On Wednesday, July 1, 2026, President Donald Trump decided to sink the long-term renewal of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada (USMCA) trade agreement. This is the one that the first Trump administration negotiated to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement.

Officials, negotiators, and industry executives have been looking at this for a long time. The possibility was built into the frame of the original agreement through Article 34.7: Review and Term Extension .

“This Agreement shall terminate 16 years after the date of its entry into force, unless each Party confirms it wishes to continue this Agreement for a new 16-year term, in accordance with the procedures set forth in paragraphs 2 through 6,” the trade agreement said. “On the sixth anniversary of the entry into force of this Agreement, the Commission shall meet to conduct a ‘joint review’ of the operation of this Agreement, review any recommendations for action submitted by a Party, and decide on any appropriate actions. Each Party may provide recommendations for the Commission to take action at least one month before the Commission’s joint review meeting takes place.”

That sixth anniversary was July 1, 2026. If all three of the signatories agreed in writing to extend the term, it would last under the existing terms for another 16 years

Any of the three signatories, whether the U.S., Mexico, or Canada, could decide not to extend the agreement for an additional 16-year period. If so, then the countries meet every year “for the remainder of the term of this Agreement.”

The remainder of that term is another 10 years, meaning, in theory, a decade of annual meetings to decide what happens. Trade negotiations are complex discussions that can easily take months before the parties reach a final agreement.

“If you drag us into a constant review process, you’re going to choke off investment,” Mexico Economy Minister Marcelo Ebrard said last week on a podcast, according to The New York Times . “That completely defeats the purpose of replacing your Asian suppliers. You can’t have it both ways.”

Until February 2019, China was the largest trade partner of the U.S., as the Library of Congress explains. Then came the trade war, started by Trump in his first term, and then came the USMCA, intended to replace the previous North American Free Trade Agreement. Mexico and Canada became this country’s two largest trade partners. Economies of the three have been tightly integrated.

In a January 29, 2020, ceremony, Trump said, “The USMCA is the largest, fairest, most balanced, and modern trade agreement ever achieved. There’s never been anything like it. Other countries are now looking at it, but there can’t be a border like that because, believe it or not, that is by far the biggest border anywhere in the world, in terms of economy, in terms of people.”

The best deal ever. A “colossal victory for our farmers, ranchers, energy workers, factory workers, and American workers in all 50 states.”

Now the U.S. wants changes. Fair enough, it’s been six years. Sometimes things, and what people want, change. If everyone recognizes that and negotiates in good faith, it’s possible to make changes predictably.

However, Trump has, for many decades, believed in unpredictability. Making sudden shifts to put others in a negotiation off kilter. It’s a style, but a limited one that depends on someone holding all the power.

That isn’t the case in geopolitics, even when one of the negotiators has immense power. How well has it worked with Iran?

The sudden destruction of a 16-year plan means that for the next 10 years, everything is potentially up for negotiation every single year in a process that can take many months. It is like taking unpredictable tariff strategies and supercharging the effects they can have on the U.S.

It’s going to affect consumers, businesses, government, international relations, global trade. Everything. Potentially far worse than the uncertainty of tariffs in 2025. And there is now no easy or certain way of putting all the parts back together.