The United States has declined to extend the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) for an additional 16 years, a decision anticipated by observers following President Donald Trump’s trade agenda. This development has initiated extended and contentious negotiations between Canada, Mexico, and the United States, with Washington pressing its partners to make concessions across various sectors to maintain market access. There is also the looming possibility that the U.S. may eventually withdraw from the agreement entirely.

Amid the ongoing talks, there has been discussion of establishing a “Fortress North America” framework—a coordinated continental initiative involving secure supply chains and external tariffs intended to secure continued U.S. support for some version of the USMCA. This concept has found backing from Ontario’s provincial government, the Business Council of Canada, and some U.S. politicians. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has indicated openness toward the idea in limited sectors, although he did not elaborate on specifics.

Despite its appeal in certain respects, experts caution against pursuing such an arrangement. Analysts Peter Donolo and Claude Lavoie, among others, have warned that a “Fortress North America” could be heavily one-sided, eroding Canadian sovereignty by transferring substantial policy control to Washington.

The practical viability of the USMCA as a foundation for any integrated North American trade or tariff policy has also been questioned. Unlike other trade agreements such as Mercosur, which features a centralized administrative body with the authority to enforce rules and resolve disputes, the USMCA lacks an executive institution to oversee implementation. While a "Free Trade Commission" composed of trade ministers from the three countries theoretically exists, it holds no binding enforcement power.

This structure, rooted in the earlier North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), reflects longstanding U.S. opposition to supranational trade bodies that could limit unilateral American trade policy actions. Consequently, the U.S. maintains significant leverage, positioning itself as the dominant partner in any continent-wide trade arrangement. Observers note that this dynamic has persisted since Trump took office in 2017 and is unlikely to change under future administrations, regardless of party affiliation.

Further evidence of U.S. control within the USMCA is the requirement inserted by the Trump administration mandating advance consultation with the White House before Canada can engage in trade negotiations with any so-called non-market economies, primarily targeting China.

A “Fortress North America” model would amplify U.S. influence, potentially compelling Canada to comply with escalating demands related to rules of origin, digital services policies, critical minerals, energy, and financial services. American officials have already expressed opposition when Canada allowed Chinese electric vehicles into its market, signaling the heightened scrutiny such integrated policies could entail.

Critics argue that adopting a fortress strategy would force Canada into a defensive stance aligned with U.S. trade priorities, effectively compromising Canadian independence and subjecting national policies to the prerogatives of the White House. As a result, calls are growing to abandon the “Fortress North America” concept in Canada’s strategic planning.