Skip to main content
Home

Main navigation

  • Centers & Programs
    • Centers
      • Center for Energy Studies
      • Center for Health and Biosciences
      • Center for the Middle East
      • Center for Public Finance
      • Center for the U.S. and Mexico
      • McNair Center
      Center for Energy Studies
      Providing new insights on the role of economics, policy and regulation in the performance and evolution of energy markets.
      More Details
      The globe at night, lights in populated areas illuminated
      Center for Health and Biosciences
      Advancing data-based policies that promote health and well-being in the U.S. and around the world.
      More Details
      Female healthcare worker lifts finger to press digital buttons featuring topical iconography
      Edward P. Djerejian Center for the Middle East
      Developing pragmatic policy approaches to the region’s enduring political, economic and societal concerns.
      More Details
      Topographic map of Middle East
      Center for Public Finance
      Delivering research and analysis on the effects of major U.S. fiscal policies.
      More Details
      Stack of coins with mathematical figure overlays
      Center for the U.S. and Mexico
      Strengthening the binational relationship by addressing major concerns on both sides of the border.
      More Details
      Textured flags of America and Mexico
      McNair Center for Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth
      Providing actionable policy analysis and recommendations that aim to expand the economy through private enterprise.
      More Details
      Professionals gather around a large table with laptops, printed documents and coffee cups for a business meeting
    • Programs
      • China Studies
      • Drug Policy
      • International Economics
      • Presidential Elections
      • Religion & Public Policy
      • Science & Technology Policy
      • Space Policy
      China Studies
      Analyzing the influence of the transnational circulation of people, technologies, commodities and ideas in China.
      Read More
      Person walks alongside large banner with Chinese characters
      Drug Policy
      Pursuing research and open debate to develop pragmatic drug policies based on common sense and driven by human rights interests.
      Read More
      Marijuana
      International Economics
      Studying timely issues in global economic policy as well as developmental policy in foreign countries.
      Read More
      International paper currencies stacked together, showing range of colors and styles
      Presidential Elections
      Offering nonpartisan analysis of elections to better understand the changing dynamics of presidential campaigns.
      Read More
      An assortment of campaign buttons from a variety of US elections and political pursuits are displayed in a collage
      Religion and Public Policy
      Exploring how religion and cultural factors interact with public policy issues.
      Read More
      A worn path stretches between rows of olive trees
      Science and Technology Policy
      Addressing a broad range of policy issues that affect scientists and their research.
      Read More
      A scientist picks up test tubes from a rack.
      Space Policy
      Focusing on U.S. space policy and the future of space travel.
      Read More
      The International Space Station (ISS) orbits the Earth at sunrise
  • Events
    Stem cell pipette
    Center for Health and Biosciences
    Fri, Sep. 29, 2023 | 7:30 am - 9 am
    Stem Cell Therapies: Hype, Hope and Evidence-based Decisions See Details
    Mandate Protest
    Center for Health and Biosciences
    Mon, Oct. 02, 2023 | 5 pm - 7 pm
    The Deadly Rise of Anti-science: An Evening with Dr. Peter Hotez See Details
    Icons representing clean energy with the evolution of decarbonization at the center
    Center for Energy Studies
    Wed, Oct. 04, 2023 | 8:30 am - 2:30 pm
    Annual Energy Summit Day 1 — The Evolving Energy Paradigm See Details
  • Experts
    • Biomedical Research
    • Child Health
    • China
    • Conflict Resolution in the Middle East
    • Drug Policy
    • Energy
    • Entrepreneurship and Economic Growth
    • Global Health
    • Health and Biosciences
    • Human Rights and Refugees
    • International Economics
    • Islam and Politics
    • Latin American Energy
    • Middle East
    • Political Economy of the Arab Gulf
    • Presidential Elections
    • Public Finance
    • Religion and Public Policy
    • Science and Technology
    • Space Policy
    • Texas Politics
    • U.S. and Iran
    • U.S. and Mexico
    • U.S. Health System Transformation
    • See All Experts
    • Experts in the News
  • Support
    • Join the Baker Roundtable
      Join the Baker Roundtable
      Learn more about the Baker Institute’s membership forum, which supports the mission of the institute and offers members exclusive access to experts and events.
      Read More
      RT
    • Major Gifts
      Major Gifts
      Major gifts provide the funds necessary for the Baker Institute to explore new areas of study and research, and expand current programs.
      Read More
      Wallace S. Wilson meeting with former British Prime Minister Tony Blair
    • Endowments
      Endowments
      Endowment gifts provide the Baker Institute with permanent resources that support research programs, fellows and scholars.
      Read More
      Pictured from left are William Martin, Katharine Neill Harris, Ambassador Edward Djerejian, Alfred C. Glassell, III, and Pam Lindberg
    • Planned Giving
      Planned Giving

