USMCA Full Story

USMCA Full Story


 By John Birch Society staff




The United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) is intended to replace the 1994 North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). On September 30, 2018, the initial draft of the USMCA was released totaling at 1,812 pages. The final draft of the agreement was expanded to 2,325 pages and released on November 30, 2018, when President Donald Trump, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau, and then-President of Mexico Enrique Peña Nieto signed it in Buenos Aires, Argentina.




Despite being heralded as a “big win” by President Trump, the USMCA appears to have all the earmarks of Obama-era trade agreements, with former Obama officials seeing stark similarities. Much of the USMCA’s text is virtually identical to that of President Obama’s Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP) — a “free trade” agreement negotiated among 12 Pacific Rim nations (Australia, Brunei, Canada, Chile, Japan, Malaysia, Mexico, New Zealand, Peru, Singapore, the United States, and Vietnam) and at the time representing 40 percent of the world’s GDP. The TPP has since been renamed the Comprehensive and Progressive Agreement for Trans-Pacific Partnership (CPTPP).


During the 2016 presidential elections, then-candidate Trump staunchly opposed the TPP, making it the centerpiece of his belief in “Americanism, not globalism.” However, it’s important to remember that Trump did not personally negotiate the USMCA, nor did he pen any portions of the document. Trump’s lead NAFTA/USMCA negotiator was U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) Robert Lighthizer, who’s been a longtime member of the globalist, one-world-government-building Council on Foreign Relations, and has also previously applauded the Obama administration’s TPP agreement. In addition to Lighthizer, another of Trump’s negotiators was his son-in-law Jared Kushner, who has had business ties with the Deep State, including Goldman Sachs and George Soros.


In addition to Lighthizer and Kushner, many of the negotiators working within both the State Department and USTR office are career diplomats and employees, many of whom also worked in the same capacity during the Obama administration. According to the Huffington Post, “At least half of the men and women standing behind Trump during his Rose Garden ceremony praising the new deal were the same career service staff who negotiated nearly identical provisions in TPP, which Trump had railed against.” Trevor Kincaid, the USTR spokesman for the Obama administration, told the Huffington Post that the individuals standing behind Trump at the Rose Garden were the same USTR team that worked under Obama. “Ironically, he called them horrible negotiators when running for office,” Kincaid said, later adding, “It’s really the same with a new name. It’s basically the ‘22 Jump Street’ of trade deals.”


On September 30, 2018, the same day that the initial draft of the USMCA was released, former Obama-era U.S. Ambassador to Canada Bruce Heyman appeared on CNBC’s Squawk Box, praising the USMCA. Heyman said, “It’s obviously welcome news. This is welcome news for North America; it’s welcome news for the markets obviously this morning.”


A Democrat, former Goldman Sachs vice president, and board member for the pro-one-world-government Chicago Council on Global Affairs, Heyman was appointed U.S. ambassador to Canada by President Obama in 2013. Upon his Senate confirmation in 2014, Heyman served in that capacity for the duration of Obama’s term. The night the text of USMCA was released on the USTR website, Heyman reviewed various portions and chapters of the agreement, only to discover that they were identical to those in the TPP. Ironically, Trump has repeatedly lambasted the TPP as the “worst trade deal” ever negotiated. “[From] some of the reads I got over night, two-thirds of this agreement is essentially going back to TPP,” Heyman explained. “All they did was take so much of the language of TPP and implement it here, as it pertains to Canada.”


In fact, on August 8, 2019, Politico’s “Morning Trade” reported on the “striking similarities between USMCA and TPP.” Politico’s report stated, in part:


For all his vigorous bashing of NAFTA and the Trans-Pacific Partnership, just how much, exactly, has Trump changed U.S. trade policy with his new North American trade deal? A pair of researchers from the University of Ottawa attempted to answer this popular question and found that more than half — or 57 percent — of the USMCA text is copied from the TPP. [Emphasis added].


