The Bilateral Approach in the Next Review of the USMCA
Mexico’s Secretary of Economy, Marcelo Ebrard, has projected that the next review of the Treaty between Mexico, the United States and Canada (USMCA) will likely follow the pattern established during the first administration of US President Donald Trump, where a significant portion of the issues were negotiated bilaterally. According to the official, this dynamic is inevitable due to the very nature of trade relations, where numerous issues are the exclusive responsibility of two of the three signatory nations.
At the end of the event “Minds in Action 2nd edition Made in Mexico”, Ebrard referred to the statements of the trade representative of the United States, Jamieson Greer, who pointed out that the negotiation of the trade agreement would be bilateral. The Mexican Economy Minister interpreted that this position “perhaps refers to the high bilateral content” that the treaty intrinsically has.
The Nature of Trade Issues between Nations
Ebrard based his analysis by explaining that the T-MEC “always has a high bilateral content for natural reasons.” He illustrated this statement with concrete examples of trade flows: “we are the main exporters of tomatoes [to the United States], and on the other hand, Canada’s main export is wood.” This productive specialization generates different and often separate discussion agendas between each pair of countries.
The secretary expanded the perspective with another emblematic case: “we export 90 thousand tons of aluminum, but Canada is the main aluminum producer in North America.” This disparity in industrial profiles and supply chains gives rise to specific negotiating issues between Mexico and Canada, different from those discussed between Mexico and the United States. Ebrard added that there are also “many issues regarding mines” on the bilateral agenda with Canada, which reinforces the need for specific approaches.
Distinction between Bilateral Components and Trilaterality of the Agreement
One of the most important clarifications made by Secretary Ebrard was the distinction between issues that are inherently bilateral and those that require trilateral coordination. He stressed that, while a substantial portion of the discussions focus on two-way relations, the treaty framework retains fundamental pillars that are indivisible. “There are other contents that are trilateral,” he explained, citing as a primary example that the “dispute settlement system is trilateral.”
This dispute settlement mechanism is a backbone of the USMCA, designed to ensure that trade disputes are resolved under a common and binding regulatory framework for the three partners. Its collective nature prevents it from being negotiated or modified in isolation between two countries, preserving the integrity and original balance of the trade pact. Ebrard’s precision suggests that, despite the emphasis on the bilateral, there are institutional safeguards that will maintain the trinational essence of the agreement.
The analysis of the head of Economy provides a crucial frame of reference to understand the complexity of the next review of the T-MEC. Far from being a homogeneous negotiation, it is emerging as a multifaceted process where bilateral talks will coexist with trilateral forums. This approach recognizes the asymmetric economic realities between the partners, allowing specific sectoral issues—from agriculture to heavy industry and mining—to be addressed in depth without neglecting the shared governance mechanisms that give strength to the entire treaty. Ebrard’s anticipation not only clarifies Mexican strategy, but also sets realistic expectations about a process that will define North America’s competitiveness and economic integration in the coming years.
Was this analysis of the dynamics of the T-MEC useful to you? Share this article on your social networks to expand the conversation and explore more content related to international trade policy on our website.