      Plan a gift that will ensure lasting, meaningful support for policy programs important to you.

       

      Read More
      meeting
    • Corporate Support
      Corporate Support
      Corporations can become involved with the institute in a number of ways and see the benefit from the research conducted by our fellows and scholars.
      Read More
      Wide shot of the Doré Commons during a Shell Distinguished Lecture Series event featuring Wim Thomas
  • About
    • People
      People
      Learn more about the Baker Institute's leadership and get contact information for the administrative staff.
      Read More
      Secretary James A. Baker, III, stands with a portion of the Berlin Wall, outside of Baker Hall
    • Student Opportunities
      Student Opportunities
      The Baker Institute offers paid internships to degree-seeking students to help train the next generation of policy leaders.
      Read More
      Students team present policy recommendations to a panel of experts at a competition organized by the Baker Institute Student Forum (BISF)
    • Annual Report
    • Podcast: Baker Briefing
      Podcast: Baker Briefing
      Baker Briefing is a weekly podcast that tackles the most critical foreign and domestic policy issues of the day in conversations with experts at the Baker Institute.
      Read More
      Logo for the Baker Briefing Podcast (Square)
    • Contact
      Contact Us
      Complete a form for event, media or other inquiries, and get directions and parking information for the Baker Institute.
      Read More
      The front of Baker Hall, from across the plaza, with fountain in foreground
  • Contact
  • Research
    • Economics & Finance
      Economics & Finance
      Read More
    • Energy
      Latest Energy Research
      Summary on Latest Energy Research
      Read More
    • Foreign Policy
      Foreign Policy
      Read More
    • Domestic Policy
      Domestic Policy
      Read More
    • Health & Science
      Health & Science
      Read More
    • All Publications
  • Facebook
  • Youtube
  • Twitter
  • Linkedin
  • Economics & Finance
  • Energy
  • Foreign Policy
  • Domestic Policy
  • Health & Science
  • All Publications
Center for the U.S. and Mexico | Issue Brief

The Trump Approach to Trade Negotiations: Risks in Presenting a Renegotiated NAFTA to a Skeptical Congress

September 14, 2018 | David A. Gantz
The flags of Canada, Mexico, and the U.S.

Table of Contents

Author(s)

Head shot of international trade fellow David Gantz
David A. Gantz
Will Clayton Fellow in Trade and International Economics
Read More

Share this Publication

  • Facebook
  • Twitter
  • Email
  • Linkedin
  • Download PDF
  • Print This Publication
  • Cite This Publication

    Gantz, David A. 2018. The Trump Approach to Trade Negotiations: Risks in Presenting a Renegotiated NAFTA to a Skeptical Congress. Issue brief no. 09.14.18. Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy, Houston, Texas.