A key example of identical text copied from the TPP in the USMCA is the USMCA’s Chapter 30 on “Administrative and Institutional Provisions.” With the exception of a few minor tweaks, USMCA’s Chapter 30 reads almost word-for-word with the TPP’s Chapter 27, also entitled “Administrative and Institutional Provisions.” Both chapters establish the administrative or executive governing body for each of the agreements once they go into effect. Chapter 27 of the TPP establishes the governing “TPP Commission,” likewise Chapter 30 of the USMCA establishes its governing “Free Trade Commission.” Both commissions are empowered with identical supranational powers.




Like the “TPP Commission,” the USMCA’s “Free Trade Commission” is international bureaucracy, under which are a total of 19 committees and various sub-committees that are subordinate to the “Free Trade Commission.” The primary 19 committees can be found in the various chapters of the USMCA, corresponding to their particular subject or area; for example:


  • Article 2.17 of Chapter 2 on “National Treatment and Market Access for Goods” establishes the Committee on Trade in Goods;
  • Article 3.7 of Chapter 3 on “Agriculture” establishes the Committee on Agricultural Trade;
  • Article 5.18 of Chapter 5 on “Origin Procedures” establishes the Committee on Rules of Origin and Origin Procedures;
  • Article 6.8 of Chapter 6 on “Textiles and Apparel” establishes the Committee on Textile and Apparel Trade Matters;
  • Article 7.24 of Chapter 7 on “Customs Administration and Trade Facilitation” establishes the Committee on Trade Facilitation;
  • Article 9.17 of Chapter 9 on “Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures” establishes the Committee on Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures;
  • Article 11.11 of Chapter 11 on “Technical Barriers to Trade” establishes the Committee on Technical Barriers to Trade;
  • Article 13.21 of Chapter 13 on “Government Procurement” establishes the Committee on Government Procurement;
  • Annex 15-B of Chapter 15 on Cross-Border Trade in Services establishes the Committee on Transportation Services;
  • Article 17.19 of Chapter 17 on “Financial Services” establishes the Committee on Financial Services;
  • Article 18.27 of Chapter 18 on “Telecommunications” establishes the Committee on Telecommunications;
  • Article 20.14 of Chapter 20 on “Intellectual Property” establishes the Committee on Intellectual Property Rights;
  • Article 22.12 of Chapter 22 on “State-Owned Enterprises and Designated Monopolies” establishes the Committee on State-Owned Enterprises and Designated Monopolies;
  • Article 24.26 of Chapter 24 on “Environment” establishes the Environment Committee;
  • Article 25.4 of Chapter 25 on “Small and Medium-Sized Enterprises” establishes the Committee on SME Issues (SME Committee);
  • Article 26.1 of Chapter 26 on “Competitiveness” establishes the North American Competitiveness Committee (Competitiveness Committee);
  • Article 28.18 of Chapter 28 on “Good Regulatory Practices” establishes the Committee on Good Regulatory Practices (GRP Committee); and
  • Article 31.22 of Chapter 31 on “Dispute Settlement” establishes the Advisory Committee on Private Commercial Disputes;
  • Article 33.6 of Chapter 33 on “Macroeconomic Policies and Exchange Rate Matters” establishes the Macroeconomics Committee.

The specific functions for each committee are outlined in their corresponding chapters. Nevertheless, all of these committees are to be comprised of representatives from the governments of all three countries. The committees are responsible for overseeing and helping to implement the agreement in their particular area. They will also be tasked with addressing any issues that arise under their area.


Committees will meet regularly or on an annual basis, and they are supposed to help encourage or foster greater cooperation and trade among all three countries in their given areas. Committees can also propose changes or revisions to the chapter in the agreement that corresponds to their area. All of the committees’ work, discussions, findings, and recommendations are to be submitted to the Free Trade Commission for consideration.


