandalism|small=yes}}
{{use mdy dates|date=July 2021}}
{{Infobox former country
| conventional_long_name = North American Free Trade Agreement
| native_name            = {{unbulleted list|{{native name|es|Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte}}|{{native name|fr|Accord de Libre-échange Nord-Américain}}}}
| image_symbol           = NAFTA logo.svg
| symbol_width           = 120px
| symbol_type            = Logo of the NAFTA Secretariat
| image_map              = North American Agreement (orthographic projection).svg
| map_width              = 220px
| admin_center_type      = 
| admin_center           = 
| languages_type         = Languages
| languages              = {{hlist |[[English language|English]]|[[Spanish language|Spanish]]|[[French language|French]]}}
| org_type               = [[Free-trade area|Free trade area]]
| membership_type        = Member states
| membership             = Canada<br>Mexico<br>United States
| event_start            = Effective
| date_start             = January 1,
| year_start             = 1994
| event_end              = [[United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement|USMCA]] in force
| date_end               = July 1,
| year_end               = 2020
| area_magnitude         = 
| area_km2               = 21,578,137
| percent_water          = 7.4
| population_estimate    = 490,000,000
| population_estimate_year = 2018
| population_density_km2 = 22.3
| GDP_PPP                = $24.8 trillion<ref name="imf.org">{{cite web|url=http://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2018/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2018&ey=2023&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=subject&ds=.&br=1&pr1.x=78&pr1.y=8&c=273%2C156%2C111&s=PPPGDP%2CLP&grp=0&a=|title=Report for Selected Countries and Subjects|access-date=September 5, 2017|archive-date=February 14, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210214232324/https://www.imf.org/external/pubs/ft/weo/2018/01/weodata/weorept.aspx?sy=2018&ey=2023&scsm=1&ssd=1&sort=subject&ds=.&br=1&pr1.x=78&pr1.y=8&c=273%2C156%2C111&s=PPPGDP%2CLP&grp=0&a=|url-status=live}}</ref>
| GDP_PPP_year           = 2018
| GDP_PPP_per_capita     = $50,700
| GDP_nominal            = 
| GDP_nominal_year       = 
| GDP_nominal_per_capita = 
| Gini_year              = 
| Gini_change            = <!--increase/decrease/steady-->
| Gini                   = <!--number only-->
| Gini_ref               = 
| Gini_rank              = 
| HDI_year               = 
| HDI_change             = increase <!--increase/decrease/steady-->
| HDI                    = <!--number only-->
| HDI_ref                = {{efn|Calculated using UNDP data for the member states. If considered as a single entity, NAFTA would rank 23rd among the other countries.}}
| official_website       = {{usurped|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20211028004005/http://www.naftanow.org/ www.naftanow.org]}}
}}
[[File:RCEP GDP.png|thumb|upright=1.2|NAFTA GDP – 2012: IMF – World Economic Outlook Databases (October 2013)]]
The '''North American Free Trade Agreement''' ({{langx|es|Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte}}, '''TLCAN'''; {{langx|fr|Accord de libre-échange nord-américain}}, '''ALÉNA'''), referred to colloquially in the [[Anglosphere]] as '''NAFTA''', ({{IPAc-en|'|n|æ|f|t|ə}} {{respell|NAF|tə}}) was an agreement signed by [[Canada]], [[Mexico]], and the [[United States]] that created a trilateral [[trade bloc]] in [[North America]]. The agreement came into force on January 1, 1994, and superseded the 1988 [[Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement]] between the United States and Canada. The NAFTA trade bloc formed one of the largest trade blocs in the world by [[gross domestic product]].

The impetus for a North American free trade zone began with U.S. president [[Ronald Reagan]], who made the idea part of his [[Ronald Reagan presidential campaign, 1980|1980 presidential campaign]]. After the signing of the Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement in 1988, the administrations of U.S. president [[George H. W. Bush]], Mexican president [[Carlos Salinas de Gortari]], and Canadian prime minister [[Brian Mulroney]] agreed to negotiate what became NAFTA. Each submitted the agreement for ratification in their respective capitals in December 1992, but NAFTA faced significant opposition in both the United States and Canada. All three countries ratified NAFTA in 1993 after the addition of two side agreements, the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC) and the North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation (NAAEC).

Passage of NAFTA resulted in the elimination or reduction of [[trade barrier|barriers to trade]] and investment between the United States, Canada, and Mexico. The effects of the agreement regarding issues such as employment, the environment, and economic growth have been the subject of political disputes. Most economic analyses indicated that NAFTA was beneficial to the North American economies and the average citizen,<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/naftas-economic-impact|title=NAFTA's Economic Impact|publisher=[[Council on Foreign Relations]]|access-date=2017-07-18|language=en|archive-date=2017-07-21|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170721193928/https://www.cfr.org/backgrounder/naftas-economic-impact|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name=":9" /><ref name=":0" /> but harmed a small minority of workers in industries exposed to trade competition.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-nafta-politics-20170130-story.html|title=NAFTA doesn't count for much economically, but it's still a huge political football. Here's why|last=Hiltzik|first=Michael|date=January 30, 2017|work=[[Los Angeles Times]]|access-date=July 18, 2017|language=en-US|issn=0458-3035|archive-date=August 29, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170829120626/http://www.latimes.com/business/hiltzik/la-fi-hiltzik-nafta-politics-20170130-story.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite journal|last=Rodrik|first=Dani|date=June 2017|title=Populism and the Economics of Globalization |journal=NBER Working Paper No. 23559 |doi=10.3386/w23559 |doi-access=free}}</ref> Economists held that withdrawing from NAFTA or renegotiating NAFTA in a way that reestablished trade barriers would have adversely affected the U.S. economy and cost jobs.<ref name=":8" /><ref name=":10" /><ref name=":11" /> However, Mexico would have been much more severely affected by job loss and reduction of economic growth in both the short term and long term.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.ft.com/content/b0f343aa-ab3a-3657-8b57-f0086cfaa006 |archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/archive/20221210/https://www.ft.com/content/b0f343aa-ab3a-3657-8b57-f0086cfaa006 |archive-date=December 10, 2022 |url-access=subscription|title=Nafta withdrawal would hit US GDP without helping trade deficit – report|newspaper=Financial Times}}</ref>

After U.S. President [[Donald Trump]] took office in January 2017, he sought to replace NAFTA with a new agreement, beginning negotiations with Canada and Mexico. In September 2018, the United States, Mexico, and Canada reached an agreement to replace NAFTA with the [[United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement]] (USMCA), and all three countries had ratified it by March 2020. NAFTA remained in force until USMCA was implemented.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/united-states-mexico-canada-agreement|title=United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement|publisher=USTR|access-date=October 1, 2018|archive-date=February 17, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210217164327/https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/united-states-mexico-canada-agreement|url-status=live}}</ref> In April 2020, Canada and Mexico notified the U.S. that they were ready to implement the agreement.<ref>[https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/saturday-nafta-notification-1.5522007 CBC News, "Mexico joins Canada, notifies U.S. it's ready to implement new NAFTA" 2020/04/04] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201126023003/https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/saturday-nafta-notification-1.5522007 |date=2020-11-26 }} accessed 06 April 2020</ref> The USMCA took effect on July 1, 2020, replacing NAFTA.

== Negotiation, signing, ratification, and revision (1988–94)==
===Negotiation===
The impetus for a North American free trade zone began with U.S. president [[Ronald Reagan]], who made the idea part of his campaign when he announced his candidacy for the presidency in November 1979.<ref name="NAFTAcdnEncyc">{{cite web|title=North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)|url=http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/north-american-free-trade-agreement-nafta/|website=[[The Canadian Encyclopedia]]|publisher=[[Historica Canada]]|access-date=19 November 2017|archive-date=December 1, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171201041851/http://www.thecanadianencyclopedia.ca/en/article/north-american-free-trade-agreement-nafta/|url-status=live}}</ref> Canada and the United States signed the [[Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement]] (FTA) in 1988, and shortly afterward Mexican President [[Carlos Salinas de Gortari]] decided to approach U.S. president [[George H. W. Bush]] to propose a similar agreement in an effort to bring in foreign investment following the [[Latin American debt crisis]].<ref name="NAFTAcdnEncyc"/> As the two leaders began negotiating, the Canadian government under Prime Minister [[Brian Mulroney]] feared that the advantages Canada had gained through the Canada–US FTA would be undermined by a US–Mexican bilateral agreement, and asked to become a party to the US–Mexican talks.<ref name="canworld">Foreign Affairs and International trade Canada: Canada and the World: A History – [http://www.international.gc.ca/department/history/canada10-en.asp 1984–1993: "Leap of Faith] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20071027140254/http://www.international.gc.ca/department/history/canada10-en.asp |date=October 27, 2007 }}</ref>

===Signing===
[[File:President Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican President Carlos Salinas participate in the... - NARA - 186460.jpg|upright=1.2|thumb|Back row, left to right: Mexican President [[Carlos Salinas de Gortari]], U.S. President [[George H. W. Bush]], and Canadian Prime Minister [[Brian Mulroney]], at the initialing of the draft North American Free Trade Agreement in October 1992. In front are Mexican Secretary of Commerce and Industrial Development [[Jaime Serra Puche]], United States Trade Representative [[Carla Hills]], and Canadian Minister of International Trade [[Michael Wilson (Canadian politician)|Michael Wilson]].]]

Following diplomatic negotiations dating back to 1990, the leaders of the three nations signed the agreement in their respective capitals on December 17, 1992.<ref>{{cite book|title=NAFTA: Final Text, Summary, Legislative History & Implementation Directory|date=1994|publisher=Oceana Publications|location=New York|isbn=978-0-379-00835-7|pages=[https://archive.org/details/naftafinaltextsu00holb/page/n308 1]–3|url=https://archive.org/details/naftafinaltextsu00holb|url-access=registration}}</ref> The signed agreement then needed to be [[Ratification|ratified]] by each nation's legislative or parliamentary branch.

===Ratification===
====Canada====
The earlier [[Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement]] had been controversial and divisive in Canada, and featured as an issue in the [[1988 Canadian federal election|1988 Canadian election]]. In that election, more Canadians voted for anti-free trade parties (the [[Liberal Party of Canada|Liberals]] and the [[New Democratic Party (Canada)|New Democrats]]), but the split of the votes between the two parties meant that the pro-free trade [[Progressive Conservative Party of Canada|Progressive Conservatives]] (PCs) came out of the election with the most seats and so took power. Mulroney and the PCs had a [[majority government|parliamentary majority]] and easily passed the 1987 Canada–US FTA and NAFTA bills. However, Mulroney was replaced as Conservative leader and prime minister by [[Kim Campbell]]. Campbell led the PC party into the [[1993 Canadian election|1993 election]] where they were decimated by the Liberal Party under [[Jean Chrétien]], who campaigned on a promise to renegotiate or abrogate NAFTA. Chrétien subsequently negotiated two supplemental agreements with Bush, who had subverted the LAC<ref>Labor Advisory Committee for Trade Negotiations and Trade Policy; established under the [[Trade Act of 1974]].</ref> advisory process<ref>''[https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31822015070683 Preliminary Report of the Labor Advisory Committee for Trade Negotiations and Trade Policy on the North American Free Trade Agreement] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210111082100/https://babel.hathitrust.org/cgi/pt?id=uc1.31822015070683 |date=January 11, 2021 }}'', dated Sept. 16, 1992 (Washington, D.C.: Executive Office of the President, Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, 1992), i, 1.</ref> and worked to "fast track" the signing prior to the end of his term, ran out of time and had to pass the required ratification and signing of the implementation law to incoming president [[Bill Clinton]].<ref>For an overview of the process, see [[Noam Chomsky]], [https://znetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/zbooks/www/chomsky/articles/z9302-mandate.html {{"'}}Mandate for Change', or Business as Usual"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20230731173844/https://znetwork.org/wp-content/uploads/zbooks/www/chomsky/articles/z9302-mandate.html |date=July 31, 2023 }}, ''Z Magazine'' 6, no. 2 (February 1993), 41.</ref>

====United States====
Before sending it to the [[United States Senate]], Clinton added two side agreements, the North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation (NAALC) and the [[North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation]] (NAAEC), to protect workers and the environment, and to also allay the concerns of many House members. The U.S. required its partners to adhere to environmental practices and regulations similar to its own.{{citation needed|date=February 2015}} After much consideration and emotional discussion, the [[United States House of Representatives|U.S. House of Representatives]] passed the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act on November 17, 1993, 234–200. The agreement's supporters included 132 [[Republican Party (United States)|Republicans]] and 102 [[Democratic Party (United States)|Democrats]]. The bill passed the Senate on November 20, 1993, 61–38.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/3450 |title=H.R.3450 – North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act |date=December 8, 1993 |access-date=December 29, 2014 |archive-date=January 26, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220126180306/https://www.congress.gov/bill/103rd-congress/house-bill/3450 |url-status=live }}</ref> Senate supporters were 34 Republicans and 27 Democrats. Republican Representative [[David Dreier]] of [[California]], a strong proponent of NAFTA since the [[Presidency of Ronald Reagan|Reagan administration]], played a leading role in mobilizing support for the agreement among Republicans in [[United States Congress|Congress]] and across the country.<ref>{{Cite web|date=2016-10-28|title=Trump says many trade agreements are bad for Americans. The architects of NAFTA say he's wrong|url=https://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-dreier-roundtable-20161027-story.html|access-date=2020-07-10|website=Los Angeles Times|language=en-US|archive-date=August 15, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210815001429/https://www.latimes.com/local/education/la-me-dreier-roundtable-20161027-story.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|title=Remembering Those Who Left Us In 2011|url=https://www.npr.org/sections/politicaljunkie/2011/12/27/144127146/remembering-those-who-left-us-in-2011|access-date=2020-07-10|website=NPR.org|date=December 27, 2011|language=en|last1=Rudin|first1=Ken|archive-date=August 13, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210813233933/https://www.npr.org/sections/politicaljunkie/2011/12/27/144127146/remembering-those-who-left-us-in-2011|url-status=live}}</ref>

[[Chicago]] Congressman [[Luis Gutiérrez]] in particular was a vocal opponent of NAFTA, ultimately voting against the measure because of what he considered its failure to sufficiently provide for displaced worker retraining, protections against American job loss, and protections of [[collective bargaining]] rights for Mexican workers.<ref>[http://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/Felsenthal-Files/January-2011/Luis-Gutierrez-on-Why-Rahm-Emanuel-Should-Not-Be-Mayor/ Luis Gutierrez on Why Rahm Emanuel Should Not Be Mayor] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220707045904/https://www.chicagomag.com/Chicago-Magazine/Felsenthal-Files/January-2011/Luis-Gutierrez-on-Why-Rahm-Emanuel-Should-Not-Be-Mayor/ |date=July 7, 2022 }}, ''[[Chicago Magazine]]'', Carol Felsenthal, January 11, 2011. Retrieved July 2, 2022.</ref> He criticized the role of [[Rahm Emanuel]] in particular for the deficiencies.<ref>[9311150020_1_anti-nafta-forces-nafta-debate-undecided-house-members Gutierrez Resists Party Pressure, Vows He'll Vote Against Nafta], ''[[Chicago Tribune]]'', November 13, 1993. Retrieved July 1, 2022.</ref>

The U.S. required its partners to adhere to environmental practices and regulations similar to its own.<ref>[https://www.forbes.com/sites/themexicoinstitute/2017/08/10/learning-from-the-experience-of-nafta-labor-and-environmental-governance/ Learning From The Experience Of NAFTA Labor And Environmental Governance] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220702184549/https://www.forbes.com/sites/themexicoinstitute/2017/08/10/learning-from-the-experience-of-nafta-labor-and-environmental-governance/ |date=July 2, 2022 }}, ''[[Forbes Magazine]]'', Mark Aspinwall, August 10, 2017. Retrieved July 1, 2022.</ref>

Clinton signed it into law on December 8, 1993; the agreement went into effect on January 1, 1994.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/events/12_08 |title= Clinton Signs NAFTA – December 8, 1993 |publisher= University of Virginia |work= Miller Center |access-date= January 27, 2011 |url-status= dead |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20101010231531/http://millercenter.org/academic/americanpresident/events/12_08 |archive-date= October 10, 2010 |df= mdy-all }}</ref><ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.fina-nafi.org/eng/integ/chronologie.asp?langue=eng&menu=integ |title= NAFTA Timeline |publisher= Fina-nafi |access-date= July 4, 2011 |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20110114130328/http://www.fina-nafi.org/eng/integ/chronologie.asp?langue=eng&menu=integ |archive-date= January 14, 2011 |url-status= dead |df= mdy-all }}</ref> At the [[signing ceremony]], Clinton recognized four individuals for their efforts in accomplishing the historic trade deal: Vice President [[Al Gore]], Chairwoman of the [[Council of Economic Advisers]] [[Laura Tyson]], Director of the [[National Economic Council (United States)|National Economic Council]] [[Robert Rubin]], and Republican Congressman [[David Dreier]].<ref>{{Cite web|title=YouTube|url=https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MDDuMUgt-og| archive-url=https://ghostarchive.org/varchive/youtube/20211030/MDDuMUgt-og| archive-date=2021-10-30|access-date=2020-07-10|website=www.youtube.com| date=September 3, 2013 }}{{cbignore}}</ref> Clinton also stated that "NAFTA means jobs. American jobs, and good-paying American jobs. If I didn't believe that, I wouldn't support this agreement."<ref>{{Cite web| website = History Central | title = Signing NaFTA | url = http://www.historycentral.com/Documents/Clinton/SigningNaFTA.html | access-date = February 20, 2011 | archive-date = March 23, 2020 | archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20200323142451/https://historycentral.com/documents/Clinton/SigningNaFTA.html | url-status = live }}</ref> NAFTA replaced the previous Canada-US FTA.

