The Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) comes up for review on July 1, 2026. Originally negotiated in 1992 as the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) and later re-negotiated in 2020, CUSMA has experienced a series of logistical and existential obstacles to its continuation, particularly during both presidencies of Donald Trump. Since taking office for his second term, Canada and Mexico have suffered the ire of Trump, ranging from blanket tariffs to threats of annexation and invasion. As a result, economic policy uncertainty is at historical highs in Canada, while in Mexico, the devaluation of the peso and a 10-25 per cent U.S. tariff on many Mexican goods has hit the economy hard. Beneath the headlines are more muted negotiations over policy choices on matters of tariff exemption and content requirements for a range of sectors. While automobile manufacturing and steel steal the headlines, the critical minerals and energy sector is now at centre stage in the CUSMA review. The efficient exchange of raw commodities and energy (both clean and fossil burning) is a priority of all three countries. North America’s capacity for mutually beneficial natural resource production is high, but there are confounding messages being disseminated by all three countries on their respective positions in the trilateral relationship.In the months leading up to the start of the CUSMA review, logistical and existential challenges remain that will be difficult to overcome in trade negotiations. Frequent changes to tariff exemptions for CUSMA-compliant primary resource products is a major headache for companies, and a hindrance to good-faith negotiations. The ongoing uncertainty caused by U.S. tariffs suggest that renewing CUSMA on existing terms is unlikely, and that will not help lower costs. Ongoing uncertaintyThe U.S. government recently announced their critical mineral strategy, which seeks to increase U.S. government ownership stakes in domestic mines and assert direct control over critical mineral pricing with foreign partners to counter China’s control over mineral refining. The U.S. and Mexico also launched an action plan on critical minerals to co-ordinate supply chain resilience in the minerals sector. Canada has not signed an agreement with the U.S. on minerals co-operation, opting instead to keep it baked into the upcoming CUSMA review. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney is travelling more than any other prime minister in history to secure new economic partnerships. Mexico has reversed course on the liberalization of their oil and gas sector, favouring a new direction of state ownership that partners with foreign suppliers to modernize existing upstream, mid-stream and downstream infrastructure. Read more: Why the U.S. is unlikely to curtail China’s critical minerals dominance Commodities originating in Canada that were once covered under CUSMA and that are important for U.S. manufacturing, such as copper and potash, have been subject to fluctuating tariffs between 10 per cent and 25 per cent. Similarly, Mexico is experiencing disruptions to their export-oriented trade of crude oil to the U.S. and dependence on imports of U.S. petroleum products. These strategically important primary resources for energy generation and value-added goods will feel the impact of slow negotiations and prices will reflect this reality. Even in the event of a favourable outcome for cross-border trade relations, the impacts of the trade war are wreaking havoc on energy markets and related downstream sectors. Trilateral relations at a crossroadWhile each country is approaching the CUSMA review differently, the existential implications are clear. As the war initiated by the U.S. and Israel drags on in Iran and pushes up global energy prices, the trilateral relationship has to contend with higher prices and global scarcities. Carney’s speech at Davos in January 2026 laid clear Canada’s dual-pronged approach of seeking to salvage the agreement while also finding new markets for their primary resources. Read more: Mark Carney’s Davos speech marks a major departure from Canada’s usual approach to the U.S. Through the Building Canada Act, the Canadian government is working with provinces to streamline resource extraction and logistics to ship resources to Asian and European markets.Mexico’s efforts to court new markets has been less aggressive, seeking instead to work on the relationship with the U.S. and increase infrastructure investments in the cross-border exchange of oil and gas products. The original re-negotiation of the former NAFTA took more than nine months and eight rounds of trilateral talks. There’s a large amount of risk to economic performance of North America, based on the agreement and the ongoing war between the U.S., Israel and Iran if the talks drag on. With the range of outcomes available to the trade partners, the trilateral relationship is at a crossroads.John P. Hayes does not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organisation that would benefit from this article, and has disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.