According to Article 30.2, the USMCA’s Free Trade Commission is empowered to:

(a) consider matters relating to the implementation or operation of this Agreement;

(b) consider proposals to amend or modify this Agreement;

(c) supervise the work of committees, working groups, and other subsidiary bodies established under this Agreement;

(d) consider ways to further enhance trade and investment between the Parties;

(e) adopt and update the Rules of Procedure and Code of Conduct applicable to dispute settlement proceedings; and

(f) review the roster established under Article 31.8 (Roster and Qualifications of Panelists) every three years and, when appropriate, constitute a new roster.


Giving these powers to the Free Trade Commission makes the USMCA a “living agreement,” much like the TPP, thus allowing the Free Trade Commission to change the agreement without the consent of the U.S. Congress. In fact, the agreement completely undermines Congress’ Constitutional Article I, Section 8 power to regulate trade with foreign nations, such as Mexico and Canada, and to impose tariffs on them should the need arise, as in the case of national security.


According to Article 30.2, the Free Trade Commission would also have the power to consider or adopt any changes to a country’s scheduled tariff commitments by accelerating the elimination of tariffs or by making “adjustments to the Tariff Preferential Levels established in Chapter 6 (Textile and Apparel Goods).”


In addition to those powers, Article 30.2 further empowers the Free Trade Commission to delegate new tasks or responsibilities to its subordinate committees, either merge or dissolve its subordinate committees, ambiguously “develop arrangements for implementing this Agreement,” and get advice from “non-governmental persons or groups” such as the Council on Foreign Relations or academics who advocate for greater North American integration, among other powers.


According to Article 30.2, the Free Trade Commission may even “modify any Uniform Regulations agreed jointly by the Parties under Article 5.16 (Uniform Regulations), subject to completion of applicable legal procedures by each Party.” The commission would have the power to change the “Uniform” (or universal) regulations for all three countries, as long as the governments of all three countries eventually approve those changes. This opens the door for the U.S. Congress, Mexico’s Congress, and Canada’s Parliament to become rubber-stamp bodies for any new changes to the countries’ regulations because the USMCA’s governing Free Trade Commission demands it.

However, the main driving force for establishing these new levels of supranational bureaucracy is to advance the economic integration of North America.




Among one of the USMCA’s committees worth noting is the aforementioned Competitiveness Committee, established in Chapter 26. According to Article 21.1, clause 2, the Competitiveness Committee is to be established with “a view of promoting further economic integration among the Parties” (emphasis added). The committee will be tasked with “enhancing the competitiveness of North American exports” as a whole (emphasis added), rather enhancing the national exports of the U.S., Mexico, or Canada individually. This committee will be also composed of unelected representatives appointed by the governments of the U.S., Mexico, and Canada.


Regarding the powers of the Competitiveness Committee, Article 21.1, clause 5 states:


The Competitiveness Committee shall […] discuss effective approaches and develop information-sharing activities to support a competitive environment in North America that facilitates trade and investment between the Parties, and promotes economic integration and development with the free trade area. [Emphasis added].


The Oxford English Dictionary defines “integration” as:

The action or process of integrating.

economic and political integration

integration of individual countries into trading blocs

The Oxford English Dictionary further defines “integrate” as:

Combine (one thing) with another to form a whole.

transport planning should be integrated with energy policy

a fully equipped laboratory is being integrated into the development


In the case of the USMCA, it would combine the economy of the United States, the economy of Mexico, and the economy of Canada with each other to form a whole new economy – a North American economy.


In fact, Article 26.1, clause 5 further elaborates that the “Competitiveness Committee shall […] provide advice and recommendations, as appropriate, to the Commission on ways to further enhance the competitiveness of the North American economy. [Emphasis added]. Notice that it states “the North American economy” (singular) rather than North America’s economies (plural).