    Copy Citation

Tags

NAFTA

On August 31, 2018, President Donald Trump formally advised Congress that he planned to “enter into a trade agreement with Mexico—and Canada if it is willing, in a timely manner.”1 The deal is tentative and incomplete in that a full text will not be completed until the end of September and most of the details are not available to Congress or the public. The president also threatened to terminate NAFTA if Congress fails to accept a bilateral agreement with Mexico (in lieu of a trilateral one with Canada as well).2

The significant possibility that an agreement will not be reached with Canada, and that the Trump administration will proceed with a bilateral free trade agreement (FTA) with Mexico, has caused great consternation in Congress, particularly among members whose states are major traders with Canada. Canada remains the United States’ largest export destination, with annual exports valued at nearly $300 billion. The U.S.-Canada trade balance is virtually in equilibrium if extensive bilateral services trade is included. Negotiations between Canada and the United States resumed September 5, and the effective deadline for completing the text of a new agreement and releasing it to Congress is September 30. Thus, time remains to secure Canada’s participation in a tripartite agreement. However, disagreements over a trade dispute settlement mechanism, import restrictions on dairy products (milk proteins), biologic drug protection, continued “national security” tariffs, and cultural industries, all of which are highly sensitive within Canada, threaten to prevent Canadian accession, particularly under conditions where the president is taking a hard line against any U.S. concessions.

If before September 30 negotiations with Canada are successful, the president’s legal authority to sign the agreement before December 1—when Mexico’s new president takes office—is clear. However, if Canada does not agree to become a part of the agreement, the situation raises a series of complex political and legal challenges for both the Trump administration and Congress, the results of which are currently unpredictable. These include: 1) whether the president has been authorized by Congress to conclude a bilateral agreement with Mexico, without including Canada; 2) whether the president possesses the legal authority to terminate NAFTA without congressional consent; and 3) if a bilateral free trade agreement is signed by the presidents of the U.S. and Mexico, without Canada, whether the votes exist for approval by the Congress, presumably sometime in 2019. Each issue is examined below.

1. Notice to Congress on August 31, 2018

Under the 2015 Trade Promotion Authority (TPA) legislation,3 the administration in May 2017 sought authorization to negotiate and conclude a “modernized” NAFTA with both Canada and Mexico. Neither the request nor the congressional acquiescence that followed makes any mention of concluding a trade agreement with Mexico alone; several members of the Senate, including Patrick Toomey (R-Pennsylvania) and John Cornyn (R-Texas), have sharply questioned both the wisdom of excluding Canada and the president’s authority to do so under the 2017 TPA notification. However, the legality of signing a bilateral rather than a trilateral agreement is unclear, and it may be argued that the 2017 notice and authorization subsumed a bilateral trade agreement. What is evident is that only Congress has the effective authority to object, given that no private right of action exists under the TPA.

Thus, any action by members of Congress to reassert Congress’ constitutional authority under the commerce clause of the U.S. Constitution (see 3, below) would effectively be a political decision to oppose the president on a key issue of his agenda. Given the president’s current viselike grip on the Republican Party, such opposition to many observers seems unlikely in the current political climate.

2. Presidential Termination of NAFTA

NAFTA provides that “A Party may withdraw from this Agreement six months after it provides written notice of withdrawal to the other Parties. If a Party withdraws, the Agreement shall remain in force for the other Parties.”4 There is little doubt that as a matter of international law, such notice would be considered effective for the United States.5 However, as with most international agreements, NAFTA does not address the domestic, legal, and constitutional procedures that may be required for the United States to withdraw from the accord as a matter of domestic law, including the requirements of the U.S. Constitution.

This is a complex and uncertain legal area. A president has terminated an Article I-II treaty without seeking congressional or Senate approval in a few instances. For example, in 1979, President Jimmy Carter terminated the U.S. defense treaty with Taiwan as a precondition to establishing formal diplomatic relations with the People’s Republic of China. At the time, the Senate approved a “sense of the Senate” resolution contending that prior consultation was required, but no final vote occurred.6 The litigation that followed was inconclusive. No similar precedent exists for withdrawal by the president from an FTA approved under the TPA.

