28 U.S. States and 9 Canadian Provinces Back Long-Term CUSMA as Washington Trade Fight Deepens

35,000+ smart investors are already getting financial news, market signals, and macro shifts in the economy that could impact their money next with our FREE weekly newsletter. Get ahead of what the crowd finds out too late. Click Here to Subscribe for FREE.

A remarkably broad group of North American agriculture officials is pushing back against the uncertainty hanging over continental trade. Representatives from 28 U.S. states, nine Canadian provinces and six Mexican states gathered in Calgary for the 35th Tri-National Agricultural Accord and emerged with an unusually direct message: CUSMA should continue for the long term.

The timing gives that declaration added weight. Washington declined to extend the agreement during its July 2026 joint review, leaving CUSMA in force but moving the three countries into a period of annual reviews and continued negotiations. With new tariffs, counter-tariffs and sectoral disputes complicating the Canada-U.S. relationship, agriculture officials are arguing that predictable rules remain essential to one of the world’s most integrated trading regions.

A Record-Size Coalition Sends a Clear Message

The Calgary gathering was more than another industry conference. The 2026 Tri-National Agricultural Accord attracted what organizers described as the largest delegation in the event’s history, including officials representing 28 U.S. states, nine Canadian provinces and six Mexican states. The Accord has brought senior state and provincial agricultural officials together since 1992, giving regional governments a direct forum to discuss trade, rural development and cross-border problems that federal negotiations do not always capture.

This year, delegates went considerably further than simply praising regional cooperation. Their joint communiqué reaffirmed support for the long-term renewal of CUSMA and explicitly called on the three federal governments to extend the agreement for an additional 16 years. The message matters because it came from officials whose jurisdictions contain many of the farms, processors, ports and rural communities most exposed to changes in North American trade policy. Their position does not legally bind Washington, Ottawa or Mexico City, but it makes clear that uncertainty surrounding the agreement is increasingly being felt below the federal level.

Washington Has Put the Agreement Into Annual-Review Mode

CUSMA reached its first mandatory six-year review on July 1, 2026. Canada publicly reaffirmed its support for renewal, but the United States declined to extend the agreement in its current form. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said Washington wanted to address shortcomings in the pact and the United States’ trade deficits with Canada and Mexico before agreeing to a new long-term extension.

That decision did not cancel CUSMA. The agreement remains in force, but the failure to secure unanimous renewal triggered a different process: the three countries are now expected to conduct annual joint reviews until they all agree to another 16-year term or the agreement eventually reaches its scheduled end in 2036. Washington is already preparing for the next round. On October 2, USTR opened a consultation process for the 2027 review, with written comments and requests to participate in a public hearing due by January 12, 2027. That makes the Calgary declaration especially timely.

Agriculture Shows Why Predictability Matters

Agriculture provides one of the clearest examples of why state and provincial governments are uncomfortable with prolonged trade uncertainty. Canada and the United States recorded US$74.3 billion in agriculture and agri-food trade in 2024. Agricultural products routinely move through processing, packaging and distribution systems that cross the border, meaning a tariff or regulatory change can affect businesses hundreds of kilometres away from the actual crossing point.

Canada is also an unusually important customer for American farmers. Agriculture and Agri-Food Canada reported that 28 U.S. states counted Canada as their largest agriculture and agri-food export market. USDA data subsequently showed Canada remained the second-largest destination for U.S. agricultural exports in 2025, buying roughly US$28.7 billion. Those figures help explain why the political conversation outside Washington can sound different from the debate inside it. A state agriculture director is often looking at grain elevators, livestock operations, food processors and exporters whose business plans depend on predictable Canadian demand rather than the national trade balance alone.

U.S. States Have Their Own Economic Stake

The trade relationship becomes even easier to understand when it is broken down state by state. California alone recorded roughly US$9.6 billion in two-way agriculture and agri-food trade with Canada in 2024. Illinois was around US$5.4 billion, Pennsylvania US$4.8 billion and Washington State about US$3.1 billion. Even states geographically far from the Canadian border sell significant amounts of food and agricultural products into the Canadian market.

The provincial numbers tell the same story from the opposite direction. Ontario accounted for approximately US$35.6 billion in two-way agricultural trade with the United States in 2024, while Alberta recorded about US$9 billion and Quebec roughly US$8 billion. These are not abstract national totals. They represent cattle, vegetables, bakery products, processed foods, grains and other goods moving through real supply chains. That helps explain why provincial and state agriculture officials are demanding stability: businesses can adjust to known rules, even complicated ones, more easily than they can plan around repeated threats of sudden tariff changes.

CUSMA’s Farm Rules Are Valuable—But Not Frictionless

Support for CUSMA does not mean the agricultural relationship is free of disputes. The agreement largely preserved the zero-tariff agricultural access developed under NAFTA while adding new U.S. access to parts of Canada’s dairy, poultry and egg markets. It also established mechanisms dealing with agricultural biotechnology, sanitary and phytosanitary measures, transparency and consultations intended to prevent technical disagreements from unnecessarily disrupting trade.

Dairy demonstrates both the value and limitations of those rules. The United States challenged Canada’s administration of dairy tariff-rate quotas under CUSMA, winning part of an initial dispute that resulted in Canadian policy changes. Washington challenged the revised system again, but a subsequent panel found, by a two-to-one majority, that the Canadian measures at issue did not violate the obligations cited by the United States. Neither side considered every concern resolved, yet the disputes also showed why a functioning agreement matters. Instead of every disagreement immediately becoming an uncontrolled tariff confrontation, CUSMA provides formal procedures through which governments can test competing interpretations.

Tariffs Are Testing the Limits of the Trade Framework

CUSMA has not prevented Washington and Ottawa from imposing tariffs outside its normal preferential tariff structure. Canadian government guidance says CUSMA-compliant goods remain exempt from the broad 10% U.S. Section 301 tariffs introduced in July 2026, but the agreement does not completely shield Canadian products from separate American sectoral measures. Steel, aluminum, copper, autos, trucks and several other categories have faced additional U.S. restrictions or special tariff treatment.

The confrontation intensified during the summer and early fall. Washington imposed additional duties of as much as 50% on certain Canadian goods under Section 338, and Canada responded with matching counter-tariffs of 15%, 25% or 50% on selected American imports beginning September 8. The United States subsequently moved to exclude certain Canadian products from importation starting September 29. For farmers and processors watching from outside national capitals, that escalation reinforces the central argument made in Calgary: CUSMA is most valuable when it produces predictability, and that value diminishes when businesses must continually calculate whether new unilateral measures will override normal trading conditions.

The 16-Year Extension Is More Than Symbolism

The delegates’ demand for another 16 years reflects the unusual structure built into CUSMA. Article 34.7 gives the agreement an initial 16-year term but requires the three governments to conduct a joint review after six years. When all three confirm that they want to continue, the agreement is automatically extended for another 16-year period, with another joint review required no later than six years afterward.

Because the United States withheld that confirmation in July, the mechanism has shifted into annual-review mode. CUSMA can still be extended at any point if all three governments provide the required confirmation. Otherwise, the existing term continues toward 2036. For agricultural businesses, that distinction matters. A treaty technically remaining alive for another decade is not the same as knowing its framework has received a fresh 16-year commitment. Farms, processing plants, transportation networks and food-manufacturing facilities frequently require investments that are expected to operate for many years. The Calgary officials are effectively arguing that the investment horizon should be longer than the political negotiating cycle.

Mexico Keeps the Argument Trilateral

Although the Canada-U.S. confrontation often dominates the headlines, the Calgary statement was deliberately North American rather than bilateral. Six Mexican states participated alongside the U.S. and Canadian delegations, and the communiqué described the continent’s integrated agricultural market as important to both economic competitiveness and food security. Delegates also stressed science-based trade policies and cooperation on animal and plant health.

That trilateral dimension is important because the agreement cannot simply be understood as two separate U.S. relationships. U.S. and Mexican officials have already held bilateral negotiations connected to the review covering agriculture as well as automobiles, steel, aluminum, labour and economic security. Agricultural products and inputs can similarly move through supply chains involving all three countries. The Accord’s delegates even called for additional trilateral exercises to prepare for agricultural pests and animal diseases. Their broader point is that cross-border cooperation is not limited to tariffs: common rules also help governments react to biological threats, regulatory problems and supply disruptions before they become larger economic crises.

The Coalition Adds Pressure, Not a Final Decision

The 28 states and nine provinces represented in Calgary cannot renew CUSMA themselves. Under Article 34.7, the formal decision ultimately rests with the three national governments, and extension requires written confirmation through each country’s head of government. The significance of the Accord therefore lies in political and economic pressure rather than legal authority.

That pressure could become more important as the 2027 review approaches. USTR’s new consultation process gives businesses, agricultural organizations and other stakeholders another opportunity to tell Washington what they believe should change—or what should be preserved. Canada, meanwhile, has already declared its support for renewal and continues to press for resolution of sectoral tariffs affecting areas including steel, aluminum and automobiles. The emerging divide is increasingly clear: Washington is using the review process as leverage to demand changes, while a substantial group of state, provincial and industry voices wants governments to lock in long-term certainty. The coming months will show whether those two objectives can be reconciled without putting North America’s integrated economy through years of recurring trade uncertainty.

This Options Discord Chat is The Real Deal

While the internet is scoured with trading chat rooms, many of which even charge upwards of thousands of dollars to join, this smaller options trading discord chatroom is the real deal and actually providing valuable trade setups, education, and community without the noise and spam of the larger more expensive rooms. With a incredibly low-cost monthly fee, Options Trading Club (click here to see their reviews) requires an application to join ensuring that every member is dedicated and serious about taking their trading to the next level. If you are looking for a change in your trading strategies, then click here to apply for a membership.