In his remarks, delivered in Spanish, in Buenos Aires, Argentina, shortly before signing the USMCA, then-President of Mexico Enrique Peña Nieto said, “The negotiation of the Mexico-United States-Canada Treaty made it possible to reaffirm the importance of the economic integration of North America.” President Peña Nieto further remarked, in Spanish, about the significance of the USMCA/T-MEC, “The renegotiation of the new trade agreement sought to safeguard the vision of an integrated North America, the conviction that together we are stronger and more competitive.” He added, “The Mexico-United States-and-Canada Treaty gives a renewed face toward our integration.”

Trade, jobs, and economic growth are only a pretext for the new agreement. The real purpose of the new agreement, as Peña Nieto admitted, is integration — the merging of the United States, Mexico, and Canada into what The John Birch Society and our news magazine The New American have long-described as the North American Union. Just as the European Union is the culmination of decades-long European economic integration, beginning with the Marshal Plan and the European Coal and Steel Community, so too would a North American Union be the culmination of the decades-long North American integration beginning with NAFTA and now the USMCA.


Shortly after signing the agreement, Peña Nieto reiterated this objective, tweeting:


On my last day as President, I am very honored to have participated in the signing of the new Trade Treaty between Mexico, the United States and Canada. This day concludes a long process of dialogue and negotiation that will consolidate the economic integration of North America.


The USMCA is not a step back toward American independence and sovereignty; it’s a step closer toward greater integration, as Peña Nieto boasted at the ceremony. However, the seeds for such regional integration and the framework for a North American Union started with NAFTA. Writing about the then-proposed NAFTA, former Secretary of State Henry Kissinger, a leading Deep State apparatchik and member of the CFR’s board of directors, made the following admission against interest in an op-ed piece he wrote published in both the Los Angeles Times and the Washington Post on July 20, 1993.Kissinger wrote, in part: “The revolution sweeping the Western Hemisphere can point the way to an international order based on cooperation. It is this revolution that is at stake in the ratification of NAFTA. What Congress will soon have before it is not a conventional trade agreement but the hopeful architecture of a new international system.”


Defining what he meant by “new international system,” Kissinger further elaborated: “A regional Western Hemisphere Organization dedicated to democracy and free trade would be a first step toward the new world order that is so frequently cited but so rarely implemented.” (Emphasis added.)


In his book World Order, published in 2014, Kissinger also admitted: “The contemporary quest for world order will require a coherent strategy to establish a concept of order within the various regions and to relate these regional orders to one another.” In other words, the road to world government — what Kissinger means by the phrase “world order” — will be through the establishment of regional integration schemes, like the USMCA, European Union, African Union, Union of South America, and Eurasian Economic Union, and then interlocking them with one another.


Preserve Our Rights by Stopping the USMCA


If America wishes to remain governed by Americans and to reject the ideology of globalism, then it must also reject the ideologies of regionalism and supranationalism by both opposing the USMCA and getting out of NAFTA. The primary issue is not the economic impact of the USMCA, good or bad, but its potential implications for U.S. sovereignty. The United States can weather the storms of a bad economy or recession, but it cannot survive the loss of its sovereignty. This underscores the need to prevent and stop any international agreements or supranational arrangements that erode and infringe on U.S. sovereignty.


The continuity of American sovereignty, and with it the safeguarding of our God-given rights by the U.S. Constitution and Bill of Rights, hinges on what happens with regard to the USMCA. Those who embrace the doctrine of patriotism can contact the president, their federal representative, and U.S. senators to oppose the USMCA, telling them that they should uphold our rights and freedoms by voting NO on the USMCA steppingstone to an EU-style North American Union. If this is done by patriotic Americans, America stands a chance of remaining a free and independent constitutional Republic for now and future generations. The choice has never been clearer: Americans can either choose to secure our freedoms by preserving our nation’s sovereignty, or we can go down the globalist path of Europe in pursuance of regional economic and political integration. If we prefer to preserve our national sovereignty and thereby secure our freedoms, then we must convince Congress to vote NO on the USMCA


Published with Permission of