What happened on July 1, 2026?

The USMCA entered into force on July 1, 2020. Its Article 34.7 establishes that, on the sixth anniversary of the agreement’s entry into force, the Free Trade Commission must meet to conduct a joint review of the operation of the agreement. During that review, each Party must confirm in writing, through its head of government, whether it wishes to extend the agreement for another 16-year term. If not all Parties confirm that intention, annual reviews are triggered for the remainder of the agreement’s current term.

On July 1, 2026, the United States officially stated, through USTR, that it did not agree to renew the USMCA in its current form. USTR stated that the agreement was not renewed and that the United States would continue working with Mexico and Canada to address outstanding issues. At the same time, USTR clarified that the agreement remains in force while those issues are addressed or until any potential termination.

This avoids two extreme interpretations. It is not correct to say that the USMCA simply ended; but it would also be inaccurate to say that it was renewed unchanged for another 16-year term.

So, is the USMCA still in force?

Yes. The USMCA remains in force.

Canada confirmed, through Global Affairs Canada, that CUSMA/USMCA remains fully in force until 2036 and may be renewed at any time for another 16-year term.

Mexico’s Ministry of Economy also reported that, during the fifth meeting of the USMCA Free Trade Commission, the annual review mechanism under Article 34.7.4 was triggered, and that the agreement would remain in force until 2036. It is worth noting that this outcome did not result from a joint decision by all three Parties: Mexico and Canada formally confirmed their support for extending the agreement by another 16 years, while the United States was the only Party that did not confirm the extension. Under Article 34.7.4, it takes only one Party’s non-confirmation to automatically trigger annual reviews, which in turn allow the Parties to agree to an extension at any later point.

The most precise way to understand this is the following: the USMCA remains in force within its current term, which ends in 2036, unless a termination or withdrawal scenario occurs under the agreement itself. Article 34.6 allows a Party to withdraw from the agreement by providing written notice, with the withdrawal taking effect six months after that notice.

In practical terms, the USMCA remains the main framework for regional trade in goods and services among Mexico, the United States and Canada. What has changed is the level of certainty going forward, because annual reviews will now take place unless a formal extension is agreed.

Does the USMCA review mean renegotiation?

Not necessarily.

The mechanism established in the agreement is a review of its operation. This may include recommendations, compliance assessments, implementation issues and discussions on specific areas. However, a review does not, by itself, mean that the entire agreement is being reopened for renegotiation.

This distinction matters for companies. A review focused on implementation may result in adjustments, follow-up and closer monitoring of existing obligations. A broad renegotiation, on the other hand, could involve substantive changes to chapters, annexes, rules of origin, labor disciplines, environmental obligations or dispute settlement mechanisms.

So far, official sources show that discussions have focused on specific issues, not on a full reopening of the agreement.

What issues are on the table?

Official communications allow us to identify several areas to monitor.

In May 2026, USTR announced that the United States and Mexico would hold a series of bilateral rounds related to the first joint review of the USMCA. The first round included economic security and rules of origin for key industrial goods; the second round would include agriculture and competitive conditions; and the third round was scheduled for the week of July 20, 2026, in Mexico City.

In June 2026, USTR and Mexico’s Ministry of Economy stated in a joint statement that the teams from Mexico and the United States had advanced discussions on rules of origin for certain industrial goods and economic security. They also began conceptual discussions on agriculture, labor and the environment, and addressed trade issues involving steel, aluminum and automobiles.

This points to five relevant issues for companies in Mexico:

1. Rules of origin, especially in industrial and automotive sectors.
2. Use of non-originating inputs or inputs from non-market economies.
3. Sector-specific tariff measures related to steel, aluminum, automobiles and other sensitive sectors, although not necessarily as a direct amendment to the text of the agreement.
4. Economic security and strengthening of regional supply chains.
5. Complementary discussions on agriculture, labor, the environment and regulatory compatibility.

Although the USMCA is a trilateral agreement, some post-review discussions are taking place in bilateral formats, particularly between Mexico and the United States. This does not eliminate the trilateral nature of the agreement, but it does show that certain issues are being addressed through parallel or specific channels.

What is confirmed and what is not?

For business decision-making, it is important to distinguish between official information and interpretations or unconfirmed reports.

Based on official sources available as of July 9, 2026, it is confirmed that the USMCA remains in force, that there was no automatic renewal during the July 1 review, that annual reviews will take place, and that discussions have included rules of origin, economic security, steel, aluminum, automobiles, agriculture, labor and the environment.

On the other hand, the official sources cited in this article do not confirm immediate changes to rules of origin, the suspension of USMCA tariff preferences, a full renegotiation of the agreement or the publication of any new legal text modifying current USMCA obligations.

Reports have also circulated regarding possible specific percentages for regional content, national content or restrictions on certain non-regional inputs. However, unless those proposals appear in official communications, legal texts or instruments published by the relevant authorities, they should be treated as information under discussion, not as an applicable obligation.