====Mexico====
NAFTA (TLCAN in Spanish) was approved by the [[Mexican Senate]] on November 22, 1993, and was published in the [[Official Journal of the Federation (Mexico)|Official Gazette of the Federation]] on December 8, 1993.<ref name=TLCAN-prom>{{cite act |type=Decree |index= |date=December 20, 1993 |article= |article-type= |legislature=[[Senate of the Republic (Mexico)]] |title=Decreto de promulgación del Tratado de Libre Comercio de América del Norte |trans-title=Decree of promulgation of the North American Free Trade Agreement |page= |url=http://www.economia-snci.gob.mx/sicait/5.0/doctos/TLCAN.pdf |language=Spanish}}</ref>

The decree implementing NAFTA and the various changes to accommodate NAFTA in [[Mexican law]] was promulgated on December 14, 1993, with entry into force on January 1, 1994.<ref name=TLCAN-prom />

== Provisions ==
{{listen
| title        = Remarks on the Signing of the NAFTA Implementation Act (December 8, 1993)
| filename     = Remarks on the Signing of NAFTA (December 8, 1993) Bill Clinton.ogv
| description  = [[Bill Clinton]]'s remarks on the signing of the North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act, December 8, 1993
| title2       = Remarks on the Signing of the NAFTA Implementation Act (December 8, 1993)
| filename2    = Remarks on the Signing of NAFTA (12-8-93, WJC).ogg
| image        = 
}}

The goal of NAFTA was to eliminate barriers to trade and investment between the United States, Canada and Mexico. The implementation of NAFTA on January 1, 1994, brought the immediate elimination of [[tariff]]s on more than one-half of Mexico's [[export]]s to the U.S. and more than one-third of U.S. exports to Mexico. Within 10 years of the implementation of the agreement, all U.S.–Mexico tariffs were to be eliminated except for some U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico, to be phased out within 15 years.<ref>Floudas, Demetrius Andreas & Rojas, Luis Fernando; [http://www.diplomacy.bg.ac.rs/mpro_sa00_4.htm "Some Thoughts on NAFTA and Trade Integration in the American Continent"] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171021135150/http://www.diplomacy.bg.ac.rs/mpro_sa00_4.htm |date=2017-10-21 }}, 52 (2000) International Problems 371</ref> Most U.S.–Canada trade was already duty-free. NAFTA also sought to eliminate non-[[tariff]] trade barriers and to protect the [[intellectual property rights]] on traded [[product (business)|products]].

Chapter 20 provided a procedure for the international resolution of disputes over the application and interpretation of NAFTA. It was modeled after Chapter 69 of the [[Canada–United States Free Trade Agreement]].<ref>{{Cite journal | last = Gantz | first = DA | year = 1999 | title = Dispute Settlement Under the NAFTA and the WTO:Choice of Forum Opportunities and Risks for the NAFTA Parties | journal = American University International Law Review | volume = 14 | issue = 4 | pages = 1025–106 }}</ref>

NAFTA is, in part, implemented by Technical Working Groups composed of government officials from each of the three partner nations.<ref name=pmra>{{cite web |url=https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/corporate/about-health-canada/branches-agencies/pest-management-regulatory-agency.html |work=Health Canada |title=Pest Management Regulatory Agency |series=Branches and Agencies |date=nd |access-date=September 3, 2018 |archive-date=September 2, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180902084213/https://www.canada.ca/en/health-canada/corporate/about-health-canada/branches-agencies/pest-management-regulatory-agency.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

=== Intellectual property ===
The North American Free Trade Agreement Implementation Act made some changes to the [[copyright law of the United States]], foreshadowing the [[Uruguay Round Agreements Act]] of 1994 by restoring [[copyright]] (within the NAFTA nations) on certain motion pictures which had entered the [[public domain]].<ref>GPO, [http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103hr3450enr/pdf/BILLS-103hr3450enr.pdf P.L. 103-182] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20120417080404/http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/BILLS-103hr3450enr/pdf/BILLS-103hr3450enr.pdf |date=April 17, 2012 }}, Section 334</ref><ref>[http://www.copyright.gov/history/mls/ML-497.pdf ML-497] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161210101325/https://www.copyright.gov/history/mls/ML-497.pdf |date=December 10, 2016 }} (March 1995), Docket No. RM 93-13C, Library of Congress Copyright Office</ref>

=== Environment ===
The Clinton administration negotiated a side agreement on the environment with Canada and Mexico, the [[North American Agreement on Environmental Cooperation]] (NAAEC), which led to the creation of the [[Commission for Environmental Cooperation]] (CEC) in 1994. To alleviate concerns that NAFTA, the first regional trade agreement between a [[developing country]] and two developed countries, would have negative [[environmental impact]]s, the commission was mandated to conduct ongoing ''[[ex post]]'' [[environmental assessment]],<ref>{{cite journal|title=IngentaConnect NAFTA Commission for Environmental Cooperation: ongoing assessment |doi=10.3152/147154606781765048 |date=December 1, 2006 |volume=24 |issue=4 |journal=Impact Assessment and Project Appraisal |pages=259–272|last1 = Carpentier|first1 = Chantal Line|doi-access=free }}</ref> It created one of the first ''ex post'' frameworks for environmental assessment of [[trade liberalization]], designed to produce a body of evidence with respect to the initial [[hypotheses]] about NAFTA and the environment, such as the concern that NAFTA would create a "[[race to the bottom]]" in [[environmental regulation]] among the three countries, or that NAFTA would pressure governments to increase their [[environmental protection]]s.<ref>[https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20080910022008/http://www.cec.org/programs_projects/trade_environ_econ/pdfs/frmwrk-e.pdf Analytic Framework for Assessing the Environmental Effects of the North American Free Trade Agreement]. Commission for Environmental Cooperation (1999)</ref> The CEC has held{{when|date=November 2017}} four symposia to evaluate the environmental impacts of NAFTA and commissioned 47 papers on the subject from leading independent experts.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.cec.org/symposium |title=Trade and Environment in the Americas |publisher=Cec.org |access-date=November 9, 2008 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20141207131504/http://www.cec.org/symposium/ |archive-date=December 7, 2014 |url-status=dead }}</ref>

===Labor===
Proponents of NAFTA in the United States emphasized that the pact was a free-trade, not an economic-community, agreement.<ref name="McDowell">{{cite journal |last1=McDowell |first1=Manfred |title=NAFTA and the EC Social Dimension |journal=Labor Studies Journal |date=1995 |volume=20 |issue=1 |url=https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/labstuj20&div=5&id=&page= |access-date=11 September 2020 |archive-date=November 2, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201102032754/https://heinonline.org/HOL/LandingPage?handle=hein.journals/labstuj20&div=5&id=&page= |url-status=live }}</ref> The freedom of movement it establishes for goods, services and capital did not extend to labor. In proposing what no other comparable agreement had attempted—to open industrialized countries to "a major Third World country"<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Schliefer |first1=Jonathan |title=What price economic growth? |journal=The Atlantic Monthly |date=December 1992 |page=114}}</ref>—NAFTA eschewed the creation of common social and employment policies. The regulation of the labor market and or the workplace remained the exclusive preserve of the national governments.<ref name="McDowell" />

A "side agreement" on enforcement of existing domestic labor law, concluded in August 1993, the North American Agreement on Labour Cooperation (NAALC),<ref>{{cite web |last1=Bureau of International Labor Affairs |first1=U.S. National Administrative Office |title=North American Agreement on Labor Cooperation: A Guide |url=https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/trade/agreements/naalcgd |website=dol.gov/agencies/ilab |publisher=U.S. Department of Labor |access-date=12 September 2020 |archive-date=September 30, 2020 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200930200336/https://www.dol.gov/agencies/ilab/trade/agreements/naalcgd |url-status=live }}</ref> was highly circumscribed. Focused on health and safety standards and on child labor law, it excluded issues of collective bargaining, and its "so-called [enforcement] teeth" were accessible only at the end of "a long and tortuous" disputes process".<ref>{{cite news |title=Accords fail to redraw battle lines over pact |work=[[The New York Times]] |date=14 August 1993}}</ref> Commitments to enforce existing labor law also raised issues of democratic practice.<ref name="McDowell" /> The Canadian anti-NAFTA coalition, Pro-Canada Network, suggested that guarantees of minimum standards would be "meaningless" without "broad democratic reforms in the [Mexican] courts, the unions, and the government".<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Witt |first1=Matt |title=Don't trade on me: Mexican, U.S. and Canadian workers confront free trade |journal=Dollars and Sense |date=April 1990}}</ref> Later assessment, however, did suggest that NAALC's principles and complaint mechanisms did "create new space for advocates to build coalitions and take concrete action to articulate challenges to the status quo and advance workers’ interests".<ref>{{cite web|last1=Compa|first1=Lance|date=2001|title=NAFTA's Labour Side Agr s Labour Side Agreement and International Labour Agreement and International Labour Solidarity|url=https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/5125509.pdf|access-date=12 September 2020|website=core.ac.uk/|publisher=Cornell University ILR School|archive-date=December 5, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201205035050/https://core.ac.uk/download/pdf/5125509.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Agriculture ===
From the earliest negotiation, [[agriculture]] was a controversial topic within NAFTA, as it has been with almost all [[free trade agreement]]s signed within the [[World Trade Organization|WTO]] framework. Agriculture was the only section that was not negotiated trilaterally; instead, three separate agreements were signed between each pair of parties. The Canada–U.S. agreement contained significant restrictions and [[tariff]] quotas on agricultural products (mainly sugar, dairy, and poultry products), whereas the Mexico–U.S. pact allowed for a wider [[liberalization]] within a framework of phase-out periods (it was the first [[North–South divide in the World|North–South]] FTA on agriculture to be signed).{{clarify|date=November 2017}}

=== Transportation infrastructure ===
NAFTA established the [[CANAMEX Corridor]] for road transport between Canada and Mexico, also proposed for use by rail, pipeline, and [[optical fiber|fiber optic]] telecommunications infrastructure. This became a High Priority Corridor under the U.S. [[Intermodal Surface Transportation Efficiency Act]] of 1991.

=== Chapter 11 – investor-state dispute settlement procedures===
Another contentious issue was the [[investor-state dispute settlement]] obligations contained in Chapter 11 of NAFTA.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.sice.oas.org/trade/NAFTA/chap-111.asp |title=NAFTA, Chapter 11 |publisher=Sice.oas.org |access-date=July 4, 2011 |archive-date=July 21, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110721031255/http://www.sice.oas.org/trade/NAFTA/chap-111.asp |url-status=live }}</ref> Chapter 11 allowed [[corporation]]s or individuals to sue Mexico, Canada or the United States for compensation when actions taken by those governments (or by those for whom they are responsible at [[international law]], such as provincial, state, or municipal governments) violated international law.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/topics-domaines/disp-diff/nafta.aspx?lang=eng|title=The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) – Chapter 11 – Investment|first=Global Affairs Canada|last=Government of Canada|date=July 31, 2002|access-date=January 20, 2017|archive-date=January 29, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170129063610/http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/topics-domaines/disp-diff/nafta.aspx?lang=eng|url-status=live}}</ref>

This chapter has been criticized by groups in the United States,<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.citizen.org/trade/nafta/ |title='North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)', '''Public Citizen''' |publisher=Citizen.org |date=January 1, 1994 |access-date=July 4, 2011 |archive-date=March 10, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110310045939/http://www.citizen.org/trade/nafta/ |url-status=live }}</ref> Mexico,<ref>{{cite web| url=http://www.developmentgap.org/rmalenvi.html| archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20001216065200/http://www.developmentgap.org/rmalenvi.html| archive-date=December 16, 2000| title=NAFTA and the Mexican Environment| url-status=dead| author=Red Mexicana de Accion Frente al Libre Comercio| df=mdy-all| access-date=July 11, 2006}}</ref> and Canada<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.canadians.org/ |title=The Council of Canadians |publisher=Canadians.org |access-date=July 4, 2011 |archive-date=May 25, 2019 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190525095431/https://canadians.org/ |url-status=live }}</ref> for a variety of reasons, including not taking into account important social and environmental<ref>{{cite web |author=Commission for Environmental Cooperation |url=http://www.cec.org/pubs_docs/documents/index.cfm?varlan=English&ID=1829 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20070611053845/http://www.cec.org/pubs_docs/documents/index.cfm?varlan=english&ID=1829 |url-status=dead |archive-date=June 11, 2007 |title=The NAFTA environmental agreement: The Intersection of Trade and the Environment |publisher=Cec.org |access-date=July 4, 2011 }}</ref> considerations. In Canada, several groups, including the [[Council of Canadians]], challenged the [[constitutionality]] of Chapter 11. They lost at the trial level<ref>{{cite web |author=PEJ News |url=http://www.pej.org/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=3064 |title=Judge Rebuffs Challenge to NAFTA'S Chapter 11 Investor Claims Process |publisher=Pej.org |access-date=July 4, 2011 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110726213404/http://www.pej.org/html/modules.php?op=modload&name=News&file=article&sid=3064 |archive-date=July 26, 2011 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> and the subsequent appeal.<ref>{{cite web |author=Ontario Court of Appeal |url=https://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2006/2006canlii40222/2006canlii40222.html |title=Council of Canadians v. Canada (Attorney General), 2006 CanLII 40222 (ON CA) |date=November 30, 2006 |publisher=CanLII |access-date=December 11, 2019 |archive-date=March 9, 2015 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150309071001/http://www.canlii.org/en/on/onca/doc/2006/2006canlii40222/2006canlii40222.html |url-status=live }}</ref>

[[Methanex Corporation]], a Canadian corporation, filed a [[United States dollar|US$]]970 million suit against the United States. Methanex claimed that a [[California]] ban on [[Methyl tert-butyl ether|methyl ''tert''-butyl ether]] (MTBE), a substance that had found its way into many wells in the state, was hurtful to the corporation's sales of [[methanol]]. The claim was rejected, and the company was ordered to pay US$3 million to the U.S. government in costs, based on the following reasoning: "But as a matter of general international law, a non-discriminatory [[regulation]] for a [[public purpose]], which is enacted in accordance with [[due process]] and, which affects, [[inter alios]], a foreign investor or investment is not deemed expropriatory and [[compensable]] unless specific commitments had been given by the regulating government to the then putative foreign investor contemplating investment that the government would refrain from such regulation."<ref>{{cite web |url= http://naftaclaims.com/Disputes/USA/Methanex/Methanex_Final_Award.pdf |title= Arbitration award between Methanex Corporation and United States of America |url-status= dead |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20070616093731/http://naftaclaims.com/Disputes/USA/Methanex/Methanex_Final_Award.pdf |archive-date= June 16, 2007 |df= mdy-all |access-date= February 16, 2007 }}&nbsp;{{small|(1.45&nbsp;MB)}}</ref>

