Speaking to reporters at the G7 summit in Paris, President Donald Trump declared he would “prefer not to have” the USMCA, the trilateral trade agreement linking the United States, Canada and Mexico, and that America “is better without it.” Yet in the same breath he left the door ajar, conceding it was “possible I might sign it.” The contradictory signals, delivered at the close of the gathering in France, mark the most explicit threat yet to the pact’s survival, just weeks before a crucial review deadline on 1 July. Trump justified his ambivalence by recalling that he championed the USMCA in his first term only because its predecessor, NAFTA—which he called “the worst trade deal ever made”—lacked an exit clause. The new agreement, by contrast, was designed with a six-year review mechanism that could lead to its termination.

That mechanism is now the focus of intense diplomatic activity. Under the terms that took effect on 1 July 2020, the three nations must decide by the sixth anniversary whether to extend the pact for a full sixteen years, locking it in until 2042, or to allow it to continue under annual reviews, a state of semi-permanent uncertainty. Ottawa and Mexico City have already sent formal letters to Washington requesting the full extension, viewing the agreement as essential to the integrated continental economy. The Trump administration, however, has not publicly stated its intentions, and officials in Washington have signalled that the deadline will almost certainly be allowed to pass without a joint renewal.

Viewed from the Canadian and Mexican capitals, Trump’s latest remarks are a source of deep unease but not outright panic. Both governments recall the turbulent renegotiation of NAFTA that ultimately produced the USMCA, a process in which Trump’s aggressive rhetoric eventually gave way to a compromise that preserved tariff-free access to the US market. Mexican analysts note that Trump’s insistence on the pact’s sunset clause was always a double-edged sword: it provided an escape hatch, but also a lever for periodic renegotiation. In Ottawa, officials are quietly emphasising that the agreement remains in force even without a formal extension, though the shift to annual reviews would chill investment and complicate long-term planning for industries that depend on cross-border supply chains.

Trade analysts in London and Brussels see the standoff as part of a broader pattern of US scepticism towards multilateral trade architecture. A collapse or prolonged drift of the USMCA would reverberate far beyond North America, disrupting highly integrated sectors such as automotive manufacturing and agriculture, and potentially emboldening protectionist voices elsewhere. Yet Trump’s mixed messaging—threatening termination while hinting at a possible deal—may also be a calculated negotiating tactic aimed at extracting further concessions on rules of origin or digital trade. For now, the continent’s businesses are left to parse the president’s words, knowing that the 1 July deadline is less a cliff edge than the start of a new phase of uncertainty that could reshape the world’s largest free-trade area.