A Rubber Stamp or Chaotic Exit? A Strategic Approach to USMCA Uncertainty

Article

February 12, 2026

By Donna Fontana

With the approaching July 1, 2026, mandatory review of the USMCA trade deal, business leaders need to be on their front foot to keep stakeholders assured of their ability to operate, no matter the outcome. Negotiated during the first Trump administration in 2019, this administration has already stated it will not rubber-stamp the next iteration and is negotiating for concessions, while it also continues separate talks with Mexico and Canada for potential new bi-lateral agreements. Most recently, media reports that Trump is considering withdrawal as a nuclear option as well.

Yet the context for this negotiation has shifted beyond bilateral U.S.-Canada-Mexico dynamics. Mark Carney’s Davos speech signaling that alternative trade architectures are possible has empowered countries to consider diversification beyond U.S.-centric arrangements. For companies, this creates a more complex calculation: the outcome of USMCA renegotiation now intersects with broader geopolitical realignment that will affect market access and positioning beyond North America.

As we’ve seen over the past 12 months, trade and tariff negotiations come with a genuine, but unclear risk with a spectrum of possible outcomes:

The deal gets renewed with modest concessions (labor provisions tightened, critical minerals collaboration added, Rule of Origin adjusted).

On the other end: Trump follows through on exit threats, tariffs spike, supply chains scramble.

Or we end up in the somewhere in the middle with a period of extended ambiguity where the deal’s fate is unclear, decisions get delayed, and market uncertainty persists for months or longer.

Do you try to influence that outcome through strategic communications or stay silent and potentially face greater risk if the worst-case emerges?

Three Potential Reputation Risks

Risk 1: Being Seen as Unprepared if your company hasn’t communicated USMCA’s impact on your business to stakeholders with proactive plans for managing the potential risk to your supply chain.  The situation demands clarity. Can you articulate in 30 seconds why USMCA matters (or doesn’t matter) to your business?

Risk 2: Being Blindsided by Your Own Stakeholders Your trade association is mobilizing. Your competitors are taking positions. Your suppliers are making contingency plans. If you’re silent while everyone else acts, you’ll look reactive when you eventually have to respond.

This happens because urgency compounds. In February, speaking up is a thoughtful choice. In May, it looks defensive. In July, it looks panicked.

Risk 3: Having Your Position Misunderstood If you don’t clarify your view on USMCA early, people will infer one. That inference is often wrong. A company that’s genuinely exposed to Mexico tariffs but stays silent gets read as either indifferent or politically opposed to Trump. Neither is probably true, but silence creates a vacuum that gets filled by assumption.

Critical Context: Distinguishing Negotiating Theater from Genuine Threats

One overlooked dimension of USMCA risk is distinguishing genuine policy shifts from negotiating theater. Some observers say that President Trump’s documented pattern with major trade decisions is to escalate to the “cliff edge” through public threats, then either negotiate a compromise or implement partial measures. Understanding which scenario you’re in will determine your response intensity.

Companies that respond to every statement as existential crisis will exhaust stakeholders and damage credibility. Those that can distinguish signal from noise will preserve organizational energy for when real decisions are being made. Monitor not just the rhetoric, but whether it’s accompanied by institutional action that suggests implementation.

Next Steps for Communicators

1. Get a realistic view of your company’s exposure:

Stakeholder interest: How much do your investors care about this? How much do your employees in Mexico/Canada care about this? (Will they worry if you’re silent?) How much do your customers care about this? (Would tariff increases affect pricing you can offer them?) How much do policymakers care about your view? (Do you have any actual influence?)

Additionally, map your non-North American stakeholder exposure: How important are European or Asian markets to your business? Do you have significant operations or customers in markets signaling openness to alternative trade relationships (per Mark Carney’s Davos call for countries to resist U.S. economic coercion)? Could public positioning that strongly aligns with Trump’s approach to USMCA alienate stakeholders in other markets? This matters because the geopolitical context is shifting. Countries are actively building alternatives to U.S.-centric trade architecture.

Supply chain: What percentage of your inputs come from Mexico or Canada? Which of your products would be most affected by tariffs on those inputs? How much pricing power do you have to pass through tariff increases? What’s your realistic mitigation (inventory, alternative suppliers, nearshoring, product shifts)?

Tariff options: Do you actually need USMCA continuity, or could you adapt to tariffs? Are there specific terms (labor, environment, digital trade, Rule of Origin) that matter to you beyond just the deal existing? Would your business be better served by bilateral deals with Mexico/Canada rather than tri-lateral? Do you have competitive exposure? (Would tariffs on inputs hurt you more or less than competitors?)

If the answer to most of these is “not much,” maybe your communications strategy is to stay informed but quiet. If the answer is “a lot,” you have to engage more visibly.

2. Prepare a messaging framework and response plan that allows you to be strategically engaged without being operationally alarmist. While you should be honest about uncertainty, emphasize continuity in messaging. Connect to broader business interest—jobs, innovation, community—not just tariffs. Importantly, frame your USMCA position as aligned with business growth and market access broadly, not as opposition to or appeasement of any particular administration or policy approach. This positioning gives you flexibility as political winds shift (e.g., if Congress exerts pressure to preserve USMCA, or if alternative trade relationships emerge) while maintaining credibility with diverse stakeholders. Avoid language that boxes you into a corner if the geopolitical or political context changes.

In addition, check in with your trade association(s). You may have the option to publicly align with their position and provide quiet support.

As you develop a response plan with messaging aligned with each potential outcome, be inclusive of direct communications to key stakeholders including briefings to analysts/investors, employees, suppliers and customer briefings if you have a very high exposure.

3. Monitoring seems obvious, but things change fast these days. Watch the news and trade publications, but also USTR announcements and congressional activity. Keep an eye on the signposts that indicate whether outcomes are moving toward your scenario or away from it: is the administration signaling progress, are either Mexico and/or Canada making public concessions (even symbolic ones) on key terms, is public pressure coming from business leaders, does Trump publicly or repeatedly threaten withdrawal or shifts statements to bi-lateral rather than tri-lateral? All of these require adjustment to your communication plans.

USMCA is genuinely in flux. How much flux is the guess. As most communicators understand, you plan for the most possible flux, and hope for the least. Understand your exposure. Clarify your interests. Communicate your position clearly. Monitor signposts that tell you whether things are moving toward deal renewal, extended ambiguity, or collapse.

Reputations can be cemented in challenging times. Companies that understand both the genuine risks and the political constraints, that map their exposure accurately, that clarify their position early, and that avoid alienating stakeholders in markets beyond North America will emerge from this stronger. Those that simply react, or that optimize for one narrow audience at the expense of others, will find themselves disadvantaged regardless of which USMCA outcome materializes. Preparation and positioning are not just defensive; they’re competitive differentiators in a shifting landscape.

With 35 years of experience in the B2B and industrial sectors, Donna Fontana is the global lead for the firm’s manufacturing and energy practice and serves as the general manager of FleishmanHillard’s Detroit office.