In a 60-minute interview in September 2015, presidential candidate Donald Trump described NAFTA as “the worst trade deal ever approved in the United States” and said that if elected, “he would either renegotiate or we would break it.”   Juan Pablo Castaen [es], chairman of the trade group Consejo Coordinador Empresarial, expressed concern about the renegotiations and the desire to focus on the automotive industry.  A number of trade experts have stated that abandoning NAFTA would have a number of unintended consequences for the United States, including limited access to its key export markets, lower economic growth and higher prices for gasoline, cars, fruits and vegetables.  Members of the Mexican private initiative noted that many laws needed to be adapted by the U.S. Congress to eliminate NAFTA. Finally, this would give rise to complaints from the World Trade Organization.  The Washington Post found that a review of academic literature by the Congress Research Service concluded that “the overall net effect of NAFTA on the U.S. economy appears to be relatively modest, mainly because trade with Canada and Mexico accounts for a small percentage of U.S. GDP.”  One of the main provisions of NAFTA provided for the status of “domestic products” for products imported from other NAFTA countries. No state, province or local government could impose taxes or tariffs on these goods. In addition, at the time of the agreement, tariffs were either abolished or abolished in five or ten equal steps. The only exception to the exit was the issue of sensitive points for which the exit period would be 15 years. “The USMCA will provide our workers, farmers, ranchers and businesses with a quality trade agreement that will result in freer markets, fairer trade and robust economic growth in our region. It will strengthen the middle class and create good, well-paying jobs and new opportunities for the nearly half a billion people who call North America home. About a quarter of all U.S.
imports, such as crude oil, machinery, gold, vehicles, fresh produce, livestock and processed food products, come from Canada and Mexico, the second and third largest suppliers of imported products to the United States. In addition, about one-third of U.S. exports, including machinery, spare parts, mineral oils and plastics, go to Canada and Mexico. Fourth, NAFTA has put in place trade dispute resolution procedures. The parties would begin a formal discussion, followed by a discussion at a meeting of the Free Trade Committee, if necessary. If the disagreement has not been resolved, a panel has considered the dispute. The trial helped all parties avoid costly prosecutions in local courts and helped them interpret THE complex NAFTA rules and procedures. These commercial disputes also applied to investors. According to a 2013 Jeff Faux article published by the Economic Policy Institute, California, Texas, Michigan and other high-concentration manufacturing states were most affected by NAFTA job losses.  According to a 2011 article by EPI economist Robert Scott, the trade agreement has “lost or supplanted” some 682,900 U.S. jobs.
 Recent studies have agreed with congressional Research Service reports that NAFTA has little influence on manufacturing employment and automation, accounting for 87% of manufacturing job losses.  The former Canada-U.S. free trade treaty was the subject of controversy and controversy in Canada and was presented as a theme in the 1988 Canadian election.