The review is expected to maintain the core trade agreement and resolve disputes, but ambitious updates on AI, critical minerals, or China will be postponed or handled via less formal side agreements, thus limiting the full potential of near-shoring.
To address complex new topics like AI, policymakers may opt for flexible side agreements instead of amending the USMCA text. This path introduces substantial enforcement risk as these agreements would lack formal congressional approval.
Counterintuitively, U.S. and global auto firms need to collaborate with Chinese suppliers to reduce strategic dependency. The model involves onshoring Chinese hardware and manufacturing expertise while maintaining national control over sensitive AI software and networks, creating a strategic "co-opetition."
The current trade friction is part of a larger, long-term bipartisan U.S. strategy of "competitive confrontation." This involves not just tariffs but also significant domestic investment, like the CHIPS Act, to build resilient supply chains and reduce reliance on China for critical industries, a trend expected to persist across administrations.
Canada's long-term economic strategy is built on the belief that the era of increasing integration with the US is permanently over. The leadership anticipates that future American politicians will find it difficult to remove trade barriers, necessitating a fundamental, long-term pivot for Canada's economy away from US dependency.
The expected outcome will maintain Mexico's critical tariff-free access to the U.S., supporting current manufacturing. However, it will fall short of providing the strategic updates needed to catalyze a full-scale acceleration of near-shoring.
When trade policies force allies like Canada to find new partners, it's not a temporary shift. They build new infrastructure and relationships that won't be abandoned even if the political climate changes. The trust is broken, making the economic damage long-lasting and difficult to repair.
The credit's requirements for North American manufacturing and sourcing from trade partners were designed to counter China's dominance in the EV supply chain. Its elimination undermines this strategic goal, leaving tariffs as the primary, less effective tool.
Contrary to political rhetoric, Siemens' CEO provides a ground-level view that a widespread return of manufacturing to the US has not yet materialized. He cites labor shortages and policy uncertainty as key drags, despite real investments in specific sectors like pharma and semiconductors.
Despite escalating rhetoric, the U.S. and China are unlikely to fully decouple their supply chains. Their relationship is maintained by a fragile equilibrium where the U.S. provides semiconductor chips in exchange for China's critical rare earth minerals, making a return to the status quo the most probable outcome.
China effectively steered talks away from major macroeconomic imbalances and unfair trade practices. Instead, the focus has been "whittled down" to sector-specific issues like TikTok or soybean purchases, allowing China to manage concessions without addressing core U.S. grievances in a game of "whack-a-mole."