What will the USMCA renegotiation be like? Imagine surgery without anesthesia.

Will the USMCA review end the uncertainty or exacerbate it? That is the question. Article 34.7 of the agreement establishes that there will be a joint review six years after the treaty enters into force, that is, on July 1, 2026.

The exact procedure for the review is not defined in the text agreed upon by Ildefonso Guajardo, Robert Lighthizer, and Chrystia Freeland eight years ago. You don't need a crystal ball to predict that we'll see many things go awry. There's no precedent, and besides, there's Donald Trump, accompanied by figures like Peter Navarro, his great guru and China hater.

It's in Mexico and Canada's interest to move the review forward because we're experiencing a situation where the United States is implementing changes to regional trade rules without utilizing the mechanisms provided by the USMCA. We're having to push things forward instead of engaging in dialogue and negotiation.

In an ideal scenario for Mexico, the Trump administration would acknowledge that the agreement has been a success and has made North America the most competitive region in the world. The renegotiation would focus on updating the rules of economic integration and establishing common goals.

It is necessary, for example, to include a more detailed and ambitious agenda for the mining sector, including the trinational exploration of rare earth minerals, as proposed by Armando Ortega, a Mexican expert in the mining sector. Much needs to be done to further integrate the financial sector, says Emilio Romano of BofA Mexico and president of the ABM. The financial sector does not have the same level of integration as manufacturing, agriculture, or logistics.

We are far from experiencing the best moment of our relationship with the United States. That means we are entering the review with caution, rather than optimism. The priority is to save the USMCA. Improving it, for now, is more of a pipe dream. The review will become major surgery, and there is a real possibility that the USMCA will not survive. The curious thing about this is that the agreement could be terminated in Trump's style and not on the terms envisioned by Mexico, Canada, and the United States in 2018. It should be remembered that, under the current agreement, the USMCA is valid until 2036. The review is intended to put in writing the willingness to extend it for another 16 years, until 2042.

What does Trump want? Changes are in the air, some already in the process of being implemented: new rules of origin for the automotive industry; measures to guarantee an effective "blockade" of China's presence; and a drastic reduction in the trade deficit with Mexico. In practice, he is turning the trade relationship into a bargaining chip to obtain concessions on immigration issues or combating organized crime.

Will the USMCA review be the forum in which the Trump administration will voice its dissatisfaction with some of the decisions the Fourth Transformation has made in recent months? It's unclear whether this will be the case; it's not even possible to know the extent of the US anger. This category includes the measures against genetically modified corn; the energy reform that gives preponderance to Pemex and CFE; and the reform of the judicial branch.

These actions could be challenged by the United States in the context of the USMCA. Similarly, Mexico and Canada could use the USMCA to litigate against the United States over the tariffs it imposed on steel and aluminum, and the changes it is implementing to the rules of origin for the automotive sector. Mexico could also use the USMCA mechanisms to challenge non-tariff barriers against tomatoes.

Will we see these disputes litigated under the USMCA? I doubt it. If Donald Trump ignores US judges, why would he submit to the authority of the USMCA panel arbitrators or give in to the demands of the governments of Mexico and Canada?

What if Donald Trump decides to turn the USMCA into a zombie? A sleepless night scenario is that the USMCA remains formally alive, but the important things are decided unilaterally in the White House, Silicon Valley, or Wall Street. We would be left with the choice of saying no to the world's largest market or swallowing our guilt.