Growing objections within Member States to U.S. trade policy and various aspects of the USMCA have had an impact on the signing and ratification process. Mexico said it would not sign the USMCA if tariffs on steel and aluminum were maintained.  Based on the results of the November 6, 2018 U.S. election, it has been speculated that the greater power of Democrats in the House of Representatives could jeopardize the passage of the USMCA agreement.   Bill Pascrell, a senior Democrat, argued for changes to the USMCA to pass Congress.  Republicans have opposed the USMCA provisions that impose labour rights on LGBTQ and pregnant workers.  Forty Republicans in Congress have asked Mr. Trump not to sign an agreement that includes “the unprecedented integration of sexual orientation and the language of gender identity.” As a result, Trump ultimately signed a revised version that required each nation only to “policies it deems appropriate to protect workers from discrimination in the workplace” and said the United States would not be required to introduce additional non-discrimination laws.
 The Canadian government expressed concern about the changes that have occurred under the USMCA agreement.  The U.S.-Mexico-Canada agreement is based on the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which originally came into force on January 1, 1994. The agreement under consideration was the result of more than a year of negotiations including possible U.S. tariffs on Canada, in addition to the possibility of separate bilateral agreements.  The USMCA is expected to have a very small impact on the economy.  An International Monetary Fund (IMF) discussion paper published at the end of March 2019 stated that the agreement would have a “negligible” impact on the general economy.   The IMF study predicted that the USMCA “would have a negative impact on trade in the automotive, textile and clothing sectors, while achieving modest welfare gains, mainly due to improved access to the goods market, with a negligible impact on real GDP.”  The IMF study found that the economic benefits of the USMCA would be greatly enhanced if Trump`s trade war ended (i.e. if the U.S. lowered tariffs on imports) steel and aluminum from Canada and Mexico and lowering retaliatory duties on imports from the United States to Canada and Mexico)  In the 2016 U.S.
presidential elections , Donald Trump had a promise to renegotiate or abolish NAFTA in case the renegotiations fail.  After the election, Trump made a series of changes that influenced trade relations with other countries. The exit from the Paris Agreement, the cessation of participation in the Trans-Pacific Partnership negotiations and the significantly larger increase in tariffs with China were some of the steps he took, which reinforced the fact that he was serious about changing NAFTA.  Much of the debate about the virtues and errors of the USMCA resembles the debate on all free trade agreements (FTAs), such as the nature of free trade agreements as public goods, potential violations of national sovereignty and the role of commercial, labour, environmental and consumer interests in the development of the language of trade agreements. The agreement is designated differently by each signatory – in the United States, it is called the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA);   in Canada, it is officially known as the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) in English and the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (ACEUM) in French;  and in Mexico, tratado is called tratado between México, Estados Unidos y Canadé (T-MEC).   The agreement is sometimes referred to as “New NAFTA” with respect to the previous trilateral agreement for the successor, the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA).