In July 2017, the Trump administration presented a detailed list of changes it wants to make to NAFTA.  The top priority was to reduce the U.S. trade deficit.   The government has also called for the abolition of provisions allowing Canada and Mexico to challenge U.S. tariffs and impose import restrictions on the United States, Canada and Mexico.  The list also highlighted subsidized state-owned enterprises and monetary manipulation.   Exports of goods in real terms to Canada increased by 50% between 1993 and 2016 and real imports of goods increased by 41%. NAFTA appears to have improved the U.S. trade position vis-à-vis Canada. In fact, the two countries already had a free trade agreement since 1988, but the pattern continues — the U.S. trade deficit with Canada was even larger in 1987 than in 1993. Bureau of Census, foreign trade statistics. «New data updates 2005.» Available at www.census.gov/foreign-trade/statistics/.
Appeal on April 17, 2006. The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was a three-country agreement negotiated by the governments of Canada, Mexico and the United States, which came into force in January 1994. NAFTA eliminated most tariffs on goods traded between the three countries, with a focus on trade liberalization in agriculture, textiles and automobiles. The agreement also aimed to protect intellectual property, establish dispute resolution mechanisms and implement labour and environmental protection measures through ancillary agreements. NAFTA has had three major advantages. U.S. food prices were lower due to duty-free imports from Mexico. Oil imported from Canada and Mexico has prevented the rise in gas prices. NAFTA has also increased trade and economic growth for all three countries.
According to Chad Bown of the Peterson Institute for International Economics, the Trump administration`s list «is very much in tune with the president`s attitude to love trade barriers, taste 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.  Neither the worst fears of Canadian trade opponents — that open trade would erode the country`s manufacturing sector — nor the high hopes of NAFTA supporters — that this would lead to a rapid increase in productivity — materialized.