Critics of a shift toward bilateral trade warn that undermining the trilateral CUSMA framework could trigger significant economic instability across North America. The current agreement is built on the reality that the Canadian, Mexican, and American economies are deeply intertwined. Attempting to decouple these relationships could disrupt complex supply chains, increase costs for consumers, and reduce the competitiveness of North American goods in the global market.
Business leaders and trade experts argue that the strength of the region lies in its collective efficiency. When manufacturers can move parts and materials across borders without friction, they can produce goods at lower costs. Introducing new barriers or renegotiating terms on a piecemeal basis risks creating a patchwork of regulations that would make it harder for companies to operate efficiently. This uncertainty is particularly damaging to long-term investment, as businesses require a predictable environment to commit to large-scale projects.
There is also a concern that moving away from a unified agreement weakens the region's collective bargaining power. By acting as a bloc, North America has historically been better positioned to compete with other major economic powers. Dividing the region could leave individual countries more vulnerable to external pressures and reduce the overall influence of North American trade policy on the world stage.
Ultimately, those who oppose this shift emphasize that stability is the most valuable asset for economic growth. They argue that the focus should be on strengthening the existing trilateral deal rather than risking a return to the uncertainty of the past. The potential for trade wars or retaliatory measures is a significant risk that could harm the very industries that policymakers intend to protect.