In another case, [[Metalclad]], an American corporation, was awarded US$15.6 million from Mexico after a Mexican municipality refused a construction permit for the [[hazardous waste]] landfill it intended to construct in [[Guadalcázar, San Luis Potosí|Guadalcázar]], [[San Luis Potosí]]. The construction had already been approved by the federal government with various environmental requirements imposed (see paragraph 48 of the tribunal decision). The NAFTA panel found that the municipality did not have the authority to ban construction on the basis of its environmental concerns.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://naftaclaims.com/Disputes/Mexico/Metalclad/MetalcladFinalAward.pdf |title= Arbitration award between Metalclad Corporation and The United Mexican States |url-status= dead |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20070616093730/http://naftaclaims.com/Disputes/Mexico/Metalclad/MetalcladFinalAward.pdf |archive-date= June 16, 2007 |df= mdy-all |access-date= February 16, 2007 }}&nbsp;{{small|(120&nbsp;KB)}}</ref>

In [[Eli Lilly and Company]] v. Government of Canada<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/topics-domaines/disp-diff/eli.aspx?lang=eng|title=Eli Lilly and Company v. Government of Canada|first=Foreign Affairs Trade and Development Canada|last=Government of Canada|date=July 16, 2014|access-date=January 20, 2017|archive-date=January 29, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170129075922/http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/topics-domaines/disp-diff/eli.aspx?lang=eng|url-status=live}}</ref> the plaintiff presented a US$500 million claim for the way Canada requires usefulness in its drug [[patent]] legislation.<ref name=gm24nov>{{cite news|url=https://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/canada-must-learn-from-nafta-legal-battles/article15579209/|title=Canada must learn from NAFTA legal battles|website=[[The Globe and Mail]]|date=November 24, 2013|access-date=January 20, 2017|last1=McKenna|first1=Barrie|archive-date=January 31, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170131113344/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/economy/canada-must-learn-from-nafta-legal-battles/article15579209/|url-status=live}}</ref> [[Apotex]] sued the U.S. for US$520 million because of opportunity it says it lost in an [[FDA]] [[generic drug]] decision.<ref name=gm24nov />

Lone Pine Resources Inc. v. Government of Canada<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/topics-domaines/disp-diff/lone.aspx?lang=eng|title=Lone Pine Resources Inc. v. Government of Canada|first=Foreign Affairs Trade and Development Canada|last=Government of Canada|date=December 5, 2012|access-date=January 20, 2017|archive-date=January 29, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170129061411/http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/topics-domaines/disp-diff/lone.aspx?lang=eng|url-status=live}}</ref> filed a US$250 million claim against Canada, accusing it of "arbitrary, capricious and illegal" behaviour,<ref name=gm22nov>{{cite news|url=https://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/quebecs-st-lawrence-fracking-ban-challenged-under-nafta/article5577331/|title=Quebec's St. Lawrence fracking ban challenged under NAFTA|website=[[The Globe and Mail]]|date=November 22, 2012|access-date=January 20, 2017|last1=Gray|first1=Jeff|archive-date=January 31, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170131022453/http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-investor/quebecs-st-lawrence-fracking-ban-challenged-under-nafta/article5577331/|url-status=live}}</ref> because Quebec intends to prevent [[fracking]] exploration under the [[St. Lawrence Seaway]].<ref name=gm24nov />

Lone Pine Resources is incorporated in Delaware but headquartered in Calgary,<ref name=gm22nov /> and had an [[initial public offering]] on the [[NYSE]] May 25, 2011, of 15 million shares each for $13, which raised US$195 million.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Lone_Pine_Resources|title=Stock:Lone Pine Resources|access-date=January 20, 2017|archive-date=January 30, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170130181755/http://www.wikinvest.com/stock/Lone_Pine_Resources|url-status=dead}}</ref>

Barutciski acknowledged "that NAFTA and other investor-protection treaties create an anomaly in that Canadian companies that have also seen their permits rescinded by the very same Quebec legislation, which expressly forbids the paying of compensation, do not have the right (to) pursue a NAFTA claim", and that winning "compensation in Canadian courts for domestic companies in this case would be more difficult since the Constitution puts [[property rights]] in provincial hands".<ref name=gm22nov />

A treaty{{clarify|date=November 2017}} with China would extend similar rights to Chinese investors, including [[Government-owned corporation|SOEs]].<ref name=gm22nov />

=== Chapter 19 – countervailing duty ===
NAFTA's Chapter 19 was a trade dispute mechanism which subjects [[antidumping]] and [[countervailing duty]] (AD/CVD) determinations to binational panel review instead of, or in addition to, conventional judicial review.<ref name="Federal Register Millan">{{cite web|last1=Millán|first1=Juan|title=North American Free Trade Agreement; Invitation for Applications for Inclusion on the Chapter 19 Roster|url=https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-10-23/pdf/2015-26936.pdf|website=Federal Register|publisher=Office of the United States Trade Representative|access-date=19 March 2016|language=en|archive-date=May 12, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160512194724/https://www.gpo.gov/fdsys/pkg/FR-2015-10-23/pdf/2015-26936.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> For example, in the United States, review of agency decisions imposing antidumping and countervailing duties are normally heard before the [[United States Court of International Trade|U.S. Court of International Trade]], an [[Article I and Article III tribunals|Article III court]]. NAFTA parties, however, had the option of appealing the decisions to binational panels composed of five citizens from the two relevant NAFTA countries.<ref name="Federal Register Millan" /> The panelists were generally lawyers experienced in international trade law. Since NAFTA did not include substantive provisions concerning AD/CVD, the panel was charged with determining whether final agency determinations involving AD/CVD conformed with the country's domestic law. Chapter 19 was an anomaly in international dispute settlement since it did not apply international law, but required a panel composed of individuals from many countries to re-examine the application of one country's domestic law.{{citation needed|date=November 2017}}

A Chapter 19 panel was expected to examine whether the agency's determination was supported by "substantial evidence". This standard assumed significant deference to the domestic agency. Some of the most controversial trade disputes in recent years, such as the [[Canada–United States softwood lumber dispute|U.S.–Canada softwood lumber dispute]], have been litigated before Chapter 19 panels.

Decisions by Chapter 19 panels could be challenged before a NAFTA extraordinary challenge committee. However, an extraordinary challenge committee did not function as an ordinary appeal.<ref name="Federal Register Millan" /> Under NAFTA, it only vacated or remanded a decision if the decision involved a significant and material error that threatens the integrity of the NAFTA dispute settlement system. Since January 2006, no NAFTA party had successfully challenged a Chapter 19 panel's decision before an extraordinary challenge committee.

==Adjudication==
The roster of NAFTA adjudicators included many retired judges, such as Alice Desjardins, [[John Maxwell Evans]], [[Constance Hunt]], [[John Richard]], [[Arlin Adams]], [[Susan Christine O'Meara Getzendanner|Susan Getzendanner]], [[George C. Pratt]], [[Charles Byron Renfrew|Charles B. Renfrew]] and [[Sandra Day O'Connor]].

== Impact ==
=== Canada ===
{{Expand section|date=September 2018}}

====Historical context====
[[File:Obama, Peña y Harper. IX Cumbre de Líderes de América del Norte.jpg|upright=1.15|thumb|Obama, Peña Nieto and Harper at the IX [[North American Leaders' Summit]] (informally known as the ''Three Amigos Summit'') in [[Toluca]]]]

In 2008, Canadian [[export]]s to the United States and Mexico were at $381.3 billion, with [[import]]s at $245.1 billion.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.naftanow.org/facts/ |title=NAFTA – Fast Facts: North American Free Trade Agreement |publisher=NAFTANow.org |date=April 4, 2012 |access-date=October 26, 2013 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20131030003118/http://www.naftanow.org/facts/ |archive-date=October 30, 2013 |url-status=dead }}</ref> According to a 2004 article by [[University of Toronto]] economist [[Daniel Trefler]], NAFTA produced a significant net benefit to Canada in 2003, with long-term [[productivity]] increasing by up to 15 percent in industries that experienced the deepest [[tariff]] cuts.<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Trefler|first=Daniel|date=Sep 2004|title=The Long and Short of the Canada-U.S. Free Trade Agreement|journal=American Economic Review|language=en|volume=94|issue=4|pages=870–895|doi=10.1257/0002828042002633|url=http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/6721/1/The_Long_and_Short_of_the_Canada-U.S._Free_Trade_Agreement.pdf|access-date=November 15, 2018|archive-date=April 12, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190412063000/http://eprints.lse.ac.uk/6721/1/The_Long_and_Short_of_the_Canada-U.S._Free_Trade_Agreement.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref> While the contraction of low-productivity plants reduced [[employment]] (up to 12 percent of existing positions), these job losses lasted less than a decade; overall, unemployment in Canada has fallen since the passage of the act. Commenting on this [[trade-off]], Trefler said that the critical question in [[trade policy]] is to understand "how freer trade can be implemented in an industrialized economy in a way that recognizes both the long-run gains and the short-term adjustment costs borne by workers and others".<ref>{{cite book|last1=Bernstein|first1=William J.|title=A Splendid Exchange: How Trade Shaped the World|publisher=[[Grove Press]]|date=16 May 2009}}</ref>

A study in 2007 found that NAFTA had "a substantial impact on international [[Volume (finance)|trade volumes]], but a modest effect on prices and welfare".<ref name=":1">{{Cite journal|last=Romalis|first=John|date=2007-07-12|title=NAFTA's and CUSFTA's Impact on International Trade|journal=Review of Economics and Statistics|volume=89|issue=3|pages=416–35|doi=10.1162/rest.89.3.416|s2cid=57562094|issn=0034-6535|url=http://www.nber.org/papers/w11059.pdf|access-date=September 23, 2019|archive-date=December 12, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191212181434/https://www.nber.org/papers/w11059.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>

According to a 2012 study, with reduced NAFTA trade tariffs, trade with the United States and Mexico only increased by a modest 11% in Canada compared to an increase of 41% for the U.S. and 118% for Mexico.<ref name=":2">{{Cite journal|last1=Caliendo|first1=Lorenzo|last2=Parro|first2=Fernando|date=2015-01-01|title=Estimates of the Trade and Welfare Effects of NAFTA|journal=The Review of Economic Studies|language=en|volume=82|issue=1|pages=1–44|doi=10.1093/restud/rdu035|issn=0034-6527|citeseerx=10.1.1.189.1365|s2cid=20591348}}</ref>{{rp|3}} Moreover, the U.S. and Mexico benefited more from the tariff reductions component, with welfare increases of 0.08% and 1.31%, respectively, with Canada experiencing a decrease of 0.06%.<ref name=":2"/>{{rp|4}}

====Current issues====
According to a 2017 report by the New York City based public policy think tank report, [[Council on Foreign Relations]] (CFR), bilateral trade in agricultural products tripled in size from 1994 to 2017 and is considered to be one of the largest economic effects of NAFTA on U.S.-Canada trade with Canada becoming the U.S. agricultural sectors' leading importer.<ref name="CFR_Sergie_2018">{{cite web|last1=McBride|first1=James|last2=Sergie|first2=Mohammed Aly|title=NAFTA's Economic Impact|url=http://www.cfr.org/trade/naftas-economic-impact/p15790|publisher=[[Council on Foreign Relations]] (CFR) think tank|access-date=September 3, 2018|orig-year=February 14, 2014|date=2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170516093105/http://www.cfr.org/trade/naftas-economic-impact/p15790|archive-date=May 16, 2017|url-status=dead}}</ref> Canadian fears of losing manufacturing jobs to the United States did not materialize with manufacturing employment holding "steady". However, with Canada's labour productivity levels at 72% of U.S. levels, the hopes of closing the "productivity gap" between the two countries were also not realized.<ref name="CFR_Sergie_2018"/>

According to a 2018 [[Sierra Club]] report, Canada's commitments under NAFTA and the [[Paris agreement]] conflicted. The Paris commitments were voluntary, and NAFTA's were compulsory.<ref>{{cite web|title=NAFTA and Climate Report 2018|url=https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/www.sierraclub.org/files/uploads-wysiwig/NAFTA%20and%20Climate%20Report%202018.pdf|publisher=[[Sierra Club]]|access-date=August 27, 2018|archive-date=April 28, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180428163937/https://www.sierraclub.org/sites/www.sierraclub.org/files/uploads-wysiwig/NAFTA%20and%20Climate%20Report%202018.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>

According to a 2018 report by Gordon Laxter published by the [[Council of Canadians]], NAFTA's Article 605, energy proportionality rule ensures that Americans had "virtually unlimited first access to most of Canada's oil and natural gas" and Canada could not reduce oil, natural gas and electricity exports (74% its oil and 52% its natural gas) to the U.S., even if Canada was experiencing shortages. These provisions that seemed logical when NAFTA was signed in 1993 are no longer appropriate.<ref name="canadians_2018">{{cite web |url=https://canadians.org/sites/default/files/publications/report-nafta-energy-laxer-0118.pdf |title=Escaping Mandatory Oil Exports: Why Canada needs to dump NAFTA's energy proportionality rule |first=Gordon |last=Laxer |pages=28 |access-date=August 27, 2018 |archive-date=August 27, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180827205959/https://canadians.org/sites/default/files/publications/report-nafta-energy-laxer-0118.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>{{rp|4}} The Council of Canadians promoted environmental protection and was against NAFTA's role in encouraging development of the [[tar sands]] and [[fracking]].<ref name="canadians_2018"/>

US President Donald Trump, angered by Canada's dairy tax of "almost 300%", threatened to leave Canada out of the NAFTA.<ref name=":16">{{Cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2018/09/08/the-coddling-of-the-canadian-cow-farmer|title=The coddling of the Canadian cow farmer|newspaper=The Economist|access-date=2018-09-12|language=en|archive-date=September 12, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180912050831/https://www.economist.com/the-americas/2018/09/08/the-coddling-of-the-canadian-cow-farmer|url-status=live}}</ref> Since 1972, Canada has been operating on a "[[Supply management (Canada)|supply management]]" system, which the United States is attempting to pressure it out of, specifically focusing on the dairy industry. However, this has not yet taken place, as Quebec, which holds approximately half the country's dairy farms, still supports supply management.<ref name=":16" />

=== Mexico ===
{{Main|Effects of NAFTA on Mexico}}
[[File:The Three Amigos 2016.jpg|thumb|Former President [[Enrique Peña Nieto]] with Prime Minister [[Justin Trudeau]] of Canada and then-President [[Barack Obama]] of the United States at the 2016 [[North American Leaders' Summit]]]]
[[Maquiladora]]s (Mexican assembly plants that take in imported components and produce [[good]]s for export) became the landmark of trade in Mexico. They moved to Mexico from the United States{{citation needed|date=November 2017}}, hence the debate over the loss of American jobs. Income in the maquiladora sector had increased 15.5% since the implementation of NAFTA in 1994.<ref name="Hufbauer">{{cite book | last=Hufbauer | first=Gary Clyde | last2=Schott | first2=Jeffrey J. | title=NAFTA Revisited: Achievements and Challenges | publisher=Washington, D.C. : Institute for International Economics | publication-place=Washington (D.C.) | date=2005 | isbn=978-0-88132-334-4 }}</ref> Other sectors also benefited from the free trade agreement, and the share of [[export]]s to the U.S. from non-border states increased in the last five years{{when|date=November 2017}} while the share of exports from border states decreased. This allowed for rapid growth in non-border [[metropolitan area]]s such as [[Toluca]], [[León, Guanajuato|León]], and [[Puebla, Puebla|Puebla]], which were all larger in population than [[Tijuana]], [[Ciudad Juárez]], and [[Reynosa]].

