If the Trans-Pacific Partnership of Origin (TPP) were to enter into force, existing agreements, such as NAFTA, would be reduced to provisions that do not conflict with the TPP or require greater trade liberalization than the TPP.  However, only Canada and Mexico would have the prospect of becoming members of the TPP after U.S. President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the agreement in January 2017. In May 2017, the remaining 11 members of the TPP, including Canada and Mexico, agreed to pursue a revised version of the trade agreement without U.S. participation.  According to Chad Bown of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the Trump administration`s list is “very consistent with the president`s attitude of loving trade barriers and loving protectionism. This makes NAFTA less of a free trade agreement in many ways.  The considerations expressed by the U.S. representative regarding subsidized state-owned enterprises and currency manipulation are not likely to apply in Canada and Mexico, but are intended to send a message to countries outside North America.  Jeffrey Schott of the Peterson Institute for International Economics stated that it was not possible to conclude renegotiations quickly, while alleviating all concerns on the list.  He also said that it would be difficult to do something about trade deficits.  Under the leadership of President Donald J. Trump, the United States renegotiated the North American Free Trade Agreement and replaced it with an updated and rebalanced agreement that works much better for North America, the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), which came into effect on July 1, 2020.
The USMCA is a mutually beneficial benefit to workers, farmers, farmers and businesses in North America. The agreement creates more balanced and reciprocal trade that supports high-paying jobs for Americans and cultivates the North American economy. Fourth, NAFTA has put in place trade dispute resolution procedures. The parties would begin a formal discussion, followed by a discussion at a meeting of the Free Trade Committee, if necessary. If the disagreement has not been resolved, a panel has considered the dispute. The trial helped all parties avoid costly prosecutions in local courts and helped them interpret THE complex NAFTA rules and procedures. These commercial disputes also applied to investors. These working clauses not only include minimum obligations to protect human rights at work and refer to the specific international labour standards adopted by the ILO, but also provide for conflict resolution systems and parallel means and cooperation/consultation of workers. In fact, a growing number of bilateral free trade agreements – particularly those signed by Canada, the United States and the European Union – contain social and working provisions in this regard. The U.S. Chamber of Commerce attributed to nafta that U.S.
trade in goods and services with Canada and Mexico increased from $337 billion in 1993 to $1.2 trillion in 2011, while the AFL-CIO held the agreement responsible for sending 700,000 U.S. manufacturing jobs to Mexico at that time.  Under NAFTA, many small U.S. companies depended on exporting their products to Canada or Mexico. According to the U.S. Trade Representative, this trade has supported more than 140,000 small and medium-sized enterprises in the United States. (94) Sixth, the agreement provided business travellers with easy access to all three countries. A 2007 study showed that NAFTA had “a significant impact on the volume of international trade, but a modest impact on prices and well-being.”  After the United States