Presidents have typically relied extensively on their Article II powers in foreign relations, as broadly supported by United States v. Curtiss Wright, 7 decided at a time (1936) when presidential powers were probably at their all-time zenith. As recently as 2017, a Congressional Research Service analysis reached the somewhat ambiguous conclusion that:

[T]he weight of judicial and scholarly opinion suggests that the President possesses the exclusive constitutional authority to communicate with foreign powers, and such authority might provide the President with a constitutional basis for withdrawing from at least some types of international agreements. The agreement’s subject matter, however, might be relevant to a legal analysis … Even in the event that the President could properly withdraw from an FTA unilaterally, the President cannot make laws, and thus repeal of federal statutory provisions implementing U.S. FTA obligations [such as elimination of tariffs] requires congressional action.8

Much of the complexity arises from the constitutional separation of powers, particularly in cases involving trade and commerce. The executive powers of the president under Article II of the U.S. Constitution have been interpreted as providing the president with a “vast share of responsibility” for the conduct of foreign relations,9 including the treaty power and acting as commander in chief. Simultaneously, Article I, Section 8 of the Constitution provides Congress with the authority to (1) “lay and collect taxes, duties, imposts, and excises,” (2) “regulate commerce with foreign nations, among the several states and with the Indian Tribes,” and (3) “make all laws which shall be necessary and proper” to carry out these specific powers. It is difficult to argue that the termination of a free trade agreement does not fall within both (1) and (2) above.

The NAFTA Implementation Act of 1993, in contrast to several later FTA implementing laws, does not incorporate “clear language on repeal of provisions implementing the agreement.However, it does contain language that could potentially be construed as repealing some provisions … at the time the United States determines not to apply the agreement with respect to a NAFTA partner country as a result of U.S. withdrawal from the agreement.”10 The lack of explicit language notwithstanding, any effort by the Trump administration to withdraw from NAFTA and increase tariffs to most favored nation (MFN) levels or higher would likely generate a firestorm among some members of Congress as well as thousands of affected stakeholders, but might well fall short of effective legislative action.

3. Congressional Approval of a Bilateral Trade Agreement With Mexico

If Congress cannot or likely will not block a revised NAFTA that excludes Canada under the TPA authorization or prevent the termination of the existing agreement under the NAFTA Implementation Act, what other option is available to assert Congress’ constitutional prerogative? Even if the existing NAFTA is terminated—or in what could be a long and contentious legal process, the president attempts to terminate NAFTA—a revised trade agreement with Mexico requires congressional approval through majority votes in both House and Senate.

It is conceivable that when the president sends the agreement to Congress with the text, its draft implementing legislation, and a “Statement of Administrative Action” outlining the provisions—all required by the TPA—presumably sometime in mid-2019, a majority in both houses could support the agreement even without Canada. Regardless of whether the Democratic Party regains control of the House of Representatives, the approval process for trade agreements has never been the province of one party—even if traditionally more Republican members have supported trade agreements than Democrats, and approval of a modernized NAFTA would likely require the concurrence of some Democrats in both the House and Senate.

A revised NAFTA could attract more Democrats than has historically been the case. New automotive rules of origin that are expected to create American jobs in the auto and auto parts industries due to requirements that (a) 75% of the value of a compliant vehicle be of North American origin (or of just Mexican and U.S. origin if Canada does not sign on) and (b) 40-45% of the vehicle be produced in facilities in which workers are paid at least $16 per hour (e.g., not in Mexico). The sketchy available information on the negotiations with Mexico also suggests that the new provisions protecting labor, particularly independent unions, in Mexico have been strengthened. Thus, some Democratic members who have steadfastly opposed NAFTA in the past may be encouraged by their labor supporters to support the new agreement.