The overall effect of the Mexico–U.S. agricultural agreement is disputed. Mexico did not invest in the [[infrastructure]] necessary for competition, such as efficient railroads and highways. This resulted in more difficult living conditions for the country's poor. Mexico's agricultural exports increased 9.4 percent annually between 1994 and 2001, while imports increased by only 6.9 percent a year during the same period.<ref>''Greening the Americas'', Carolyn L. Deere (editor). MIT Press, Cambridge, Massachusetts.</ref>

One of the most affected agricultural sectors was the [[meat industry]]. Mexico went from a small player in the pre-1994 U.S. export market to the second largest importer of U.S. agricultural products in 2004, and NAFTA may have been a major catalyst for this change. Free trade removed the hurdles that impeded business between the two countries, so Mexico provided a growing market for meat for the U.S., and increased sales and [[profit (economics)|profits]] for the U.S. meat industry. A coinciding noticeable increase in the Mexican [[per capita GDP]] greatly changed meat consumption patterns as per capita meat consumption grew.<ref>{{cite thesis |last=Clark |first=Georgia Rae |date=2006 |title=Mexican meat demand analysis: A post-NAFTA demand systems approach |type=MS thesis |publisher=Texas Tech University |url=https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/handle/2346/18215 |access-date=November 12, 2022 |hdl=2346/18215 |df=mdy-all |archive-date=November 12, 2022 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20221112165036/https://ttu-ir.tdl.org/handle/2346/18215 |url-status=live }}</ref>

One of concerns raised by the implementation of NAFTA in Mexico was wealth inequality. [[National Bureau of Economic Research]] found that NAFTA increased the wage gap between the lowest and highest earners, directly affecting wealth inequality.<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/what-happened-wages-mexico-nafta |title=What Happened to Wages in Mexico Since NAFTA? |date=September 2003 |website=nber.org |author=Matt Nesvisky |access-date=November 7, 2023 |archive-date=November 7, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231107110841/https://www.nber.org/digest/sep03/what-happened-wages-mexico-nafta |url-status=live }}</ref> According to [[Global Trade Watch]], under NAFTA Mexico observed a decline in real average annual wages, with this decline mainly affecting those who earned the least - the real average wage of minimum wage workers decreased by 14 percent. GTW concluded that "inflation-adjusted wages for virtually every category of Mexican worker decreased over NAFTA’s first six years, even as hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs were being shifted from the United States to Mexico".<ref>{{cite web |url=https://www.citizen.org/article/fact-sheet-naftas-legacy-for-mexico-economic-displacement-lower-wages-for-most-increased-migration/ |title=NAFTA's Legacy for Mexico: Economic Displacement, Lower Wages for Most, Increased Migration |date=1 September 2019 |website=citizen.org |access-date=November 7, 2023 |archive-date=November 7, 2023 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20231107110842/https://www.citizen.org/article/fact-sheet-naftas-legacy-for-mexico-economic-displacement-lower-wages-for-most-increased-migration/ |url-status=live }}</ref> Similar effects were found in a study published in the International Journal of Economic Sciences, which found that NAFTA had a direct impact on wage inequality in Mexico; from 1994 onwards, the wage gap between the poorest and the richest workers noticeably increased.<ref>{{cite journal | last=Rodriguez-Villalobos | first=Martha | last2=Julián-Arias | first2=Antonio | last3=Cruz-Montaño | first3=Alejandro | title=Effect of NAFTA on Mexico's Wage Inequality | journal=International Journal of Economic Sciences | volume=8 | issue=1 | date=2019-06-20 | issn=1804-9796 | doi=10.20472/ES.2019.8.1.009 | doi-access=free | pages=131–149 | url=http://www.iises.net/international-journal-of-economic-sciences/publication-detail-17383?download=9 | access-date=2025-05-03}}</ref>

Production of [[Maize|corn]] in Mexico increased since NAFTA. However, internal [[demand]] for corn had increased beyond Mexico's supply to the point where imports became necessary, far beyond the quotas Mexico originally negotiated.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://americas.irc-online.org/pdf/reports/0402nafta.pdf |title= NAFTA, Corn, and Mexico's Agricultural Trade Liberalization |url-status= dead |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20070109225602/http://americas.irc-online.org/pdf/reports/0402nafta.pdf |archive-date= January 9, 2007 |df= mdy-all }}&nbsp;{{small|(152&nbsp;KB)}} p. 4</ref> Zahniser & Coyle pointed out that corn prices in Mexico, adjusted for international prices, have drastically decreased, but through a program of [[subsidies]] expanded by former president [[Vicente Fox]], [[production (economics)|production]] remained stable since 2000.<ref>Steven S. Zahniser & William T. Coyle, ''[http://webarchives.cdlib.org/sw15d8pg7m/http://ers.usda.gov/Publications/FDS/May04/FDS04D01/ U.S.-Mexico Corn Trade During the NAFTA Era: New Twists to an Old Story] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210214232314/https://wayback.archive-it.org/5923/20120310210833/http://ers.usda.gov/Publications/FDS/May04/FDS04D01/ |date=2021-02-14 }}'', Outlook Report No. FDS04D01 (Economic Research Service/USDA, May 2004), 22 pp.</ref> Reducing agricultural subsidies, especially corn subsidies, was suggested as a way to reduce harm to Mexican farmers.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/27/business/us-corn-subsidies-said-to-damage-mexico.html|title=U.S. Corn Subsidies Said to Damage Mexico|first=Elizabeth|last=Becker|newspaper=The New York Times|date=August 27, 2003|access-date=July 21, 2019|archive-date=September 21, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190921130559/https://www.nytimes.com/2003/08/27/business/us-corn-subsidies-said-to-damage-mexico.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

A 2001 ''[[Journal of Economic Perspectives]]'' review of the existing literature found that NAFTA was a net benefit to Mexico.<ref name=":0">{{Cite journal|title = The Impact of NAFTA on the United States|journal = Journal of Economic Perspectives|date = 2001-02-01|issn = 0895-3309|pages = 125–44|volume = 15|issue = 1|doi = 10.1257/jep.15.1.125|first1 = Mary E|last1 = Burfisher|first2 = Sherman|last2 = Robinson|first3 = Karen|last3 = Thierfelder|citeseerx = 10.1.1.516.6543| s2cid=154817996 }}</ref> By 2003, 80% of the commerce in Mexico was executed only with the U.S. The commercial sales surplus, combined with the [[Government budget deficit|deficit]] with the rest of the world, created a dependency in Mexico's exports. These effects were evident in the [[Early 2000s recession|2001 recession]], which resulted in either a low rate or a negative rate in Mexico's exports.<ref>Ruiz Nápoles, Pablo. "El TLCAN y el balance comercial en México". Economía Informa. UNAM. 2003</ref>

A 2005 study found that Mexico's welfare increased by 1.31% as a result of the NAFTA tariff reductions and that Mexico's intra-bloc trade increased by 118%.<ref name=":2" /> [[Economic inequality|Inequality]] and [[poverty]] fell in the most [[globalization]]-affected regions of Mexico.<ref name="NBER Report">{{cite report | last=Hanson | first=Gordon | title=Globalization, Labor Income, and Poverty in Mexico | publisher=National Bureau of Economic Research | publication-place=Cambridge, MA | year=2005 | doi=10.3386/w11027 | doi-access=free }}</ref><ref>{{cite book | last=Hanson | first=Gordon H. | editor-last=Harrison | editor-first=Ann | chapter=Globalization, Labor Income, and Poverty in Mexico| title=Globalization and Poverty | publisher=University of Chicago Press | publication-place=Chicago | date=2007-04-15 | isbn=978-0-226-31794-6 | pages=417-456}}</ref> 2013 and 2015 studies showed that Mexican small farmers benefited more from NAFTA than large-scale farmers.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Prina |first1=Silvia |title=Who Benefited More from the North American Free Trade Agreement: Small or Large Farmers? Evidence from Mexico |journal=Review of Development Economics |date=August 2013 |volume=17 |issue=3 |pages=594–608 |doi=10.1111/rode.12053 |s2cid=154627747 }}</ref><ref>{{cite journal |last1=Prina |first1=Silvia |title=Effects of Border Price Changes on Agricultural Wages and Employment in Mexico |journal=Journal of International Development |date=January 2015 |volume=27 |issue=1 |pages=112–132 |doi=10.1002/jid.2814}}</ref>

NAFTA had also been credited with the rise of the Mexican [[middle class]]. A [[Tufts University]] study found that NAFTA lowered the average cost of basic necessities in Mexico by up to 50%.<ref name="Shannon O Neil">{{cite journal|last1=O'Neil|first1=Shannon|title=Mexico Makes It|journal=Foreign Affairs|date=March 2013|volume=92|issue=2|url=http://search.ebscohost.com/login.aspx?direct=true&db=buh&AN=85480345&site=ehpl-live|access-date=19 March 2016}}</ref> This price reduction increased cash-on-hand for many Mexican families, allowing Mexico to graduate more engineers than Germany each year.<ref name="WashTimesNaftaGood">{{cite web|last1=Taylor|first1=Guy|title=NAFTA key to economic, social growth in Mexico|url=http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/14/nafta-key-to-economic-social-growth-in-mexico/?page=all|website=www.washingtontimes.com|publisher=The Washington Times|access-date=19 March 2016|language=en|date=14 May 2012|archive-date=March 30, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160330173508/http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2012/may/14/nafta-key-to-economic-social-growth-in-mexico/?page=all|url-status=live}}</ref>

Growth in new sales orders indicated an increase in demand for manufactured products, which resulted in expansion of production and a higher [[employment rate]] to satisfy the increment in the demand. The growth in the maquiladora industry and in the manufacturing industry was of 4.7% in August 2016.<ref>"Economic Report of the exportations in the manufacturer industry" Consejo Nacional de Industria Maquiladora Manufacturera A.C. 2016</ref> Three quarters of the imports and exports are with the U.S.

Tufts University political scientist [[Daniel W. Drezner]] argued that NAFTA made it easier for Mexico to transform to a real democracy and become a country that views itself as North American. This has boosted cooperation between the United States and Mexico.<ref name=":7">{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/27/the-missing-dimension-in-the-nafta-debate/|title=The missing dimension in the NAFTA debate|newspaper=Washington Post|access-date=2017-02-12|archive-date=February 13, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170213090234/https://www.washingtonpost.com/posteverything/wp/2017/01/27/the-missing-dimension-in-the-nafta-debate/|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== United States ===
Economists generally agreed that the United States economy benefited overall from NAFTA as it increased trade.<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/05/18/trump-administration-formally-launches-nafta-renegotiation/|title=Trump administration formally launches NAFTA renegotiation|newspaper=Washington Post|access-date=2017-07-18|archive-date=July 19, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170719154848/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk/wp/2017/05/18/trump-administration-formally-launches-nafta-renegotiation/|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/trump-mexico-renegotiate-nafta-by-jeffrey-frankel-2017-04|title=How to Renegotiate NAFTA|last=Frankel|first=Jeffrey|date=2017-04-24|work=Project Syndicate|access-date=2017-07-18|language=en|archive-date=July 9, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170709013404/https://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/trump-mexico-renegotiate-nafta-by-jeffrey-frankel-2017-04|url-status=live}}</ref> In a 2012 survey of the [[Initiative on Global Markets]]' Economic Experts Panel, 95% of the participants said that, on average, U.S. citizens benefited from NAFTA while none said that NAFTA hurt US citizens, on average.<ref name=":9">{{Cite web|title = Poll Results {{!}} IGM Forum|url = http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_0dfr9yjnDcLh17m|website = www.igmchicago.org|date = 13 March 2012|access-date = 2016-01-01|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20160622104941/http://www.igmchicago.org/igm-economic-experts-panel/poll-results?SurveyID=SV_0dfr9yjnDcLh17m|archive-date = 22 June 2016|url-status = dead}}</ref> A 2001 ''Journal of Economic Perspectives'' review found that NAFTA was a net benefit to the United States.<ref name=":0" /> A 2015 study found that US welfare increased by 0.08% as a result of NAFTA tariff reductions, and that US intra-bloc trade increased by 41%.<ref name=":2" />

A 2014 study on the effects of NAFTA on US trade jobs and investment found that between 1993 and 2013, the US trade deficit with Mexico and Canada increased from $17.0 to $177.2 billion, displacing 851,700 US jobs.<ref>{{Cite journal|url=https://ideas.repec.org/a/elg/rokejn/v2y2014i4p429-441.html|title=The effects of NAFTA on US trade, jobs, and investment, 1993â€"2013|first=Robert E.|last=Scott|date=July 21, 2014|journal=Review of Keynesian Economics|volume=2|issue=4|pages=429–441|access-date=July 21, 2019|via=ideas.repec.org|doi=10.4337/roke.2014.04.02|archive-date=July 23, 2019|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190723061458/https://ideas.repec.org/a/elg/rokejn/v2y2014i4p429-441.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

In 2015, the [[Congressional Research Service]] concluded that the "net overall effect of NAFTA on the US economy appears to have been relatively modest, primarily because trade with Canada and Mexico accounts for a small percentage of US [[GDP]]. However, there were worker and firm adjustment costs as the three countries adjusted to more open trade and investment among their economies." The report also estimated that NAFTA added $80 billion to the US economy since its implementation, equivalent to a 0.5% increase in US GDP.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42965.pdf|title=The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)|access-date=July 11, 2016|archive-date=February 16, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210216030928/https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42965.pdf|url-status=live}}</ref>

The [[US Chamber of Commerce]] credited NAFTA with increasing U.S. trade in goods and services with Canada and Mexico from $337 billion in 1993 to $1.2 trillion in 2011, while the [[AFL–CIO]] blamed the agreement for sending 700,000 American manufacturing jobs to Mexico over that time.<ref>{{cite news|url=http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/b7230156-4c51-11e3-923d-00144feabdc0.html|title=Contentious Nafta pact continues to generate a sparky debate|newspaper=Financial Times |date=December 2, 2013 |access-date=January 20, 2017|archive-date=May 7, 2015|archive-url=https://archive.today/20150507172009/http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/b7230156-4c51-11e3-923d-00144feabdc0.html%23axzz3ZTStkmgz|url-status=live}}</ref>

[[University of California, San Diego]] economics professor [[Gordon Hanson]] said that NAFTA helped the US compete against China and therefore saved US jobs.<ref name=":4">{{Cite news|url=http://www.cfr.org/trade/naftas-economic-impact/p15790|title=NAFTA's Economic Impact|newspaper=Council on Foreign Relations|access-date=2017-02-07|language=en|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170204164327/http://www.cfr.org/trade/naftas-economic-impact/p15790|archive-date=2017-02-04|url-status=dead}}</ref><ref name=":5">{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/30/business/economy/nafta-may-have-saved-many-autoworkers-jobs.html|title=Nafta May Have Saved Many Autoworkers' Jobs|last=Porter|first=Eduardo|date=2016-03-29|newspaper=The New York Times|access-date=2017-02-07|issn=0362-4331|archive-date=March 14, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170314205752/https://www.nytimes.com/2016/03/30/business/economy/nafta-may-have-saved-many-autoworkers-jobs.html|url-status=live}}</ref> While some jobs were lost to Mexico as a result of NAFTA, considerably more would have been lost to China if not for NAFTA.<ref name=":4" /><ref name=":5" />

==== Trade balances ====
The US had a [[trade surplus]] with NAFTA countries of $28.3 billion for services in 2009 and a [[trade deficit]] of $94.6 billion (36.4% annual increase) for goods in 2010. This trade deficit accounted for 26.8% of all US goods trade deficit.<ref name=ustrstats>{{Cite web|url = http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/north-american-free-trade-agreement-nafta|title = North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)|access-date = December 3, 2014|publisher = Office of the United States Trade Representative|archive-date = March 17, 2013|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20130317011855/http://www.ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/north-american-free-trade-agreement-nafta|url-status = dead}}</ref> A 2018 study of global trade published by the [[Center for International Relations]] identified irregularities in the patterns of trade of NAFTA ecosystem using [[network theory]] analytical techniques. The study showed that the US trade balance was influenced by tax avoidance opportunities provided in [[Republic of Ireland|Ireland]].<ref>{{cite news |last1=Lavassani |first1=Kayvan |title=Data Science Reveals NAFTA's Problem |url=http://www.ia-forum.org/Files/Trade%20War%20v21.pdf |access-date=7 July 2018 |work=International Affairs Forum |agency=Center for International Relations |issue=June 2018 |date=June 2018 |archive-date=7 July 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180707010007/http://www.ia-forum.org/Files/Trade%20War%20v21.pdf |url-status=dead }}</ref>

