Trade Cases
Report Questions Trump’s Authority to Withdraw U.S. from NAFTA
Written by Tim Triplett
March 13, 2019
The president’s authority to unilaterally withdraw the U.S. from NAFTA under U.S. law is unclear, according to a new report from the Congressional Research Service, but it does appear that the president would need congressional approval to terminate the U.S. law implementing NAFTA. The report’s conclusions could embolden lawmakers pushing back against President Trump’s threats to withdraw from NAFTA unless Congress approves the new U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement designed to replace it.
The report states that the U.S. approved NAFTA as a congressional-executive agreement by a majority vote of each house of Congress rather than as a treaty ratified by the president after Senate approval by a two-thirds majority vote. NAFTA was not a self-executing agreement; instead, Congress approved and implemented the agreement through the NAFTA Implementation Act, which provided domestic legal authorities with the power to enforce and comply with the agreement’s provisions.
President Trump has repeatedly suggested that he may unilaterally withdraw the U.S. from NAFTA in an effort to prompt Congress to approve the USMCA. However, the report calls into question what the effect of any such action would be.
According to CRS, it does not appear that any U.S. statute expressly gives the president authority to terminate NAFTA on his own. The most recent congressional grant of trade promotion authority does not speak to this issue, the report states, and in fact the nature of this law could prompt a court to find that congressional action is needed before the U.S. may withdraw from an agreement negotiated under TPA, including NAFTA. In addition, neither Section 125 nor Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 appears to authorize the president to terminate U.S. international obligations under NAFTA. These sections may provide the president with broad authority to suspend individual trade concessions granted to NAFTA countries and thereby establish barriers to trade with Canada and Mexico, the report notes, but the president’s use of such authority would likely be subject to review on various grounds by domestic or international tribunals.
Further, the report states, given that Supreme Court precedent generally requires the repeal of laws to conform to the same bicameral process used to enact them, it would appear that the president lacks authority to terminate the domestic effect of the NAFTA Implementation Act without going through the full legislative process for repeal.
Source: the Sandler, Travis & Rosenberg Trade Report.
Tim Triplett
Read more from Tim TriplettLatest in Trade Cases
SMU Survey: Less support seen for Trump tariff policies
Meanwhile, an increasing number think it's too early to say whether the penalties are going to bring more manufacturing to the US.
CRU: USW seeks exclusion for Canada from Trump’s tariffs
The union is also urging stronger enforcement against countries such as China which break trade rules, and a coordinated Canada-US strategy to protect union jobs across the North America
Price on trade: A lot happened last week – and it wasn’t all about tariffs
Should foreign investment be allowed to reshape the American steel Industry? Not to be lost in the recent on-again-off-again tariff frenzy, Nippon Steel’s proposed takeover of U.S. Steel has also found itself in President Trump’s crosshairs when it comes to trade and industrial policy. Nippon Steel initially announced its nearly $15-billion bid for U.S. Steel […]
Trump signs executive order aimed at making US shipbuilding ‘great again’
President Trump on Wednesday signed an executive order meant to breathe new life into American shipbuilding and curb Chinese dominance in the sector.
Trump still against selling USS to Japanese firm: Report
Despite ordering a new review of Nippon Steel’s bid for U.S. Steel, President Trump said he is still against selling USS to a Japanese company, according to media reports.