After Donald Trump`s presidential election, a number of trade experts said that exiting NAFTA, as Proposed by Trump, would have a number of unintended consequences for the United States, including limited access to the largest U.S. export markets, reduced economic growth and higher prices for gasoline, cars, fruits and vegetables.  The textile, agriculture and automotive sectors would be most affected.   Many critics of NAFTA viewed the agreement as a radical experiment developed by influential multinationals who wanted to increase their profits at the expense of ordinary citizens of the countries concerned. Opposition groups argued that the horizontal rules imposed by nafta could undermine local governments by preventing them from enacting laws or regulations to protect the public interest. Critics also argued that the treaty would lead to a significant deterioration in environmental and health standards, promote privatization and deregulation of essential public services, and supplant family farmers in the signatory countries. A fourth round of talks included a U.S. request for a sunset clause that would end the agreement in five years unless the three countries agreed to keep it in place, a provision that U.S. Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross said would allow to kill countries if it didn`t work. Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau met with the House Ways and Means Committee because Congress would have to pass legislation that re-releases the treaty provisions if Trump tries to pull out of the pact.  In its May 24, 2017 report, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) wrote that the economic impact of NAFTA on the U.S. economy was modest.
In a 2015 report, the Congressional Research Service summarized several studies as follows: “In reality, NAFTA did not cause the huge job losses that critics feared, nor the significant economic benefits predicted by supporters. The overall net effect of NAFTA on the U.S. economy appears to have been relatively small, not least because trade with Canada and Mexico accounts for a small percentage of U.S. GDP. However, there have been adjustment costs for workers and businesses as the three countries have prepared for more open trade and investment between their economies. :2 A Canadian-U.S. The free trade agreement was concluded in 1988 and NAFTA extended the provisions of the agreement primarily to Mexico. NAFTA was negotiated by the governments of U.S. President George H.W. Bush, Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney and Mexican Prime Minister Carlos Salinas de Gortari. An interim agreement on the pact was reached in August 1992 and signed by the three heads of state and government on 17 December. NAFTA was ratified by the national parliaments of the three countries in 1993 and came into force on January 1, 1994. The Clinton administration negotiated an environmental agreement with Canada and Mexico, the North American Environmental Cooperation Agreement (NAAEC), which led to the creation of the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) in 1994.
In order to allay concerns that nafta, the first regional trade agreement between a developing and two developed countries, would have negative effects on the environment, the Commission was tasked with carrying out an ex post-post environmental assessment it created one of the first ex-post frameworks for the environmental assessment of trade liberalization, which was to provide a certain amount of evidence regarding the initial assumptions concerning NAFTA and the environment. , such as the fear that NAFTA could create a “race to the bottom” of environmental regulation between the three countries or that NAFTA would put pressure on governments to strengthen their environmental protection.  The CEC organized four symposiums on assessing the impact of NAFTA on the environment and requested 47 contributions from leading independent experts on the subject.  The political divide was particularly large in terms of views on free trade with Mexico.