Conversely, many members—particularly Republican members of Congress who would traditionally be expected to support a revised trade agreement—may balk or even oppose the president’s will if Canada is excluded, given the extensive bilateral trade with Canada from their states, the presence of thousands of American company affiliates in Canada, and the critical importance of Canadian manufacturers in supply chains for U.S. manufactured goods, particularly autos and auto parts. Such opposition would likely be driven by groups such as the U.S. Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Manufacturers, which have strongly opposed an agreement excluding Canada, and auto industry groups such as the Alliance of Auto Manufacturers (representing most manufacturers selling autos in the United States), along with major auto producers that make vehicles in both the United States and Canada, including General Motors, FiatChrysler, Ford, and Honda.

Conclusions

In its primacy over trade matters under the Constitution, Congress has broad authority over new and existing trade agreements, and could—if it had the political will to do so and the necessary votes to block the signature of a “modernized” NAFTA that excludes Canada—seek to assure that the duty-free trade within North America provided under the NAFTA Implementation Act continues despite an attempted unilateral termination by the executive branch, or simply decline to approve a revised agreement when it is submitted to Congress under TPA procedures. Whether the current Congress (or the one taking office in January 2019) would have the political will to do any of these things remains to be seen. Of course, if the United States and Canada agree on terms for Canada’s participation in a modernized NAFTA (whatever the name), a result that seems reasonably possible in September, the issues raised in parts 1 and 2 of this brief would be academic, although even a trilateral trade agreement is by no means assured of approval by Congress.

Endnotes

1. White House, Office of the Press Secretary, Text of a letter from the president to the speaker of the House and president of the Senate, Aug. 31, 2018.

2. Javier E. David and Jacob Pramuk, “Trump Takes a New Short at Canada, Threatens to End NAFTA if Congress Intervenes,” CNBC Politics, Sept. 1, 2018.

3. See Section 105(a)(1)(A), Bipartisan Congressional Trade Priorities and Accountability Act of 2015 (“Trade Promotion Authority”).

4. See NAFTA, art. 2205, https://www.nafta-sec-alena.org/Home/Texts-of-theAgreement/North-American-Free-TradeAgreement.

5. See Vienna Convention on the Law of Treaties, art. 70, May 23, 1969, 1155 U.N.T.S. 331.

6. See CRS Annotated Constitution: Interpretation and Termination of Treaties as International Compacts, Cornell University Legal Information Institute, https://www.law.cornell.edu/anncon/html/art2frag19_user.html.

7. See United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., 299 U.S. 304 (1936).

8. Brandon Murrill, U.S. Withdrawal from Free Trade Agreements: Frequently Asked Legal Questions, Congressional Research Service ii, Sept. 7, 2017; NAFTA Implementation Act (1993), §109(b).

9. See American Ins. Assn. v. Garamendi, 539 U.S. 396, 414 (2003).

10. Murrill, 2017, 3.

 

 

This material may be quoted or reproduced without prior permission, provided appropriate credit is given to the author and Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy. The views expressed herein are those of the individual author(s), and do not necessarily represent the views of Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy.

© 2018 Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy
  • Print This Publication
  • Share
    • Facebook
    • Twitter
    • Email
    • Linkedin

Related Research

Marijuana+Law
Drug Policy | Center for the U.S. and Mexico | Commentary

Marijuana Rescheduling Is Creating a Buzz for Some, Consternation for DEA

Read More
Xochitl Galvez
Center for the U.S. and Mexico | Issue Brief

Xóchitl Gálvez Courts Voters in Texas

Read More
Farm Worker
Center for the U.S. and Mexico | Research Paper

How Granting Amnesty to Undocumented Immigrants Could Boost the US Labor Market

Read More
  • Facebook
  • Youtube
  • Twitter
  • Linkedin
  • Donate Now
  • Media Inquiries
  • Membership
  • About the Institute
  • Rice.edu
Contact Us

6100 Main Street
Baker Hall MS-40, Suite 120
Houston, TX 77005

Email: bipp@rice.edu
Phone: 713-348-4683
Fax: 713-348-5993

Baker Institute Newsletter

The email newsletter of Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy provides a snapshot of institute news, research and upcoming events.

Sign Up

  • © Rice University's Baker Institute for Public Policy
  • Web Accessibility
  • Privacy Policy