Ahead of the joint review of the United States–Mexico–Canada Agreement (the “USMCA”) scheduled for July 2026, the Office of the United States Trade Representative (the “USTR”) held a public comment period from September 17 to November 3, 2025 (local time), during which stakeholders in major industries such as steel, automobiles, electronics and critical minerals submitted their views.
The joint review process will determine whether the USMCA will be extended. In particular, the Trump administration appears to be leveraging the review as an opportunity to renegotiate the agreement. Accordingly, in addition to assessing the implementation and outcomes of the USMCA, the joint review is expected to address a broad range of issues, including trade, investment, security and regulatory cooperation on China. This process may have a material impact on Korean companies that have operations in Canada or Mexico, as well as Korean companies engaged in trade with those countries. It is therefore necessary to take into account developments in the USMCA amendment discussions and to prepare for potential changes to the provisions of the agreement.
The key comments submitted for each core area are as follows:
|
Sector |
Issues |
Comments and Proposal |
|
Steel |
Strengthening Rules of Origin |
|
|
Joint Tariff Increase |
Canada and Mexico should be subject to foreign steel tariffs equivalent to those of the US (50% equivalent to the tariff rate of Section 232) (American Iron and Steel Institute) |
|
|
Reduction of Additional Customs Duties |
|
|
|
Automobile |
Strengthening Rules of Origin |
Stakeholders in the US expressed their support for strengthening the origin standards (General Motors, American Iron and Steel Institute)
|
|
Maintaining Current Rules of Origin |
Other stakeholders expressed concern about the possibility of strengthening the rules of origin (Hyundai Motor Group, American Chamber of Commerce in Canada (“AmCham Canada”))
|
|
|
Strengthening Labor Clauses |
Argument to strengthen the Rapid Response Mechanism (“RRM”), which allows the US or Canada to conduct prompt investigations into labor infringement in Mexico and take measures such as import restrictions, if necessary, and to expand the scope of investigation (United Auto Workers) |
|
|
Electronics and Home Appliances |
Maintaining Current Rules of Origin |
Request to maintain the current rules of origin (Korea Electronics Association, LG Electronics), or, if the country of origin regulations are strengthened, to allow appropriate implementation periods or phased standards for each product (Samsung Electronics) |
|
Exclusion from Redundant Tariffs |
Request that ICT products and parts be exempt from the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (the “IEEPA”) or Section 232 tariffs if they are produced in USMCA member states (IBM, AmCham Canada) |
|
|
Critical Minerals |
Supply Chain Security and Investment Protection |
|
|
Proposals for Rules of Origin |
|
|
|
China Regulation |
Bypass Foreclosure and |
|
Stakeholder comments confirm ongoing domestic and international discussions among the USMCA parties regarding a potential joint review, with particular focus on rules of origin for steel and automotive products. US stakeholders have advocated strengthening these rules, noting the interaction between USMCA origin requirements and Section 232 measures on steel, aluminum and automobiles, and the resulting implications for operators in Canada and Mexico. Under the current regime, Section 232 tariffs on automobiles apply to “non-US content” only where an importer qualifies under the USMCA by substantiating “US content,” such that any modification of origin criteria could directly reallocate the tariff burden across supply chains. In addition, any tightening of steel origin requirements would likely necessitate supply-chain restructuring, including potentially higher onshore procurement costs, to maintain compliance and preserve preferential treatment.
By contrast, onshore stakeholders have underscored the need for regional cooperation to keep China in check, identifying as key priorities the prevention of transshipment of Chinese-origin products and the exclusion of China from core mineral supply chains. Should such concerns be reflected in amendments or interpretive practices under the USMCA, it is expected that non-party partner countries would likewise be called upon to support measures aimed at keeping China in check, which could in turn have direct and indirect implications for Korean enterprises engaged in trade with Canada and Mexico.
In addition, the USTR conducted a public hearing to receive stakeholder input concerning the joint review between December 3 and 5, 2025. Participants (i) expressed divergent views as to whether the USMCA should be comprehensively overhauled or amended only with regard to specific respects, but (ii) agreed that it should be maintained in force. Moreover, on December 4, 2025, over the course of the hearing, the USTR welcomed written submissions on automotive regulatory provisions, including vehicle rules of origin, specifically requesting comments on the effectiveness of such provisions in light of technological developments and changes in production capacity. These comments were due on January 7, 2026.
Therefore, companies should closely follow the progress of the USMCA joint review discussions through July 2026 and, where necessary, actively engage in the process—for example, by submitting their views at the corporate level.
Related Topics
#USMCA #Renegotiation #International Trade & Customs #2025 Issue 4 #Newsletter