A study published in the August 2008 issue of the ''[[American Journal of Agricultural Economics]]'', found NAFTA increased US agricultural exports to Mexico and Canada, even though most of the increase occurred a decade after its ratification. The study focused on the effects that gradual "phase-in" periods in regional trade agreements, including NAFTA, have on trade flows. Most of the increases in members' agricultural trade, which was only recently brought under the purview of the [[World Trade Organization]], was due to very high trade barriers before NAFTA or other regional trade agreements.<ref>[http://newswise.com/articles/view/541349/ "Free Trade Agreement Helped U.S. Farmers".] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20090129172826/http://newswise.com/articles/view/541349/ |date=2009-01-29 }} ''Newswise''. Retrieved on June 12, 2008.</ref>

==== Investment ====
The U.S. [[foreign direct investment]] (FDI) in NAFTA countries (stock) was $327.5 billion in 2009 (latest data available){{when|date=November 2017}}, up 8.8% from 2008.<ref name=ustrstats /> The US direct investment in NAFTA countries was in non-bank [[holding companies]] and the manufacturing, [[finance]]/[[insurance]], and [[mining]] sectors.<ref name=ustrstats /> The [[foreign direct investment]] of Canada and Mexico in the United States (stock) was $237.2 billion in 2009 (the latest data available), up 16.5% from 2008.<ref name=ustrstats /><ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/policy/nafta/nafta.asp |title=North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) — |access-date=2011-11-28 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20111125001059/http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/Policy/NAFTA/nafta.asp |archive-date=November 25, 2011 |df=mdy-all }}</ref>

=== Economy and jobs ===
{{Main|NAFTA's effect on United States employment}}

In their May 24, 2017 report, the [[Congressional Research Service]] (CRS) wrote that the economic impacts of NAFTA on the U.S. economy were modest. In a 2015 report, the [[Congressional Research Service]] summarized multiple studies as follows: "In reality, NAFTA did not cause the huge job losses feared by the critics or the large economic gains predicted by supporters. The net overall effect of NAFTA on the U.S. economy appears to have been relatively modest, primarily because trade with Canada and Mexico accounts for a small percentage of U.S. GDP. However, there were worker and firm adjustment costs as the three countries adjusted to more open trade and investment among their economies."<ref name="CRS_Villarreal_NAFTA_2015">{{cite report |url=https://www.fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42965.pdf |title=The North American Free Trade Agreement |first1=M. Angeles |last1=Villarreal |first2=Ian F. |last2=Fergusson |date=May 24, 2017 |access-date=September 2, 2018 |work=[[Congressional Research Service]] (CRS) |archive-date=August 4, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180804101252/https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R42965.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>{{rp|2}}

Many American small businesses depended on exporting their products to Canada or Mexico under NAFTA. According to the [[Office of the United States Trade Representative|U.S. Trade Representative]], this trade supported over 140,000 small- and medium-sized businesses in the US.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/north-american-free-trade-agreement-nafta|title=North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) {{!}} United States Trade Representative|website=ustr.gov|access-date=2016-10-12|archive-date=May 8, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200508182542/https://ustr.gov/trade-agreements/free-trade-agreements/north-american-free-trade-agreement-nafta|url-status=dead}}</ref>

According to [[University of California, Berkeley]] professor of economics [[J. Bradford DeLong|Brad DeLong]], NAFTA had an insignificant impact on US manufacturing.<ref name=":6">{{Cite news|url=https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/1/24/14363148/trade-deals-nafta-wto-china-job-loss-trump|title=NAFTA and other trade deals have not gutted American manufacturing – period|last=DeLong|first=J. Bradford|newspaper=Vox|access-date=2017-02-07|archive-date=June 18, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170618165253/https://www.vox.com/the-big-idea/2017/1/24/14363148/trade-deals-nafta-wto-china-job-loss-trump|url-status=live}}</ref> The adverse impact on manufacturing was exaggerated in US political discourse according to DeLong<ref name=":6" /> and Harvard economist [[Dani Rodrik]].<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://rodrik.typepad.com/dani_rodriks_weblog/2017/01/what-did-nafta-really-do.html|title=What did NAFTA really do?|website=Dani Rodrik's weblog|access-date=2017-02-07|archive-date=February 8, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170208032705/http://rodrik.typepad.com/dani_rodriks_weblog/2017/01/what-did-nafta-really-do.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

According to a 2013 article by Jeff Faux published by the [[Economic Policy Institute]], [[California]], [[Texas]], [[Michigan]] and other states with high concentrations of manufacturing jobs were most affected by job loss due to NAFTA.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://www.epi.org/blog/naftas-impact-workers/|title=NAFTA's Impact on U.S. Workers|work=Economic Policy Institute|date=December 9, 2013|first=Jeff|last=Faux|access-date=2016-10-12|archive-date=April 22, 2015|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20150422040712/http://www.epi.org/blog/naftas-impact-workers/|url-status=live}}</ref> According to a 2011 article by EPI economist Robert Scott, about 682,900 U.S. jobs were "lost or displaced" as a result of the trade agreement.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/12/nafta-job-loss-trade-deficit-epi_n_859983.html |title=U.S. Economy Lost Nearly 700,000 Jobs Because Of NAFTA, EPI Says |work=The Huffington Post |date=July 12, 2011 |access-date=January 17, 2016 |archive-date=January 18, 2016 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160118022111/http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/12/nafta-job-loss-trade-deficit-epi_n_859983.html |url-status=live }}</ref> More recent studies agreed with reports by the Congressional Research Service that NAFTA only had a modest impact on manufacturing employment and [[automation]] explained 87% of the losses in manufacturing jobs.<ref name="CNN_2017">{{Cite web|url=https://money.cnn.com/2017/02/16/news/economy/donald-trump-nafta/index.html|title=U.S. auto workers hate NAFTA ... but love robots|last=Long|first=Heather|date=February 16, 2017|website=CNNMoney|access-date=2017-02-21|quote=The problem, they argue, is that machines took over. One study by Ball State University says 87% of American manufacturing jobs have been lost to robots. Only 13% have disappeared because of trade ... But workers in Michigan think the experts have it wrong.|archive-date=2021-02-14|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210214232305/https://money.cnn.com/2017/02/16/news/economy/donald-trump-nafta/index.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Environment ===
{{See also|Commission for Environmental Cooperation}}
According to a study in the ''[[Journal of International Economics]]'', NAFTA reduced pollution emitted by the US manufacturing sector: "On average, nearly two-thirds of the reductions in [[Particulates#Size, shape and solubility matter|coarse particulate matter]] (PM<sub>10)</sub> and [[sulfur dioxide]] (SO<sub>2)</sub> emissions from the U.S. manufacturing sector between 1994 and 1998 can be attributed to trade liberalization following NAFTA."<ref>{{Cite journal|last=Cherniwchan|first=Jevan|title=Trade Liberalization and the Environment: Evidence from NAFTA and U.S. Manufacturing|journal=Journal of International Economics|doi=10.1016/j.jinteco.2017.01.005|volume=105|pages=130–49|year=2017|doi-access=free}}</ref>

According to the [[Sierra Club]], NAFTA contributed to large-scale, export-oriented [[farming]], which led to the increased use of [[fossil fuel]]s, [[pesticide]]s and [[GMO]].<ref name=":3" /> NAFTA also contributed to environmentally destructive mining practices in Mexico.<ref name=":3" /> It prevented Canada from effectively regulating its [[tar sands]] industry, and created new legal avenues for [[transnational corporations]] to fight [[environmental legislation]].<ref name=":3">{{cite web|url=http://content.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2014/03/new-report-reveals-environmental-costs-north-american-free-trade-agreement|title=Environmental Damages Underscore Risks of Unfair Trade|publisher=Sierraclub.org|access-date=March 4, 2014|archive-date=March 15, 2014|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140315094044/http://content.sierraclub.org/press-releases/2014/03/new-report-reveals-environmental-costs-north-american-free-trade-agreement|url-status=dead}}</ref> In some cases, environmental policy was neglected in the wake of trade liberalization; in other cases, NAFTA's measures for investment protection, such as Chapter 11, and measures against non-tariff trade barriers threatened to discourage more vigorous environmental policy.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/beech/iapa/2006/00000024/00000004/art00002;jsessionid=1dy4980hq7bq0.alexandra?format=print |title=IngentaConnect NAFTA Commission for Environmental Cooperation: ongoing assessment of trade liberalization in North America |publisher=Ingentaconnect.com |access-date=November 9, 2008 |url-status=dead |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110606192428/http://www.ingentaconnect.com/content/beech/iapa/2006/00000024/00000004/art00002;jsessionid=1dy4980hq7bq0.alexandra?format=print |archive-date=June 6, 2011 |df=mdy-all }}</ref> The most serious overall increases in [[pollution]] due to NAFTA were found in the [[base metal]]s sector, the Mexican [[petroleum]] sector, and the transportation equipment sector in the United States and Mexico, but not in Canada.<ref>Kenneth A. Reinert and David W. Roland-Holst [https://wayback.archive-it.org/all/20080910022005/http://www.cec.org/programs_projects/trade_environ_econ/pdfs/Reinert.pdf The Industrial Pollution Impacts of NAFTA: Some Preliminary Results]. Commission for Environmental Cooperation (November 2000)</ref>

=== Mobility of persons ===
According to the [[Department of Homeland Security]] Yearbook of Immigration Statistics, during fiscal year 2006 (October 2005 – September 2006), 73,880 foreign professionals (64,633 Canadians and 9,247 Mexicans) were admitted into the United States for temporary employment under NAFTA (i.e., in the [[TN status]]). Additionally, 17,321 of their family members (13,136 Canadians, 2,904 Mexicans, as well as a number of third-country nationals married to Canadians and Mexicans) entered the U.S. in the treaty national's dependent (TD) status.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/YrBk06NI.shtm|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20110228145954/https://www.dhs.gov/ximgtn/statistics/publications/YrBk06NI.shtm|url-status=dead|title=DHS Yearbook 2006. Supplemental Table 1: Nonimmigrant Admissions (I-94 Only) by Class of Admission and Country of Citizenship: Fiscal Year 2006|archive-date=February 28, 2011|access-date=July 21, 2019}}</ref> Because DHS counts the number of the new [[Form I-94|I-94 arrival records]] filled at the border, and the TN-1 admission is valid for three years, the number of non-immigrants in TN status present in the U.S. at the end of the fiscal year is approximately equal to the number of admissions during the year. (A discrepancy may be caused by some TN entrants leaving the country or changing status before their three-year admission period has expired, while other immigrants admitted earlier may change their status ''to'' TN or TD, or extend TN status granted earlier).

According to the [[International Organization for Migration]], deaths of migrants have been on the rise worldwide with 5,604 deaths in 2016.<ref name=":12">Jones, Reese. Borders & Walls: Do Barriers Deter Unauthorized Migration. Migration Policy Institute. web page [http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/borders-and-walls-do-barriers-deter-unauthorized-migration] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161116163838/http://www.migrationpolicy.org/article/borders-and-walls-do-barriers-deter-unauthorized-migration|date=November 16, 2016}} October 5, 2016.</ref> An increased number of undocumented farmworkers in California may be due to the initial passing of NAFTA.<ref>{{Cite journal|url=http://www.politicalresearch.org/2014/10/11/globalization-and-nafta-caused-migration-from-mexico/|title=Globalization and NAFTA Caused Migration from Mexico|last=Bacon|first=David|journal=Political Research Associates|date=October 11, 2014|access-date=2017-04-03|archive-date=April 9, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170409092951/http://www.politicalresearch.org/2014/10/11/globalization-and-nafta-caused-migration-from-mexico/|url-status=live}}</ref>

Canadian authorities estimated that on December 1, 2006, 24,830 U.S. citizens and 15,219 Mexican citizens were in Canada as "foreign workers". These numbers include both entrants under NAFTA and those who entered under other provisions of Canadian immigration law.<ref>[http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/statistics/facts2006/temporary/04.asp Facts and Figures 2006 Immigration Overview: Temporary Residents] {{webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080223202418/http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/statistics/facts2006/temporary/04.asp |date=February 23, 2008 }} (Citizenship and Immigration Canada)</ref> New entries of foreign workers in 2006 totalled 16,841 U.S. citizens and 13,933 Mexicans.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/statistics/facts2006/temporary/03.asp |title=Facts and Figures 2006 – Immigration Overview: Permanent and Temporary Residents |publisher=Cic.gc.ca |date=June 29, 2007 |access-date=November 9, 2008 |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20080822233355/http://www.cic.gc.ca/english/resources/statistics/facts2006/temporary/03.asp <!-- Bot retrieved archive --> |archive-date = August 22, 2008}}</ref>

== Disputes and controversies ==
=== 1992 U.S. presidential candidate Ross Perot ===
In the second 1992 presidential debate, Ross Perot argued:

{{blockquote|We have got to stop sending jobs overseas. It's pretty simple: If you're paying $12, $13, $14 an hour for factory workers and you can move your factory south of the border, pay a dollar an hour for labor,&nbsp;... have no health care—that's the most expensive single element in making a car—have no environmental controls, no pollution controls and no retirement, and you don't care about anything but making money, there will be a [[giant sucking sound]] going south.

 ... when [Mexico's] jobs come up from a dollar an hour to six dollars an hour, and ours go down to six dollars an hour, and then it's leveled again. But in the meantime, you've wrecked the country with these kinds of deals.<ref>{{Cite web|url = https://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/16/us/the-1992-campaign-transcript-of-2d-tv-debate-between-bush-clinton-and-perot.html|title = THE 1992 CAMPAIGN; Transcript of 2d TV Debate Between Bush, Clinton and Perot|date = 16 October 1992|website = The New York Times|access-date = 16 May 2016|archive-date = 29 December 2018|archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20181229232643/https://www.nytimes.com/1992/10/16/us/the-1992-campaign-transcript-of-2d-tv-debate-between-bush-clinton-and-perot.html|url-status = live}}</ref>}}

Perot ultimately lost the election, and the winner, [[Bill Clinton]], supported NAFTA, which went into effect on January 1, 1994.

