Trump says he would rather not have USMCA ahead of July review

Trump’s comments in Paris injected fresh uncertainty into the future of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement as the pact heads toward its July 1 joint review.

Speaking to reporters on June 17, Trump said he would “rather not have” the USMCA, according to Axios. The remark came just days before the scheduled review of the deal, which has become the central deadline in North American trade talks.

The agreement replaced NAFTA and remains the main framework governing trade across the United States, Canada and Mexico. Axios reported that the July 1 review could open the way to a 16-year extension if all three governments agree to continue it.

The comments do not amount to a formal U.S. decision on the agreement’s future. But they add to the uncertainty facing companies, trade officials and investors who are trying to gauge whether the review will produce stability, changes to the pact or a longer period of negotiation.

What Trump said

Trump’s remark was made in Paris, where he was asked about the trade agreement ahead of the looming review date. It was the clearest recent signal that he is not eager to preserve the pact in its current form.

That matters because the USMCA is not just a diplomatic framework. It underpins supply chains that move parts, crops and finished goods across the continent every day. Even a hint that Washington is less committed to the agreement can affect expectations in industries that depend on cross-border rules.

The statement also sharpened attention on the review process itself. Rather than a routine administrative checkpoint, the July 1 deadline is now being watched as a possible turning point in the broader North American trade relationship.

Why the July review matters

Axios reported that the joint review could extend the pact for another 16 years if the three countries agree. That makes the coming deadline significant even though the agreement remains in force today.

The Wall Street Journal reported that Canada’s ambassador said the pact continues through 2036 unless formally renewed, and that Canada’s immediate priority is tariff relief rather than the review alone. That framing shows how the same process is being viewed differently in Washington and Ottawa.

The review is therefore about more than paperwork. It is a moment when the U.S., Canada and Mexico can signal whether they want to preserve the current structure, push for changes, or leave the deal in a more uncertain state while talks continue.

What Canadian officials are saying

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney did not have a formal bilateral meeting with Trump at the G7, but AP reported that the two spoke several times about trade and other issues.

AP also reported that Canadian trade officials met U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and said progress had been made. That suggests the negotiations are still active even as public rhetoric around the agreement has become more pointed.

Canadian officials have also emphasized that tariff pressure is their immediate concern. That is an important distinction: for Ottawa, the practical issues around current trade barriers appear to matter more in the short term than the formal mechanics of the review date.

The people in the talks

The main figures now include Trump, Carney, Canadian trade minister Dominic LeBlanc, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer and Canada’s ambassador to the U.S., Mark Wiseman.

Their comments and meetings indicate a negotiation that is still moving, even without a shared public line on where it should end. Trump’s remarks have raised the temperature, while Canadian officials continue to present the talks as ongoing and manageable.

That mismatch matters. When one side casts doubt on the deal and the other side stresses continuity, the result is not resolution but more uncertainty about the next phase of the relationship.

Stakes for business and supply chains

A weaker agreement, or a prolonged period of uncertainty around it, could affect autos, agriculture and other cross-border industries.

Those sectors rely on predictable rules for sourcing, production and shipment across North America. If the pact is altered or left in limbo, companies may face higher planning costs and more difficulty making investment decisions.

The stakes go beyond the formal review process. Businesses planning North American production need clarity on whether the existing trade framework will remain intact, be revised, or become the starting point for a longer reset.

That is why Trump’s remark drew attention so quickly. Even without an immediate policy change, it signals that the review could be more contentious than a simple extension decision.

What happens next

The next major checkpoint is the July 1 joint review. Officials will be watching for any formal statements from the United States, Canada or Mexico on whether they intend to extend the agreement, revise it or leave it in place while talks continue.

The open questions remain straightforward but significant: whether Washington will support an extension, whether Canada and Mexico will seek changes or only an extension, and whether tariff disputes can be narrowed before the deadline.

For now, the clearest new development is Trump’s statement that he would rather not have the USMCA. That leaves the future of the North American trade pact unsettled just as the review window opens.