According to Chad Bown of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the Trump administration`s list „is very consistent with the president`s position on trade barriers that like protectionism. This makes NAFTA less of a free trade agreement in many ways.  The considerations expressed by the U.S. representative regarding subsidized state-owned enterprises and currency manipulation are not likely to apply in Canada and Mexico, but are intended to send a message to countries outside North America.  Jeffrey Schott of the Peterson Institute for International Economics stated that it was not possible to conclude renegotiations quickly, while alleviating all concerns on the list.  He also said that it would be difficult to do something about trade deficits.  The immediate goal of NAFTA was to increase cross-border trade in North America and, in this regard, it has undoubtedly been a success. Reducing or removing tariffs and removing certain non-tariff barriers, such as. B local content requirements in Mexico, NAFTA has encouraged increased trade and investment. Most of the increase came from U.S.-Mexico trade, which totaled $481.5 billion in 2015, and U.S.-Canada trade of $518.2 billion. Trade between Mexico and Canada, although by far the fastest growing canal between 1993 and 2015, reached only $34.3 billion.
Many economists argue that the current level of TaA funding is largely insufficient to meet the increase in trade-related job losses. „There are pockets that have felt a lot of pain,“ Hanson says. „The existence of these pockets underscores our political failure to help regions and individuals adapt to the effects of globalization.“ The United States had already concluded a free trade agreement with Canada in 1988, but the addition of a less developed country such as Mexico was unprecedented. Opponents of NAFTA have taken up wage differences with Mexico, which had only 30 percent of U.S. per capita income. U.S. presidential candidate Ross Perot said in 1992 that trade liberalization would cause a „huge noise“ of American jobs fleeing the border. Supporters such as Presidents Bush and Clinton responded that the agreement would create hundreds of thousands of new jobs a year, while Mexican President Carlos Salinas de Gortari saw it as a chance to modernize Mexico`s economy so that it „exports goods, not people.“ If the Trans-Pacific Partnership of Origin (TPP) were to enter into force, existing agreements, such as NAFTA, would be reduced to provisions that do not conflict with the TPP or require greater trade liberalization than the TPP.  Only Canada and Mexico have the prospect of becoming members of the TPP after the United States.