=== Legal disputes ===
In 1996, the gasoline additive [[Methylcyclopentadienyl Manganese Tricarbonyl|MMT]] was brought to Canada by [[Ethyl Corporation]], an American company when the Canadian federal government banned imports of the additive. The American company brought a claim under NAFTA Chapter 11 seeking US$201 million,<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.naftaclaims.com/Disputes/Canada/EthylCorp/EthylCorpNoticeOfArbitration.pdf |title= Notice of Arbitration |url-status= dead |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20070616093730/http://www.naftaclaims.com/Disputes/Canada/EthylCorp/EthylCorpNoticeOfArbitration.pdf |archive-date= June 16, 2007 |df= mdy-all |access-date= February 16, 2007 }}&nbsp;{{small|(1.71&nbsp;MB)}}, 'Ethyl Corporation vs. Government of Canada'</ref> from the Canadian federal government as well as the Canadian provinces under the [[Agreement on Internal Trade]] (AIT). They argued that the additive had not been conclusively linked to any health dangers, and that the prohibition was damaging to their company. Following a finding that the ban was a violation of the AIT,<ref>{{cite web|url= http://www.intrasec.mb.ca/en/dispute/11_22_2005/MMT.pdf |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20060822125333/http://www.intrasec.mb.ca/en/dispute/11_22_2005/MMT.pdf |url-status= dead |archive-date= 2006-08-22 |title=Agreement on Internal Trade }}&nbsp;{{small|(118&nbsp;KB)}}</ref> the Canadian federal government repealed the ban and [[Settlement (litigation)|settled]] with the American company for US$13 million.<ref>{{cite web |url=http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/nafta-alena/nafta5_section06-en.asp |title=Dispute Settlement |publisher=Dfait-maeci.gc.ca |date=October 15, 2010 |access-date=July 4, 2011 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080115205301/http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/nafta-alena/nafta5_section06-en.asp |archive-date=January 15, 2008 |url-status=dead |df=mdy-all }}</ref> Studies by Health and Welfare Canada (now [[Health Canada]]) on the health effects of MMT in fuel found no significant health effects associated with exposure to these exhaust emissions. Other Canadian researchers and the [[U.S. Environmental Protection Agency]] disagreed citing studies that suggested possible nerve damage.<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/jk/040310.htm|title=MMT: the controversy over this fuel additive continues|publisher=canadiandriver.com|access-date=July 4, 2011|archive-date=April 24, 2008|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080424012713/http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/jk/040310.htm|url-status=live}}</ref>

The United States and Canada argued for years over the United States' 27% [[Duty (tax)|duty]] on Canadian [[softwood lumber]] imports. Canada filed many motions to have the duty eliminated and the collected duties returned to Canada.<ref>[http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/eicb/softwood/background-en.asp softwood Lumber] {{webarchive |url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080616131648/http://www.dfait-maeci.gc.ca/eicb/softwood/background-en.asp |date=June 16, 2008 }}</ref> After the United States lost an [[appeal]] before a NAFTA panel, spokesperson for U.S. Trade Representative [[Rob Portman]] responded by saying: "we are, of course, disappointed with the [NAFTA panel's] decision, but it will have no impact on the [[dumping (pricing policy)|anti-dumping]] and [[countervailing duties|countervailing duty]] orders."<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Spokesperson_Statements/Statement_from_USTR_Spokesperson_Neena_Moorjani_Regarding_the_NAFTA_Extraordinary_Challenge_Committee_decision_in_Softwood_Lumbe.html?ht=|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080509125324/http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Spokesperson_Statements/Statement_from_USTR_Spokesperson_Neena_Moorjani_Regarding_the_NAFTA_Extraordinary_Challenge_Committee_decision_in_Softwood_Lumbe.html?ht=|url-status=dead|title=Statement from USTR Spokesperson Neena Moorjani Regarding the NAFTA Extraordinary Challenge Committee decision in Softwood Lumber|archive-date=May 9, 2008|access-date=July 21, 2019}}</ref> On July 21, 2006, the [[United States Court of International Trade]] found that imposition of the duties was contrary to U.S. law.<ref>{{cite web |url= http://www.cit.uscourts.gov/slip_op/Slip_op06/06-109.pdf |title= Tembec, Inc vs. United States |url-status= dead |archive-url= https://web.archive.org/web/20060923000112/http://www.cit.uscourts.gov/slip_op/Slip_op06/06-109.pdf |archive-date= September 23, 2006 |df= mdy-all |access-date= August 9, 2006 }}&nbsp;{{small|(193&nbsp;KB)}}</ref><ref>{{Cite web|url=http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Press_Releases/2006/July/Statement_by_USTR_Spokesman_Stephen_Norton_Regarding_CIT_Lumber_Ruling.html?ht=|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20080509125313/http://www.ustr.gov/Document_Library/Press_Releases/2006/July/Statement_by_USTR_Spokesman_Stephen_Norton_Regarding_CIT_Lumber_Ruling.html?ht=|url-status=dead|title=Statement by USTR Spokesman Stephen Norton Regarding CIT Lumber Ruling|archive-date=May 9, 2008|access-date=July 21, 2019}}</ref>

==== Change in income trust taxation not expropriation ====
On October 30, 2007, American citizens Marvin and Elaine Gottlieb filed a Notice of Intent to Submit a Claim to Arbitration under NAFTA, claiming thousands of U.S. investors lost a total of $5 billion in the fall-out from the [[Income trust#The Conservatives propose new rules for income trusts|Conservative Government's]] decision the previous year to change the [[tax rate]] on [[income trust]]s in the [[energy sector]]. On April 29, 2009, a determination was made that this change in [[tax law]] was not [[expropriation]].<ref>{{cite web|url=http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/disp-diff/gottlieb_archive.aspx?lang=en|archive-url=https://archive.today/20120802115930/http://www.international.gc.ca/trade-agreements-accords-commerciaux/disp-diff/gottlieb_archive.aspx?lang=en|url-status=dead|archive-date=August 2, 2012|title=Global Affairs Canada|first1=Global Affairs|last1=Canada|first2=Affaires mondiales|last2=Canada|date=June 26, 2013|access-date=January 20, 2017}}</ref>

=== Impact on Mexican farmers ===
Several studies rejected NAFTA responsibility for depressing the incomes of poor corn farmers. The trend existed more than a decade before NAFTA existed. Also, maize production increased after 1994, and there wasn't a measurable impact on the price of Mexican corn because of subsidized{{who|date=November 2017}} corn from the United States. The studies agreed that the abolition of [[Agricultural policy of the United States|U.S. agricultural subsidies]] would benefit Mexican farmers.<ref>{{cite journal |last = Fiess |first = Norbert |author2 = Daniel Lederman |title = Mexican Corn: The Effects of NAFTA |journal = Trade Note |volume = 18 |publisher = The World Bank Group |date = November 24, 2004 |url = http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/LAC/LACInfoClient.nsf/d29684951174975c85256735007fef12/026efe204f018bc885256f40006d1901/$FILE/TradeNote18.pdf |access-date = March 12, 2007 |url-status = dead |archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20070616093730/http://wbln0018.worldbank.org/LAC/LACInfoClient.nsf/d29684951174975c85256735007fef12/026efe204f018bc885256f40006d1901/$FILE/TradeNote18.pdf |archive-date = June 16, 2007 |df = mdy-all }}</ref>

=== Zapatista Uprising in Chiapas, Mexico ===
{{further|Zapatista uprising|Zapatista Army of National Liberation}}
Preparations for NAFTA included cancellation of Article 27 of Mexico's constitution, the cornerstone of [[Emiliano Zapata]]'s revolution in 1910–1919. Under the historic Article 27, indigenous communal landholdings were protected from sale or [[privatization]]. However, this barrier to [[investment]] was incompatible with NAFTA. Indigenous farmers feared the loss of their remaining land and cheap imports (substitutes) from the US. The [[Zapatista Army of National Liberation|Zapatistas]] labelled NAFTA a "death sentence" to indigenous communities all over Mexico and later declared war on the Mexican state on January 1, 1994, the day NAFTA came into force.<ref>Subcomandante Marcos, Ziga Voa! 10 Years of the Zapatista Uprising. AK Press 2004</ref>

=== Criticism from 2016 U.S. presidential candidates ===
In a ''[[60 Minutes]]'' interview in September 2015, [[Donald Trump presidential campaign, 2016|2016 presidential candidate]] [[Donald Trump]] called NAFTA "the single worst trade deal ever approved in [the United States]",<ref>{{cite web|title=Full transcript: First 2016 presidential debate|author=Politico Staff|date=September 27, 2016|url=http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/full-transcript-first-2016-presidential-debate-228761?lo=ut_b1|publisher=Politico|access-date=27 September 2016|archive-date=September 30, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160930041406/http://www.politico.com/story/2016/09/full-transcript-first-2016-presidential-debate-228761?lo=ut_b1|url-status=live}}</ref> and said that if elected, he would "either renegotiate it, or we will break it".<ref>Jill Colvin, [http://bigstory.ap.org/article/982f8146e10942b2b7f6a07e2077576d/trump-nafta-trade-deal-disaster-says-hed-break-it Trump: NAFTA trade deal a 'disaster,' says he'd 'break' it] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20160314054934/http://bigstory.ap.org/article/982f8146e10942b2b7f6a07e2077576d/trump-nafta-trade-deal-disaster-says-hed-break-it |date=2016-03-14 }}, Associated Press (September 25, 2015).</ref><ref>Mark Thoma, [http://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-donald-trump-right-to-call-nafta-a-disaster/ Is Donald Trump right to call NAFTA a "disaster"?] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210219183112/https://www.cbsnews.com/news/is-donald-trump-right-to-call-nafta-a-disaster/ |date=February 19, 2021 }}, CBS News (October 5, 2015).</ref> {{Interlanguage link|Juan Pablo Castañón|es|Juan Pablo Castañón Castañón}}, president of the trade group Consejo Coordinador Empresarial, expressed concern about renegotiation and the willingness to focus on the car industry.<ref name=":03">{{Cite news|url=http://monitoreodenoticias.com.mx/noticias/menu/noticia.php?id_tit=242|title=El Economista|last=Gonzales|first=Lilia|date=November 14, 2016|access-date=November 16, 2016|archive-date=November 16, 2016|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20161116225439/http://monitoreodenoticias.com.mx/noticias/menu/noticia.php?id_tit=242|url-status=dead}}</ref> A range of trade experts said that pulling out of NAFTA would have a range of [[unintended consequences]] for the United States, including reduced access to its biggest [[export]] markets, a reduction in [[economic growth]], and higher [[price]]s for gasoline, cars, fruits, and vegetables.<ref>Eric Martin, [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-01/trump-killing-nafta-could-mean-big-unintended-consequences-for-the-u-s- Trump Killing NAFTA Could Mean Big Unintended Consequences for the U.S.] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210219182255/https://www.bloomberg.com/tosv2.html?vid=&uuid=7c69e400-72df-11eb-a3eb-61323706aade&url=L25ld3MvYXJ0aWNsZXMvMjAxNS0xMC0wMS90cnVtcC1raWxsaW5nLW5hZnRhLWNvdWxkLW1lYW4tYmlnLXVuaW50ZW5kZWQtY29uc2VxdWVuY2VzLWZvci10aGUtdS1zLQ== |date=February 19, 2021 }}, Bloomberg Business (October 1, 2015).</ref> Members of the private initiative in Mexico noted that to eliminate NAFTA, many laws must be adapted by the [[U.S. Congress]]. The move would also eventually result in legal complaints by the [[World Trade Organization]].<ref name=":03"/> The ''Washington Post'' noted that a [[Congressional Research Service]] review of academic literature concluded that the "net overall effect of NAFTA on the [[U.S. economy]] appears to have been relatively modest, primarily because [[trade]] with Canada and Mexico accounts for a small percentage of U.S. [[GDP]]".<ref name=":2" />

Democratic candidate [[Bernie Sanders]], opposing the [[Trans-Pacific Partnership]] trade agreement, called it "a continuation of other disastrous [[trade agreement]]s, like NAFTA, [[Dominican Republic-Central America Free Trade Agreement|CAFTA]], and [[permanent normal trade relations]] with China". He believes that free trade agreements have caused a loss of American jobs and depressed American wages. Sanders said that America needs to rebuild its [[manufacturing]] base using American factories for well-paying jobs for American labor rather than [[outsourcing]] to China and elsewhere.<ref>{{cite web
|date=May 18, 2015
|title=Sen. Bernie Sanders on taxes, trade agreements and Islamic State
|publisher=PBS
|url=https://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/sen-bernie-sanders-income-inequality-trade-agreements-islamic-state/
|access-date=May 20, 2015
|archive-date=October 10, 2017
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171010235547/http://www.pbs.org/newshour/bb/sen-bernie-sanders-income-inequality-trade-agreements-islamic-state/
|url-status=live
}} (transcript of interview with Judy Woodruff)</ref><ref>{{cite news
|last=Sanders
|first=Bernie
|date=May 21, 2015
|title=The TPP Must Be Defeated
|work=The Huffington Post
|url=http://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/the-tpp-must-be-defeated_b_7352166.html
|access-date=May 22, 2015
|archive-date=August 25, 2018
|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180825160022/https://www.huffingtonpost.com/rep-bernie-sanders/the-tpp-must-be-defeated_b_7352166.html
|url-status=live
}}</ref><ref>Will Cabaniss for Punditfact. September 2, 2015 [http://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/sep/02/viral-image/how-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-differ-trans-pa/ How Bernie Sanders, Hillary Clinton differ on the Trans-Pacific Partnership] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20191220151354/https://www.politifact.com/punditfact/statements/2015/sep/02/viral-image/how-bernie-sanders-hillary-clinton-differ-trans-pa/ |date=December 20, 2019 }}</ref>

==Policy of the Trump administration==
{{main|United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement}}

=== Renegotiation ===
[[File:Chrystia Freeland, Luis Videgaray Caso and Rex Tillerson in Mexico City - 2018 (40013111732).jpg|thumb|[[Chrystia Freeland]], [[Luis Videgaray Caso]] and [[Rex Tillerson]] in Mexico City, 2018]]

Shortly after his [[2016 United States presidential election|election]], [[President of the United States|U.S. President]] [[Donald Trump]] said he would begin renegotiating the terms of NAFTA, to resolve trade issues he had campaigned on. The leaders of Canada and Mexico had indicated their willingness to work with the Trump administration.<ref>{{cite web
| url = http://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-mexico-trade-nafta-trump-1.3853406
| title = Canada, Mexico talked before making NAFTA overture to Trump
| access-date = April 3, 2018
| archive-date = March 17, 2021
| archive-url = https://web.archive.org/web/20210317114038/https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/canada-mexico-trade-nafta-trump-1.3853406
| url-status = live
}}</ref> Although vague on the exact terms he sought in a renegotiated NAFTA, Trump threatened to withdraw from it if negotiations failed.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/upshot/what-is-nafta.html|title=What Is Nafta, and How Might Trump Change It?|newspaper=The New York Times|date=January 25, 2017 |access-date=April 5, 2017|archive-date=April 28, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170428013544/https://www.nytimes.com/interactive/2017/upshot/what-is-nafta.html|url-status=live|last1=Irwin |first1=Neil }}</ref>

In July 2017, the Trump administration provided a detailed list of changes that it would like to see to NAFTA.<ref name=":13">{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/17/us/politics/nafta-trump-mexico-canada.html|title=U.S. Calls for 'Much Better Deal' in Nafta Overhaul Plan|last=Rappeport|first=Alan|date=2017-07-17|work=The New York Times|access-date=2017-07-18|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331|archive-date=July 18, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170718043304/https://www.nytimes.com/2017/07/17/us/politics/nafta-trump-mexico-canada.html|url-status=live}}</ref> The top priority was a reduction in the United States' trade deficit.<ref name=":13" /><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-nafta-statement-idUSKBN1A2272|title=U.S. makes lower trade deficit top priority in NAFTA talks|date=July 18, 2017|work=Reuters|access-date=2017-07-18|archive-date=September 14, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170914144718/http://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade-nafta-statement-idUSKBN1A2272|url-status=live}}</ref> The administration also called for the elimination of provisions that allowed Canada and Mexico to appeal duties imposed by the United States and limited the ability of the United States to impose import restrictions on Canada and Mexico.<ref name=":13" />

Being "consistent with the president's stance on liking trade barriers, liking protectionism", [[Chad P. Bown]] of the [[Peterson Institute for International Economics]] suggested that the proposed changes would make NAFTA "in many respects less of a free-trade agreement."<ref name=":13" /> Additional concerns expressed by the US Trade Representative over subsidized state-owned enterprises and [[currency intervention|currency manipulation]] were not thought to apply to Canada and Mexico, but were intended rather to send a message to countries beyond North America.<ref name=":13" />

John Murphy, vice-president of the U.S. Chamber of Commerce declared that a number of the proposals tabled by the United States had "little or no support" from the U.S. business and agriculture community."<ref name="CP">{{cite news |author=Alexander Panetta |date=November 1, 2017 |title=U.S. pro-NAFTA campaign ramps up to defend deal: Concerns in Congress heighten over 'potential catastrophe' from withdrawal |newspaper=Vancouver Sun |agency=Canadian Press}}</ref> [[Pat Roberts]], the senior U.S. senator from [[Kansas]], said it was not clear "who they're intended to benefit", and called for push back against the anti-NAFTA moves as the "issues affect real jobs, real lives and real people". Kansas is a major agricultural exporter, and farm groups warned that just threatening to leave NAFTA might cause buyers to minimize uncertainty by seeking out non-US sources.<ref name="CP" />

A fourth round of talks included a U.S. demand for a sunset clause that would end the agreement in five years, unless the three countries agreed to keep it in place, a provision U.S. Commerce Secretary [[Wilbur Ross]] has said would allow the countries to kill the deal if it was not working. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau met with the [[United States House Committee on Ways and Means|House Ways and Means Committee]], since Congress would have to pass legislation rolling back the treaty's provisions if Trump tries to withdraw from the pact.<ref>{{cite news |title=Canada, Mexico vow to remain at NAFTA negotiating table | author1=Laura Stone |author2=Robert Fife |work=The Globe and Mail |date=October 13, 2017 |page=A1}}</ref>

