According to Chad Bown of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the Trump administration`s list “is very consistent with the president`s position on trade barriers that like protectionism. This makes NAFTA less of a free trade agreement in many ways.  The considerations expressed by the U.S. representative regarding subsidized state-owned enterprises and currency manipulation are not likely to apply in Canada and Mexico, but are intended to send a message to countries outside North America.  Jeffrey Schott of the Peterson Institute for International Economics stated that it was not possible to conclude renegotiations quickly, while alleviating all concerns on the list.  He also said that it would be difficult to do something about trade deficits.  Already in 1984, President Ronald Reagan passed the Trade and Customs Act, which gave the president special power to negotiate free trade agreements more quickly. Canadian Prime Minister Mulroney supported the President and the United States of Canada. The free trade agreement was finally signed in 1988; It came into force a year later. According to a 2018 report by Gordon Laxter by the Council of Canadians, NAFTA`s proportionality rule ensures that the Americans have “almost unlimited first access to most of Canada`s oil and gas products” and that Canada has been unable to reduce exports of oil, natural gas and electricity (74% of its oil and 52% of its natural gas) to the United States even though Canada was a bottleneck. These provisions, which seemed logical when NAFTA was signed in 1993, are no longer appropriate. :4 The Council of Canadians has promoted environmental protection and opposed NAFTA`s role in promoting bitumen sand development and hydraulic fracturing.
 To simplify, however, NAFTA is expected to stimulate economic growth and integration among North American countries and should actually stimulate employment growth, stimulate the respective economies of the three countries and increase imports. A study published in the August 2008 edition of the American Journal of Agricultural Economics found that NAFTA increased U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico and Canada, although most of the increase occurred a decade after its ratification. The study focused on the impact of phase-in periods in regional trade agreements, including NAFTA, on trade flows. Most of the increase in membership agricultural trade, recently entered into the World Trade Organization, is due to very high trade barriers prior to NAFTA or other regional trade agreements.  Additional ancillary agreements have been reached to allay concerns about the potential impact of the treaty on the labour market and the environment. Critics feared that U.S. and Canadian companies in Mexico would have generally low wages, which would lead to a shift of production to Mexico and a rapid reduction in manufacturing employment in the United States and Canada. Meanwhile, environmentalists were concerned about the potentially catastrophic effects of rapid industrialization in Mexico, which does not have experience in implementing and enforcing environmental legislation. Possible environmental problems were raised in the North American Environmental Cooperation Agreement (NAAEC), which established the Commission for Environmental Cooperation (CEC) in 1994.
In 2015, the Congressional Research Service concluded that “NAFTA`s overall net impact on the U.S. economy appears to be relatively small, not least because trade with Canada and Mexico accounts for a small percentage of U.S. GDP.