What does this mean for exporters and IMMEX companies?

For exporters, IMMEX companies and suppliers in North American manufacturing chains, the key point is not to assume that the rules will change immediately, but to prepare for an environment of greater review, traceability and documentation requirements.

The USMCA remains in force, but official discussions show increasing attention to origin, regional content, non-originating inputs, strategic sectors and tariff measures. This may affect companies exporting to the United States or Canada, companies issuing origin certifications, suppliers participating in automotive or industrial chains, and businesses integrating inputs from Asia or other regions outside North America.

In this context, companies should review the following with particular care:

• Tariff classification of finished goods and main inputs.
• Specific rule of origin applicable to the exported product.
• Origin criterion used: tariff shift, regional value content, wholly obtained production or another applicable criterion.
• Origin of critical inputs and non-originating materials.
• Supporting documentation from domestic, regional and foreign suppliers.
• Origin certifications issued to customers and received from suppliers.
• BOMs, bills of materials or production structures used to support origin.
• Traceability of temporarily imported inputs, especially for IMMEX companies.
• Consistency among invoices, customs entries, origin certifications, customs files and production processes.
• Exposure to sensitive sectors such as steel, aluminum, automotive, electronics, medical devices or other industrial goods.

This is not about suspending operations or assuming that the agreement will no longer apply. It is about reducing documentation and commercial risks in an environment where origin compliance may become more relevant.

Why are rules of origin one of the most important issues?

Rules of origin determine whether a good may receive preferential tariff treatment under the USMCA. For many companies, the tariff benefit does not depend only on exporting from Mexico, but on proving that the product complies with the applicable rule of origin.

For that reason, during a treaty review stage, rules of origin become a critical issue. If authorities review the origin of goods more closely, companies will need stronger traceability over materials, processes, suppliers, costs, tariff classification and supporting documentation.

For IMMEX companies, this may be especially relevant when there is a combination of temporarily imported inputs, non-originating materials, production processes in Mexico, export sales and origin certifications issued to customers in the United States or Canada.

The risk is not only that a rule may change in the future. There is also risk when a company is already issuing origin certifications without sufficient support to prove compliance with the applicable rule.

What should companies avoid when interpreting the news?

The 2026 USMCA review has generated attention-grabbing headlines. However, for compliance and business decision-making purposes, companies should avoid jumping to conclusions.

• It is not correct to say that the USMCA ended.
• It is not correct to assume that all rules of origin will change immediately.
• It is not correct to assume that preferential tariff treatment no longer applies.
• It is not advisable to interpret every technical discussion as a full renegotiation of the agreement.

At the same time, the issue should not be minimized. The lack of automatic renewal does open a stage of annual reviews and potential technical discussions relevant to foreign trade.

The most balanced reading is that the USMCA remains in force, but has entered a more active review phase, with specific issues that may affect manufacturers, exporters and regional supply chains.

Minimum checklist for exporters

In this scenario, an exporter or IMMEX company can start with a preventive USMCA compliance review. The goal is not to anticipate political outcomes, but to confirm that the current operation is properly documented.

A minimum checklist should include:

• Identify products exported to the United States or Canada under USMCA preference.
• Confirm the current tariff classification of each product.
• Identify the specific rule of origin applicable to each product.
• Validate whether the product qualifies through tariff shift, regional value content, wholly obtained production or another criterion.
• Review whether there are originating, non-originating or non-market-economy inputs within the supply chain.
• Request updated support from critical suppliers.
• Validate that issued origin certifications include the minimum required data elements.
• Confirm that the supporting file is available and consistent.
• Review whether there have been recent changes in suppliers, materials, costs or production processes.
• Evaluate whether the company belongs to a higher-exposure sector, such as automotive, steel, aluminum, electronics, medical devices or other industrial goods.

For IMMEX companies, it is also advisable to confirm that Annex 24 traceability is consistent with the information used to support origin, especially when temporarily imported inputs are used in goods exported under USMCA preference.

What are the next key dates?

The next relevant date is the week of July 20, 2026, when the United States and Mexico are expected to hold a third bilateral round in Mexico City related to the USMCA joint review.

That round will be important to determine whether discussions remain focused on implementation, strategic sectors and specific issues, or whether more concrete proposals begin to take shape that could affect exporters.

Conclusion

The 2026 USMCA review does not mean that the agreement ended. The agreement remains in force and continues to be the basis for regional trade among Mexico, the United States and Canada.

What matters is that there was no trilateral confirmation to automatically extend it for another 16-year term, which opens a stage of annual reviews. For companies, this means closely monitoring rules of origin, sector-specific tariff measures, economic security, regional content and supporting documentation.

In a more active review environment, the best business response is not to react with alarm, but to review in an orderly way: origin, customs files, traceability and sector exposure.

At TradeWorks, we support IMMEX companies, exporters and manufacturers in the preventive review of their foreign trade operations, including origin certifications, customs files, Annex 24, Annex 30 and documentation compliance to reduce risks before they become contingencies.