From June to late August 2018, Canada was sidelined as the United States and Mexico held bilateral talks.<ref name="CBC_Gollom_NAFTA_2018">{{cite news |url=https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nafta-trade-canada-mexico-us-trudeau-trump-1.4803952 |title=Canada had little choice but to play it cool in NAFTA talks, trade experts say |quote="Charm offensive hadn't worked with U.S., so there was not much Trudeau could have done to save NAFTA, say some" |first=Mark |last=Gollom |newspaper=CBC News |date=August 30, 2018 |access-date=September 2, 2018 |archive-date=March 17, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210317114044/https://www.cbc.ca/news/politics/nafta-trade-canada-mexico-us-trudeau-trump-1.4803952 |url-status=live }}</ref> On 27 August 2018 Mexico and the United States announced they had reached a bilateral understanding on a revamped NAFTA trade deal that included provisions that would boost automobile production in the U.S.,<ref>{{cite news |url=http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-nafta-usmex-deal-20180827-story.html |title=U.S. and Mexico strike preliminary accord on NAFTA; Canada expected to return to bargaining table |work=[[Los Angeles Times]] |first=Don |last=Lee |date=August 27, 2018 |access-date=August 27, 2018 |archive-date=April 17, 2021 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210417080556/https://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-nafta-usmex-deal-20180827-story.html |url-status=live }}</ref> a 10-year data protection period against generic drug production on an expanded list of products that benefits pharmaceutical companies, particularly US makers producers of [[Specialty drugs in the United States|high-cost]] [[Biopharmaceutical|biologic drugs]], a [[Sunset provision|sunset clause]]—a 16-year expiration date with regular 6-year reviews to possibly renew the agreement for additional 16-year terms, and an increased ''[[de minimis]]'' threshold in which Mexico raised the ''de minimis'' value to $100 from $50 regarding online duty- and tax-free purchases.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/27/us/politics/us-mexico-nafta-deal.html|title=Trump Reaches Revised Trade Deal With Mexico, Threatening to Leave Out Canada|newspaper=The New York Times|date=August 27, 2018|access-date=September 30, 2018|archive-date=September 30, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180930032603/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/08/27/us/politics/us-mexico-nafta-deal.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref name="ottawacitizen_2018"/>

According to an August 30 article in ''[[The Economist]]'', Mexico agreed to increase the [[rules of origin]] threshold which would mean that 75% as opposed to the previous 62.5% of a vehicle's components must be made in North America to avoid tariffs.<ref name="economist_goingsouth_2018">{{cite news |url=https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/08/30/americas-deal-with-mexico-will-make-nafta-worse |series=Going south |title=America's deal with Mexico will make NAFTA worse |quote=Its costly new regulations result from flawed economic logic |date=August 30, 2018 |access-date=September 2, 2018 |newspaper=[[The Economist]] |archive-date=September 2, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180902042723/https://www.economist.com/leaders/2018/08/30/americas-deal-with-mexico-will-make-nafta-worse |url-status=live }}</ref> Since car makers currently import less expensive components from Asia, under the revised agreement, consumers would pay more for vehicles.<ref name="financialpost_McLeod_2018">{{cite news |url=https://business.financialpost.com/transportation/autos/trumps-mexico-deal-is-a-roadmap-to-higher-car-prices-industry-analysts-say |title=Trump's Mexico deal is a roadmap to higher car prices, industry analysts say |quote=Rules of origin and labour requirements will pass costs on to consumers |date=August 30, 2018 |access-date=September 2, 2018 |work=Financial Post |first=James |last=Mcleod |location=Toronto, Ontario |archive-date=August 31, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180831175751/https://business.financialpost.com/transportation/autos/trumps-mexico-deal-is-a-roadmap-to-higher-car-prices-industry-analysts-say |url-status=live }}</ref> As well, approximately 40 to 45 per cent of vehicle components must be made by workers earning a minimum of US$16 per hour, in contrast to the current US$2.30 an hour that a worker earns on average in a Mexican car manufacturing plant.<ref name="economist_goingsouth_2018"/><ref name="financialpost_McLeod_2018"/> ''The Economist'' described this as placing "Mexican carmaking into a straitjacket".<ref name="economist_goingsouth_2018"/>

Trudeau and Canadian Foreign Minister [[Chrystia Freeland]] announced that they were willing to join the agreement if it was in Canada's interests.<ref>{{cite news |work=BBC News |url=https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45323634 |title=Trump announces 'incredible' trade deal with Mexico |date=27 August 2018 |access-date=September 2, 2018 |archive-date=August 30, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180830122804/https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-45323634 |url-status=live }}</ref> Freeland returned from her European diplomatic tour early, cancelling a planned visit to [[Ukraine]], to participate in NAFTA negotiations in [[Washington, D.C.]] in late August.<ref>[[Ukrainian Independent Information Agency]], [https://www.unian.info/politics/10239375-canada-s-foreign-minister-postpones-visit-to-ukraine-over-urgent-talks-in-u-s.html Canada's Foreign Minister postpones visit to Ukraine over urgent talks in U.S.] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180829110249/https://www.unian.info/politics/10239375-canada-s-foreign-minister-postpones-visit-to-ukraine-over-urgent-talks-in-u-s.html |date=August 29, 2018 }}, 29 August 2018</ref> According to an August 31 ''[[Canadian Press]]'' published in the ''[[Ottawa Citizen]]'', key issues under debate included [[supply management (Canada)|supply management]], Chapter 19, pharmaceuticals, cultural exemption, the sunset clause, and ''[[de minimis]]'' thresholds.<ref name="ottawacitizen_2018">{{cite news |url=https://ottawacitizen.com/pmn/commodities-business-pmn/agriculture-commodities-business-pmn/naftas-sticking-points-key-hurdles-to-clear-on-the-way-to-a-deal/wcm/ee257d4c-d632-4336-a6d6-392449f20c68 |title=NAFTA's sticking points: Key hurdles to clear on the way to a deal |newspaper=The Ottawa Citizen via Canadian Press |date=August 30, 2018 |access-date=September 2, 2018 |location=Ottawa, Ontario |archive-date=September 3, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180903045716/https://ottawacitizen.com/pmn/commodities-business-pmn/agriculture-commodities-business-pmn/naftas-sticking-points-key-hurdles-to-clear-on-the-way-to-a-deal/wcm/ee257d4c-d632-4336-a6d6-392449f20c68 |url-status=live }}</ref>

Although President Donald Trump warned Canada on September 1 that he would exclude them from a new trade agreement unless Canada submitted to his demands, it is not clear that the Trump administration had the authority to do so without the approval of Congress.<ref name="CRS_Villarreal_2018">{{cite report |url=https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R44981.pdf |title=NAFTA Renegotiation and Modernization |first1=M. Angeles |last1=Villarreal |first2=Ian F. |last2=Fergusson |date=July 26, 2018 |access-date=September 2, 2018 |work=[[Congressional Research Service]] (CRS) |pages=47 |archive-date=June 5, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180605192107/https://fas.org/sgp/crs/row/R44981.pdf |url-status=live }}</ref>{{rp|34–6}}<ref name="BBC_NAFTA_Canada_2018">{{cite news |url=http://bbcworldinfo.com/2018/09/02/trump-canada-will-be-out-of-trade-deal-unless-its-fair/ |title=Trump: Canada 'will be out' of trade deal unless it's 'fair' |date=September 2, 2018 |work=BBC |access-date=September 2, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181121184602/http://bbcworldinfo.com/2018/09/02/trump-canada-will-be-out-of-trade-deal-unless-its-fair/ |archive-date=November 21, 2018 |url-status=dead }}</ref><ref name="VOX_Aleem_2017">{{cite news |url=https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/26/16505508/nafta-congress-block-trump-withdraw-trade-power |title=We asked 6 experts if Congress could stop Trump from eliminating NAFTA |first=Zeeshan |last=Aleem |date=October 26, 2017 |access-date=September 2, 2018 |work=VOX |archive-date=September 3, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180903050021/https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/10/26/16505508/nafta-congress-block-trump-withdraw-trade-power |url-status=live }}</ref><ref name="Edmonton_Journal_CP">{{cite news |url=https://edmontonjournal.com/news/canada/trump-warns-congress-not-to-interfere-with-nafta-negotiations/wcm/e725fb85-fb5c-46a4-b084-a371882c3ac6 |newspaper=Edmonton Journal |date=September 2, 2018 |access-date=September 2, 2018 |title=Donald Trump threatens to cancel NAFTA entirely if Congress interferes with his plans |archive-date=September 3, 2018 |archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180903050009/https://edmontonjournal.com/news/canada/trump-warns-congress-not-to-interfere-with-nafta-negotiations/wcm/e725fb85-fb5c-46a4-b084-a371882c3ac6 |url-status=live }}</ref>

On September 30, 2018, the day of the deadline for the Canada–U.S. negotiations, a preliminary deal between the two countries was reached, thus preserving the trilateral pact when the Trump administration submits the agreement before Congress.<ref>{{cite web|url=https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/30/politics/trump-nafta-canada/index.html|publisher=CNN|date=September 30, 2018|access-date=September 30, 2018|title=US and Canada reach deal on NAFTA|archive-date=October 1, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20181001005019/https://www.cnn.com/2018/09/30/politics/trump-nafta-canada/index.html|url-status=live}}</ref> The new name for the agreement was the "[[United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement|United States—Mexico—Canada Agreement]]" (USMCA) and came into effect on July 1, 2020.<ref>{{cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/30/us/politics/us-canada-nafta-deal-deadline.html|title=U.S. and Canada Reach Deal to Salvage Nafta|newspaper=The New York Times|date=September 30, 2018|access-date=September 30, 2018|archive-date=March 17, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210317114126/https://www.nytimes.com/2018/09/30/us/politics/us-canada-nafta-deal-deadline.html|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|last=Swanson|first=Ana|date=July 1, 2020|title=As New NAFTA Takes Effect, Much Remains Undone|language=en-US|work=The New York Times|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/01/business/economy/usmca-takes-effect.html|access-date=August 12, 2020|archive-date=August 31, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200831042312/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/01/business/economy/usmca-takes-effect.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

=== Impact of withdrawing from NAFTA ===
Following Donald Trump's [[2016 United States presidential election|election to the presidency]], a range of trade experts said that pulling out of NAFTA as Trump proposed would have a range of unintended consequences for the U.S., including reduced access to the U.S.'s biggest export markets, a reduction in economic growth, and increased prices for gasoline, cars, fruits, and vegetables.<ref name=":10">Eric Martin, [https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-10-01/trump-killing-nafta-could-mean-big-unintended-consequences-for-the-u-s- Trump Killing Nafta Could Mean Big Unintended Consequences for the U.S.] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210219182255/https://www.bloomberg.com/tosv2.html?vid=&uuid=7c69e400-72df-11eb-a3eb-61323706aade&url=L25ld3MvYXJ0aWNsZXMvMjAxNS0xMC0wMS90cnVtcC1raWxsaW5nLW5hZnRhLWNvdWxkLW1lYW4tYmlnLXVuaW50ZW5kZWQtY29uc2VxdWVuY2VzLWZvci10aGUtdS1zLQ== |date=February 19, 2021 }}, Bloomberg Business (October 1, 2015).</ref> The worst affected sectors would be textiles, agriculture and automobiles.<ref name=":11">{{Cite news|url=https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/02/daily-chart-2|title=Which American producers would suffer from ending NAFTA?|newspaper=The Economist|access-date=2017-02-19|archive-date=October 20, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20171020104649/https://www.economist.com/blogs/graphicdetail/2017/02/daily-chart-2|url-status=live}}</ref><ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.wsj.com/articles/denim-dilemma-1486900803|title=Denim Dilemma|last=Journal|first=Julie Wernau {{!}} Photographs by Mark Mahaney for The Wall Street|date=2017-02-12|newspaper=Wall Street Journal|access-date=2017-02-12|issn=0099-9660|archive-date=February 12, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170212225437/https://www.wsj.com/articles/denim-dilemma-1486900803|url-status=live}}</ref>

According to [[Tufts University]] political scientist [[Daniel W. Drezner]], the Trump administration's desire to return relations with Mexico to the pre-NAFTA era are misguided. Drezner argued that NAFTA made it easier for Mexico to transform to a real democracy and become a country that views itself as North American. If Trump acts on many of the threats that he has made against Mexico, it is not inconceivable that Mexicans would turn to left-wing populist strongmen, as several South American countries have. At the very least, US-Mexico relations would worsen, with adverse implications for cooperation on border security, counterterrorism, [[Mexican Drug War|drug-war operations]], deportations and managing Central American [[Human migration|migration]].<ref name=":7" />

According to Chad P. Bown (senior fellow at the [[Peterson Institute for International Economics]]), "a renegotiated NAFTA that would reestablish [[trade barrier]]s is unlikely to help workers who lost their jobs—regardless of the cause—take advantage of new employment opportunities".<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/02/15/what-is-nafta-and-what-would-happen-to-u-s-trade-without-it/|title=What is NAFTA, and what would happen to U.S. trade without it?|newspaper=Washington Post|access-date=2017-02-15|archive-date=February 15, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170215151042/https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/monkey-cage/wp/2017/02/15/what-is-nafta-and-what-would-happen-to-u-s-trade-without-it/|url-status=live}}</ref>

According to Harvard economist [[Marc Melitz]], "recent research estimates that the repeal of NAFTA would not increase car production in the United States".<ref name=":8">{{Cite web|url=http://econofact.org/driving-home-the-importance-of-nafta|title=Driving Home the Importance of NAFTA {{!}} Econofact|website=Econofact|language=en-US|access-date=2017-02-15|archive-date=February 16, 2017|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20170216055325/http://econofact.org/driving-home-the-importance-of-nafta|url-status=live}}</ref> Melitz noted that this would cost manufacturing jobs.<ref name=":8" />{{clarify|date=November 2017}}

== Trans-Pacific Partnership ==
{{Update|section|date=February 2021}}
If the original [[Trans-Pacific Partnership]] (TPP) had come into effect, existing agreements such as NAFTA would be reduced to those provisions that do not conflict with the TPP, or that require greater trade liberalization than the TPP.<ref>{{cite news
 | last =Isfeld
 | first =Gordon
 | title =Forget NAFTA, the TPP is the new 'gold standard' of global trade
 | newspaper =Financial Post
 | publisher =National Post
 | date =12 October 2015
 | url =http://business.financialpost.com/news/economy/forget-nafta-the-tpp-is-the-new-gold-standard-of-global-trade
 | access-date =31 December 2015 }}</ref> However, only [[Canada]] and [[Mexico]] would have the prospect of becoming members of the [[Trans-Pacific Partnership|TPP]] after [[President of the United States|U.S. President]] [[Donald Trump]] withdrew the [[United States]] from the agreement in January 2017. In May 2017, the 11 remaining members of the TPP, including Canada and Mexico, agreed to proceed with a [[Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership|revised version]] of the trade deal without U.S. participation.<ref>{{Cite web|url=https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/20/tpp-nations-agree-to-pursue-trade-deal-without-us.html|title=TPP nations agree to pursue trade deal without US| last=Jegarajah | first=Sri | last2=Dale | first2=Craig  | last3=Shaffer | first3=Leslie  |date=2017-05-21|website=CNBC|access-date=July 4, 2017|archive-date=2019-07-03|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20190703192456/https://www.cnbc.com/2017/05/20/tpp-nations-agree-to-pursue-trade-deal-without-us.html|url-status=live}}</ref>

== American public opinion on NAFTA ==
{{Main|US public opinion on the North American Free Trade Agreement}}
The American public was largely divided on its view of the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), with a wide partisan gap in beliefs. In a February 2018 Gallup Poll, 48% of Americans said NAFTA was good for the U.S., while 46% said it was bad.<ref name=":15">{{Cite news|url=http://news.gallup.com/poll/204269/americans-split-whether-nafta-good-bad.aspx|title=Americans Split on Whether NAFTA Is Good or Bad for U.S.|last=Swift|first=Art|work=Gallup.com|access-date=2018-04-30|language=en-us|archive-date=April 22, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180422202536/http://news.gallup.com/poll/204269/americans-split-whether-nafta-good-bad.aspx|url-status=live}}</ref>

