President Trump`s trade agenda was based on four pillars: but this confusion between NAFTA and the letters of globalization has something. The agreement “launched a new generation of trade agreements in the Western Hemisphere and other parts of the world,” the CRS writes, so NAFTA has rightly become an acronym for 20 years of broad diplomatic, political and trade consensus that free trade is generally a good thing. The pact catalyzed Mexico`s transition from one of the world`s most protectionist economies to one of the most trade-friendly. Mexico had dismantled many of its trade barriers after joining the WTO`s 1986 General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade (GATT) in 1986, but it still had an average level of tariffs before NAFTA [PDF] of 10%. President Clinton rightly called the agreement “just a first step” and stressed that it would reach other Latin American countries to spread free trade throughout the hemisphere. It will thus move even closer to the conservative vision of a hemispheric free trade area. The legislation was developed under President George H. W. Bush as the first phase of his Enterprise for the Americas initiative. The Clinton administration, which signed NAFTA in 1993, believed it would create 200,000 U.S. jobs in two years and one million in five years, as exports would play an important role in U.S. economic growth. The government expected a dramatic increase in U.S.
imports from Mexico due to lower tariffs. Finally, the 2008 financial crisis had a profound impact on the global economy, making it difficult to determine the effects of a trade agreement. Apart from some areas where the effect is not yet entirely clear, NAFTA has had a fairly obvious impact on the North American economies. The fact that it is now threatened with being abolished probably has little to do with its own merits or mistakes, and much more so with automation, the rise of China and the political consequences of September 11 and the 2008 financial crisis. The next day, a renegotiated version of the agreement, called the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), was published. In November 2018, at the G20, the USMCA was signed by President Trump, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and then-Mexican President Enrique Pea Nieto. Maquiladoras (Mexican assembly plants that absorb imported components and produce goods for export) have become the emblem of trade in Mexico. They left the United States for Mexico, hence the debate about the loss of American jobs. Revenues in the maquiladora sector had increased by 15.5% since nafta in 1994.
 Other sectors have also benefited from the free trade agreement and the share of non-cross-border exports to the United States has increased over the past five years [when?], while the share of exports from border states has declined. This has led to rapid growth in non-cross-border metropolitan areas such as Toluca, Leén and Puebla, all more populated than Tijuana, Ciudad Juérez and Reynosa. In early 2020, the U.S. Congress approved the USMCA with large bipartisan majorities in both chambers, and the agreement came into effect on July 1. Nevertheless, some critics have complained that the new rules of origin and minimum wage requirements are cumbersome and boil down to state-run exchanges. Alden of CFR was blood pressure and said that the government could recognize the restoration of cross-party cooperation in U.S. trade policy. But he warns: “If this new mix of Trump nationalism and democratic progressivism is what it takes now to conclude trade agreements with the United States, there could be very few buyers.” In 2008, Republican candidate Ron Paul said he would abolish the trade agreement.