Trump's NAFTA Remarks Point to Few Changes for Canada, Plenty for Mexico

Steph Willems
by Steph Willems

After several weeks spent wondering just how the continent’s trade landscape will look after president Donald Trump renegotiates the North American Free Trade Agreement, the business world now has a slightly clearer picture of where the pieces may land.

Trump spoke briefly about his trade goals with both Mexico and Canada after meeting with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau at the White House.

By all appearances, the agreement will change very little for the U.S.’s northern neighbor. During his first days in office, Trump said plainly that he hoped to renegotiate or completely rewrite agreements with other countries. However, there’s little doubt that Trump will push for far greater changes to goods moving across the Rio Grande.

“We’ll be tweaking it,” Trump told reporters when asked about the trade agreement between the U.S. and Canada. He didn’t go into details on what industries might be impacted the most. Trump did say that any trade disparity between the two countries is “a much less severe situation than what’s taken place on the southern border.”

The two men agreed to work together for the benefit of industry and jobs on both sides of the border, reaffirming the two countries’ shared economic interests.

The remarks should help diffuse anxiety felt by automakers and suppliers who feared the financial disruption of a possible northern border tax. While the proposed Mexican border tax wasn’t mentioned, Trump implied that a trade solution wouldn’t be imposed on the U.S.’s southern neighbor.

“We’re going to work with Mexico,” he said. “We’re going to make it a fair deal for both parties.”

What that agreement will look like, and how it will impact automakers, remains to be seen.

Steph Willems
Steph Willems

More by Steph Willems

Comments
Join the conversation
3 of 74 comments
  • Big Al from Oz Big Al from Oz on Feb 14, 2017

    I read in Bloomberg today that countries that buy US dollars for trade and US government borrowings are dumping the USD at a high rate due to Trumps erratic and confusing position. What does this mean. Less dollars and higher interest rates on money. An increase in US export cost. The billions Trump will lose reducing taxes to business, pumping money into infrastructure, military, the wall, etc will cost more. He's already back pedalled with the Chinese and Japanese and he will do the same with Mexico.

    • Onyxtape Onyxtape on Feb 14, 2017

      Exactly. A few high-profile phone calls from the Titans of Industry and everything will go back to business as usual. He was going to negotiate us into a better position in regards to NAFTA and with China? Pfft. Remember this is a guy who LOST money selling steaks, football, and gambling to Americans in America. He's the lousiest of businessmen.

  • Voyager Voyager on Feb 14, 2017

    "Ask not what your country could do for you... But what you could do to personally please me"

  • Honda1 Unions were needed back in the early days, not needed know. There are plenty of rules and regulations and government agencies that keep companies in line. It's just a money grad and nothing more. Fain is a punk!
  • 1995 SC If the necessary number of employees vote to unionize then yes, they should be unionized. That's how it works.
  • Sobhuza Trooper That Dave Thomas fella sounds like the kind of twit who is oh-so-quick to tell us how easy and fun the bus is for any and all of your personal transportation needs. The time to get to and from the bus stop is never a concern. The time waiting for the bus is never a concern. The time waiting for a connection (if there is one) is never a concern. The weather is never a concern. Whatever you might be carrying or intend to purchase is never a concern. Nope, Boo Cars! Yeah Buses! Buses rule!Needless to say, these twits don't actual take the damn bus.
  • MaintenanceCosts Nobody here seems to acknowledge that there are multiple use cases for cars.Some people spend all their time driving all over the country and need every mile and minute of time savings. ICE cars are better for them right now.Some people only drive locally and fly when they travel. For them, there's probably a range number that works, and they don't really need more. For the uses for which we use our EV, that would be around 150 miles. The other thing about a low range requirement is it can make 120V charging viable. If you don't drive more than an average of about 40 miles/day, you can probably get enough electrons through a wall outlet. We spent over two years charging our Bolt only through 120V, while our house was getting rebuilt, and never had an issue.Those are extremes. There are all sorts of use cases in between, which probably represent the majority of drivers. For some users, what's needed is more range. But I think for most users, what's needed is better charging. Retrofit apartment garages like Tim's with 240V outlets at every spot. Install more L3 chargers in supermarket parking lots and alongside gas stations. Make chargers that work like Tesla Superchargers as ubiquitous as gas stations, and EV charging will not be an issue for most users.
  • MaintenanceCosts I don't have an opinion on whether any one plant unionizing is the right answer, but the employees sure need to have the right to organize. Unions or the credible threat of unionization are the only thing, history has proven, that can keep employers honest. Without it, we've seen over and over, the employers have complete power over the workers and feel free to exploit the workers however they see fit. (And don't tell me "oh, the workers can just leave" - in an oligopolistic industry, working conditions quickly converge, and there's not another employer right around the corner.)
Next