The USMCA’s mandatory six-year review has happened, and it did not produce a renewal. On July 1, 2026, the three governments held the joint review the agreement requires. The Office of the US Trade Representative’s statement that day said the United States “did not agree to renew the USMCA in its current form.” Mexico and Canada, according to law-firm summaries, each supported a 16-year extension.

For buyers sourcing from Mexico or Canada, the outcome is less dramatic than it sounds and more consequential than it looks. The agreement did not lapse. It moved onto a different footing, and the uncertainty it creates is the real procurement issue.

What the Review Clause Actually Does

Under Article 34.7, USMCA runs for 16 years from its July 1, 2020 entry into force, ending July 1, 2036, unless all three parties confirm in writing that they want to extend it. A confirmed extension would add another 16 years and set the next six-year review for 2032.

If any party does not confirm, the treaty is not terminated. Instead the parties must hold joint reviews every year until all three agree to extend or the agreement expires in 2036. According to a Congressional Research Service report updated September 29, 2026, the agreement does not set a format or timeline for those annual reviews. The review is also separate from the withdrawal provision, which allows any party to leave on six months’ written notice.

So the practical position is this: USMCA remains fully in force, preferences for originating goods continue, and the US has chosen annual leverage over a clean 16-year extension.

What Has Happened Since July 1

Three developments matter for planning.

The US is negotiating bilaterally. USTR said it would continue to engage Mexico and Canada on what it called the agreement’s shortcomings and on trade deficits, and scheduled a third round of bilateral talks with Mexico for the week of July 20 in Mexico City. Per CRS, US-Mexico rounds are continuing. No formal US-Canada review negotiations had been announced as of late September, and tensions rose after the August imposition of 50% tariffs on certain Canadian products under Section 338 (covered in our piece on Canadian sourcing exposure). USTR Ambassador Jamieson Greer has mentioned possible “interim arrangements” by the end of 2026, per CRS.

A public comment process has opened. A USTR notice published in the Federal Register as 91 FR 63379, effective October 5, 2026, requests comments on USMCA implementation, compliance issues, and recommendations for future reviews. Written comments and requests to appear at the public hearing are due January 12, 2027. The hearing date has not been announced. Buyers and trade associations with views on rules of origin or investment conditions have a formal channel to be heard.

Tariffs sit outside the agreement. USMCA preferences continue, but Section 232 tariffs on certain Canadian and Mexican goods, including steel, aluminum, copper, and forest products, remain in effect even on USMCA-qualifying goods, per customs-advisory summaries. The Section 338 action on Canadian goods does not allow USMCA treatment at all. By contrast, qualifying goods are reported to be exempt from the Section 301 forced-labor tariffs that took effect July 24, 2026, including for Canada and Mexico. USMCA origin therefore protects against some actions and not others, and that varies by authority. Verify each against the current notice.

Why a Contentious Review Matters More Than a Routine One

A routine review would have extended the agreement and reset the horizon to 2042. A contentious one keeps the horizon at 2036 and, more importantly, makes every annual review a possible bargaining event. For a procurement team, three things follow.

Investment payback gets shorter on paper. A tooling investment or supplier qualification in Mexico that assumed stable preferences for 16 more years now carries a cloud. Preferences are in force today, but the planning horizon that a CFO will accept is shorter.

Rules of origin are a likely bargaining subject. USTR’s comment request asks about compliance issues and about North American economic security against non-market policies of other countries. That language points toward tighter content requirements on goods with inputs from outside the region. Suppliers with thin North American content are the ones with the most to lose.

Congress has a role. USTR must consult Congress before each review, and changes requiring changes to US law need implementing legislation, per CRS. Congress could also act on tariffs that sit outside the agreement. That does not make an outcome predictable, but it means negotiated changes are not purely executive decisions.

What Buyers Should Do Now

Do not abandon nearshoring plans on this news. Our Mexico nearshoring guide covers the structural reasons production moves, and none of them was repealed on July 1.

Instead, tighten the work you can control. Audit USMCA origin certifications for every imported line, because the suppliers whose documentation is weak will be the first exposed to any rules-of-origin tightening. Map your Canadian and Mexican spend against the tariff actions that apply regardless of origin. Add contract language that allocates cost if preferences or duties change mid-term. And consider filing a comment by January 12, 2027 if your company has specific data on how the agreement affects your costs.

The outcome to plan around is not termination, which nobody has proposed in the sources we reviewed. It is an agreement that stays in force and stays unsettled, with annual opportunities for it to change.

Sources: USTR statement of July 1, 2026 (ustr.gov); Congressional Research Service report R48787, updated September 29, 2026; USTR Federal Register notice 91 FR 63379 (effective October 5, 2026), as cited in a C.H. Robinson advisory. The Mexico and Canada extension positions, Section 232 and Section 301 treatment of USMCA goods, and the negotiation status come from law-firm and customs-advisory summaries and should be confirmed against official notices.