According to a journal from the ''Law and Business Review of the Americas (LBRA)'', U.S. public opinion of NAFTA centers around three issues: NAFTA's impact on the creation or destruction of American jobs, NAFTA's impact on the environment, and NAFTA's impact on immigrants entering the U.S.<ref>{{Cite web|url=http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/lbramrca11&div=28&g_sent=1&casa_token=&collection=journals|title=Redirecting ...|website=heinonline.org|access-date=2018-04-30|archive-date=May 1, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180501093753/http://heinonline.org/HOL/Page?handle=hein.journals/lbramrca11&div=28&g_sent=1&casa_token=&collection=journals|url-status=live}}</ref>

After President Trump's election in 2016, support for NAFTA became very polarized between Republicans and Democrats. Donald Trump expressed negative views of NAFTA, calling it "the single worst trade deal ever approved in this country".<ref>{{Cite news|url=https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/27/us/politics/transcript-debate.html|title=Transcript of the First Debate|date=2016-09-27|work=The New York Times|access-date=2018-04-30|language=en-US|issn=0362-4331|archive-date=March 17, 2021|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20210317114039/https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/27/us/politics/transcript-debate.html|url-status=live}}</ref> Republican support for NAFTA decreased from 43% support in 2008 to 34% in 2017. Meanwhile, Democratic support for NAFTA increased from 41% support in 2008 to 71% in 2017.<ref name="Affairs">{{Cite web|url=https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/publication/pro-trade-views-rise-partisan-divisions-nafta-widen|title=Pro-Trade Views on the Rise, Partisan Divisions on NAFTA Widen {{!}} Chicago Council on Global Affairs|last=Affairs|first=Chicago Council on Global|website=www.thechicagocouncil.org|language=en|access-date=2018-04-30|archive-date=November 26, 2020|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20201126095858/https://www.thechicagocouncil.org/publication/pro-trade-views-rise-partisan-divisions-nafta-widen|url-status=dead}}</ref>

The political gap was especially large in concern to views on free trade with Mexico. As opposed to a favorable view of free trade with Canada, whom 79% of American described as a fair trade partner, only 47% of Americans believed Mexico practices fair trade. The gap widened between Democrats and Republicans: 60% of Democrats believed Mexico is practicing fair trade, while only 28% of Republicans did. This was the highest level from Democrats and the lowest level from Republicans ever recorded by the Chicago Council Survey. Republicans had more negative views of Canada as a fair trade partner than Democrats as well.<ref name="Affairs"/>

NAFTA had strong support from young Americans. In a February 2017 Gallup poll, 73% of Americans aged 18–29 said NAFTA was good for the U.S., showing higher support than any other U.S. age group.<ref name=":15" /> It also had slightly stronger support from unemployed Americans than from employed Americans.<ref>{{Cite news|url=http://news.gallup.com/poll/113200/opinion-briefing-north-american-free-trade-agreement.aspx|title=Opinion Briefing: North American Free Trade Agreement|last=English|first=Cynthia|work=Gallup.com|access-date=May 2, 2025|language=en-us|archive-date=May 1, 2018|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180501224545/http://news.gallup.com/poll/113200/opinion-briefing-north-american-free-trade-agreement.aspx|url-status=live}}</ref>

== See also ==
{{portal|Economics|North America|Canada|United States|Mexico}}
* [[United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement]] (USMCA)
* [[North American integration]]
* [[North American Leaders' Summit]] (NALS)
* [[Canada's Global Markets Action Plan]]
* [[The Fight for Canada]]
* [[Comprehensive Economic and Trade Agreement]] (CETA)
* [[North American Transportation Statistics Interchange]]
* [[Pacific Alliance]]
* [[Trans-Pacific Partnership]] (TPP)
* [[Free trade debate]]
* [[US public opinion on the North American Free Trade Agreement]]
* [[Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership]] (CPTPP)
{{clear}}

==Notes==
{{notelist}}

== References ==
{{reflist|30em}}

== Further reading ==
* Altieri, Morena. "New historical chapter for North American trade United States, México, Canada Agreement-USMCA." ''Sociology and Social Work Review'' 5.2 (2021): 29–39. [https://globalresearchpublishing.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/New-historical-chapter-for-North-American-trade-United-States-Me%CC%81xico-Canada-Agreement-USMCA.pdf online] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220607070815/https://globalresearchpublishing.com/wp-content/uploads/2022/01/New-historical-chapter-for-North-American-trade-United-States-Me%CC%81xico-Canada-Agreement-USMCA.pdf |date=June 7, 2022 }}
* Beaulieu, Eugene, and Dylan Klemen. "You Say USMCA or T-MEC and I Say CUSMA: The New NAFTA-Let's Call the Whole Thing On." ''The School of Public Policy Publications'' (2020) on Trump's changes [http://journalhosting.ucalgary.ca/index.php/sppp/article/view/70040/54002 online].
* Boskin, Michael J. ed. ''NAFTA at 20 : the North American Free Trade Agreement's achievements and challenges'' (Hoover, 2014) [https://archive.org/details/naftaat20northam0000naft online]
* Burfisher, Mary E., Sherman Robinson, and Karen Thierfelder. "The impact of NAFTA on the United States." ''Journal of economic perspectives'' 15.1 (2001): 125–144. [https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.15.1.125 online] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220428111056/https://pubs.aeaweb.org/doi/pdfplus/10.1257/jep.15.1.125 |date=April 28, 2022 }}
* Cameron, Maxwell A., Brian W. Tomlin (2002) ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=ie1n1_LhKCQC&dq=NAFTA&pg=PP1 The making of NAFTA: how the deal was done]''. Cornell University Press. {{ISBN|0-8014-8781-1}}.
* Chambers, Edward J. and  Peter H. Smith (2002) ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=zfXN4iaUyVQC&dq=NAFTA&pg=PP1 NAFTA in the new millennium]''. University of California, San Diego. Center for U.S.-Mexican Studies {{ISBN|0-88864-386-1}}
* Csehi, Robert, and Eugenia C. Heldt. "Populism as a ‘corrective’ to trade agreements? ‘America First’ and the readjustment of NAFTA." ''International Politics'' (2021): 1-17. on Trump's impact [https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41311-021-00306-3 online] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220508041911/https://link.springer.com/article/10.1057/s41311-021-00306-3 |date=May 8, 2022 }}
* Deblock, Christian. "Canada and International Regulatory Cooperation: A Comparison of USMCA, CETA and CPTPP." in ''NAFTA 2.0'' (Palgrave Macmillan, Cham, 2022) pp.&nbsp;181–197.
* Fairbrother, Malcolm (2014). "Economists, Capitalists, and the Making of Globalization: North American Free Trade in Comparative-Historical Perspective". ''American Journal of Sociology''. '''119''' (5): 1324–1379.
* Folsom, Ralph H. ''NAFTA and free trade in the Americas in a nutshell'' (2012) [[iarchive:naftafreetradein0000fols|online]]
* Francis, John, and Yuqing Zheng. "Trade liberalization, unemployment and adjustment: evidence from NAFTA using state level data." ''Applied Economics'' 43.13 (2011): 1657–1671.
* Frittelli, John. ''North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) Implementation: The Future of Commercial Trucking Across the Mexican Border'' (Congressional Research Service, 2010) [https://archive.org/details/DTIC_ADA514769 online] 
* Fukao, Kyoji, Toshihiro Okubo, and Robert M. Stern. "An econometric analysis of trade diversion under NAFTA." ''North American Journal of Economics and Finance'' 14.1 (2003): 3-24. [http://www.rieti.go.jp/jp/publications/dp/02e011.pdf online] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220301202822/https://www.rieti.go.jp/jp/publications/dp/02e011.pdf |date=March 1, 2022 }}
* Gladstone, Fiona, et al. "NAFTA and environment after 25 years: A retrospective analysis of the US-Mexico border." ''Environmental Science & Policy'' 119 (2021): 18–33. [https://liverman.faculty.arizona.edu/sites/liverman.faculty.arizona.edu/files/2021-06/Gladstone%20Liverman%20Sanchez%20and%20Morales%202020%20NAFTA.pdf online] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20211017135959/https://liverman.faculty.arizona.edu/sites/liverman.faculty.arizona.edu/files/2021-06/Gladstone%20Liverman%20Sanchez%20and%20Morales%202020%20NAFTA.pdf |date=October 17, 2021 }}
* Hernández Pérez, Juan Luis. "Mexican agriculture from NAFTA to USMCA: Theoretical considerations, general balance, and development perspectives." ''El trimestre económico'' 88.352 (2021): 1121–1152. [http://www.scielo.org.mx/pdf/ete/v88n352/2448-718X-ete-88-352-1121.pdf online] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20220607070805/http://www.scielo.org.mx/pdf/ete/v88n352/2448-718X-ete-88-352-1121.pdf |date=June 7, 2022 }}
* Holian, David B., Timothy B. Krebs, and Michael H. Walsh. "Constituency opinion, Ross Perot, and roll-call behavior in the US House: The case of the NAFTA." ''Legislative Studies Quarterly'' (1997): 369–392.
* Hufbauer. Gary Clyde, and Jeffrey J. Schott (2005) ''[https://books.google.com/books?id=Hf12VNRekqEC&dq=NAFTA%20Revisited%3A%20Achievements%20and%20Challenges&pg=PP1 NAFTA Revisited: Achievements and Challenges]''  Washington, D.C.: Institute for International Economics {{ISBN|0-88132-334-9}} [https://archive.org/details/naftarevisitedac00hufb online]
* Kennedy, Kevin, ed. ''The first decade of NAFTA: the future of free trade in North America'' (BRILL, 2021).
* Meylor, Dan, and Kishore G. Kulkarni. "NAFTA in Mexico: What Worked? And What Did Not?." ''SAMVAD'' 23 (2022): 1–7. [http://samvad.sibmpune.edu.in/index.php/samvad/article/viewFile/167188/114573 online] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240605000832/https://samvad.sibmpune.edu.in/index.php/samvad/article/viewFile/167188/114573 |date=June 5, 2024 }}
*[https://www.poynter.org/news/everything-you-should-know-about-north-american-trade-8-fact-checks Poynter. 2018. Everything you should know about North American trade, in 8 fact checks.] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180924191843/https://www.poynter.org/news/everything-you-should-know-about-north-american-trade-8-fact-checks |date=September 24, 2018 }}
* Ramirez, Miguel D. "Mexico under NAFTA: a critical assessment." ''Quarterly Review of Economics and Finance'' 43.5 (2003): 863–892. [https://www.academia.edu/download/47119397/s1062-9769_2803_2900052-820160708-31403-tyrxxo.pdf online]{{dead link|date=January 2025|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}
* Rosenberg, Jerry M. ed. ''Encyclopedia of the North American Free Trade Agreement, the New American Community, and Latin-American Trade'' (1995) 
* Simons, Herbert W. "Judging a policy proposal by the company it keeps: The Gore‐Perot NAFTA debate." ''Quarterly Journal of Speech'' 82.3 (1996): 274–287.
* Skonieczny, Amy. "Constructing NAFTA: Myth, representation, and the discursive construction of US foreign policy." ''International Studies Quarterly'' 45.3 (2001): 433-454 [https://www.academia.edu/download/45547176/ISQ_NAFTA_article.pdf online]{{dead link|date=January 2025|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}}
* Thorbecke, Willem, and Christian Eigen-Zucchi. "Did NAFTA cause a 'giant sucking sound'?." ''Journal of Labor Research'' 23.4 (2002): 647-658 [https://www.academia.edu/download/48273453/s12122-002-1033-320160824-10755-1irzk31.pdf online]{{dead link|date=January 2025|bot=medic}}{{cbignore|bot=medic}} .
* Van Haren, Ian, and Claudia Masferrer. "Mexican migration to Canada: Temporary worker programs, visa imposition, and NAFTA shape flows." (2022). [https://osf.io/preprints/socarxiv/pkfza/download online]
* Villareal, M., and Ian F. Fergusson. (2017) "The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA)." (CRS Report R42965). Washington: Congressional Research Service [https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://scholar.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2939&context=key_workplace online free] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20180612143714/https://digitalcommons.ilr.cornell.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?referer=https://scholar.google.com/&httpsredir=1&article=2939&context=key_workplace |date=June 12, 2018 }}; a U.S. government document

==External links==
{{Commons category}}
* {{usurped|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20200528220020/https://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/Home/Texts-of-the-Agreement/North-American-Free-Trade-Agreement Text of the agreement]}}, on the {{usurped|1=[https://web.archive.org/web/20231006183914/https://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/ official website]}} of the NAFTA Secretariat.
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20090118061601/http://www.naftanow.org/ NaftaNow.org], jointly developed by the Governments of Canada, Mexico and the United States of America.
*[https://findrulesoforigin.org/home/agreement-detail?fta=653 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) page] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200804041034/https://findrulesoforigin.org/home/agreement-detail?fta=653 |date=August 4, 2020 }} on the Rules of Origin Facilitator, with member countries' status and access to legal documents.
* Abbott, Frederick M. [https://web.archive.org/web/20110303202804/http://www.mpepil.com/sample_article?id=%2Fepil%2Fentries%2Flaw-9780199231690-e2083&recno=8& North American Free Trade Agreement, Case Law] (''[[Max Planck Encyclopedia of Public International Law]]'').
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20070601090731/http://www.ustr.gov/Trade_Agreements/Regional/NAFTA/Section_Index.html Office of the U.S. Trade Representative – NAFTA statistics page]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20111125001059/http://www.fas.usda.gov/itp/Policy/NAFTA/nafta.asp U.S. Department of Agriculture NAFTA links page]
{{Gutenberg|no=89|name=North American Free Trade Agreement, 1992 Oct. 7}}
* [http://wits.worldbank.org/GPTAD/PDF/archive/NAFTA.pdf NAFTA document] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20140407081024/http://wits.worldbank.org/GPTAD/PDF/archive/NAFTA.pdf |date=April 7, 2014 }} in [[World Bank]]'s  [[World Integrated Trade Solution]]
* [https://web.archive.org/web/20120523231250/http://wits.worldbank.org/gptad/library.aspx GPTAD database library]
*[https://findrulesoforigin.org/home/agreement-detail?fta=653 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) page] {{Webarchive|url=https://web.archive.org/web/20200804041034/https://findrulesoforigin.org/home/agreement-detail?fta=653 |date=August 4, 2020 }} on the Rules of Origin Facilitator, with member countries' status and access to legal documents.
{{Trilateral relations of Canada, Mexico, and the United States}}
{{Free trade agreements of Canada}}
{{Free trade agreements of the United States}}
{{Presidency of George H. W. Bush}}
{{Presidency of Bill Clinton}}

{{Authority control}}

[[Category:North American Free Trade Agreement| ]]
[[Category:1994 in American politics]]
[[Category:1994 in Canada]]
[[Category:1994 in Mexico]]
[[Category:Lloyd Bentsen]]
[[Category:Economy of North America]]
[[Category:International organizations based in the Americas]]
[[Category:Presidency of George H. W. Bush]]
[[Category:Presidency of Bill Clinton]]
[[Category:Presidency of George W. Bush]]
[[Category:Presidency of Barack Obama]]
[[Category:First presidency of Donald Trump]]
[[Category:Trilateral relations of Canada, Mexico, and the United States]]
[[Category:Free trade agreements of Canada]]
[[Category:Free trade agreements of Mexico]]
[[Category:Free trade agreements of the United States]]
[[Category:Treaties concluded in 1992]]
[[Category:Treaties entered into force in 1994]]
[[Category:Territorial entities in North America]]
[[Category:Articles containing video clips]]
[[Category:Trade blocs]]
[[Category:1994 in economic history]]
[[Category:January 1994 in North America]]
[[Category:Free-trade areas]]
[[Category:International trade law]]
[[Category:1994 establishments in North America]]
[[Category:Canada–United States trade relations]]