The U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, known as USMCA, does not simply run forever once it is signed. It contains a scheduled review in which the three countries decide whether to keep it going, and that review shapes the rules for trade that crosses the border at San Ysidro and Otay Mesa every day. This explainer walks through how the mechanism is built, what it can produce and why a Pacific border region has reason to follow it.
What is the joint review?
According to a Congressional Research Service (CRS) overview, the USMCA requires all three parties to confirm that they want to continue the agreement, and the CRS describes this as the first time such a provision has appeared in a U.S. trade agreement. The first joint review was scheduled for July 1, 2026, a date also given by the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative (USTR) when it opened public consultation in September 2025.
The review is a meeting of the three governments’ trade officials to examine how the agreement is operating. It is not a renegotiation by default, though the CRS notes that a review may produce revised text for some provisions, such as rules of origin (the tests that decide whether a product counts as made in North America) or newer subjects such as artificial intelligence.
What happens if all three countries agree?
Under the CRS description, if the three parties agree to extend the agreement at the review, it continues for another 16-year period. The cycle then repeats: a fresh review comes around after six years, with the same choice to make.
That structure gives businesses a long planning horizon in the best case. A manufacturer deciding whether to build a supply chain across the border can, in principle, count on stable rules for well over a decade.
What if one country does not agree?
This is the part most often misunderstood. According to the CRS, if the parties do not agree to extend at the 2026 review, the agreement does not end that day. It is set to terminate in 2036. In the meantime, the parties conduct annual joint reviews. These continue until all parties agree to extend for another 16-year period, after which the six-year cycle resumes, or until the agreement terminates.
| Outcome at a review | What the CRS says follows |
|---|---|
| All three parties agree to extend | New 16-year term; six-year review cycle continues |
| Not all parties agree | Agreement runs toward 2036 termination; annual joint reviews |
| Annual review later produces agreement by all three | New 16-year term; six-year cycle resumes |
| No agreement ever reached | Agreement terminates in 2036 |
A decision not to extend is therefore best read as a trigger for a longer period of negotiation, not as an exit. Readers following the story should check the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative’s website for the current status of the review, since the situation can change from month to month.
Why is the review a “joint” exercise?
Because the agreement is a three-way pact, no single country can extend it alone. Each party must confirm its wish to continue. That gives each government leverage, since withholding confirmation can be used to press for changes in specific areas. It also means that an issue between two countries, for instance Mexico and the United States, can affect the terms for the third.
The CRS notes that the review’s agenda can include long-standing disputes. Its overview mentions, as examples, energy disputes involving Mexico, labor rapid-response complaints, and procurement terms. Those are the CRS’s examples of subjects that have arisen, and the outcome of any of them is a matter for the governments involved.
What role does Congress play?
The USMCA was approved by Congress through Public Law 116-113. Under that law, according to the CRS, USTR must report to the appropriate congressional committees before each joint review. The report covers its assessment of how the agreement operates, the U.S. position on extension and recommended actions. USTR must also consult stakeholders by seeking public comments and holding a public hearing.
The consultation for the 2026 review is the visible part of that requirement. USTR announced it on September 16, 2025, with a Federal Register notice following on September 17, 2025, according to USTR’s announcement. USTR’s announcement set a comment deadline 45 days after publication and a public hearing, and dates in such notices can be revised, so the Federal Register is the place to confirm exact dates for any current consultation.
This congressional role connects to a broader question about how the United States makes international commitments. A treaty goes through the Senate, as described in how treaties are ratified by the U.S. Senate. Trade agreements like USMCA usually take a different path, in which Congress passes implementing legislation, and the review requirements are written into that law.
Why does a joint review matter in San Diego?
San Diego’s economy is tied to Mexico in ways that are easy to overlook. Any business that moves parts or finished goods across the border depends on predictable customs and origin rules, and those rules are what a review can touch. Daily commuters, shoppers and truck drivers move through the crossings described in how the San Ysidro border crossing works. Trade policy decisions in Washington and Mexico City influence the cost and speed of that movement.
The regional economy also includes sectors that touch North American trade, from defense suppliers and biotechnology firms to agriculture and tourism, as laid out in the regional economy overview. The Port of San Diego handles cargo as well. None of these sources supplies a single figure for how much of the local economy depends on USMCA, so this article does not offer one. Local readers can look to SANDAG and the county for regional data, and to USTR for the agreement itself.
Who feels a change first?
Changes to rules of origin tend to land first on manufacturers and the freight companies that serve them, because those rules decide whether a product qualifies for the agreement’s tariff treatment. Consumers and small importers feel changes later, mainly through prices and availability. Because the process is incremental, a firm’s compliance staff usually learn of a change through agency notices well before it takes effect.
What can local businesses and residents do?
Federal rules give the public a real, if limited, channel. The comment period before a review is open to anyone, including companies, unions, trade groups and individuals, and testimony at the hearing becomes part of the record the agency uses. The process for commenting on federal actions in general is outlined in how to comment on federal regulations.
Practical steps for staying informed include watching the USTR press page, the Federal Register for notices on the agreement and the congressional committees that hold hearings on trade.
What is still unknown?
Several questions remain open at the time of writing. The final text of any revisions, if there are any, depends on negotiation among three governments with different priorities. Whether the three parties will confirm an extension, and when, is not something any document can predict. And the effect on specific industries depends on provisions that have not been settled. Where a claim about those outcomes comes from a government or company, it should be treated as that party’s position, not as an established result.
A review, not a cliff
The key idea is that the USMCA was designed with a checkpoint instead of a fixed end date. Agreement among the three countries extends the pact for 16 more years. Disagreement does not end it immediately; it moves the agreement onto an annual review track with termination in 2036 as the backstop. For a border region such as San Diego, the practical implication is a long period in which trade rules may stay in place but remain open to change, which is worth tracking through official sources.
This article explains how a trade agreement’s review process works and is general information, not personalized financial, investment, tax or legal advice.
Sources: Congressional Research Service; Office of the U.S. Trade Representative
