Did Trump's trade deals like USMCA benefit American workers?
Executive summary
USMCA produced measurable but modest gains for the U.S. economy—small upticks in output, a fractional rise in average real wages (about 0.27 percent, roughly $150 per worker per year), and limited job gains in modelling exercises—while leaving deep structural questions about wage competition, offshoring and enforcement unresolved [1] [2]. Analysts diverge: some business and policy voices credit USMCA with strengthening investment and supply chains [3] [4], while labor and progressive researchers argue the deal has largely failed to deliver sustained benefits to working people and needs renegotiation [5] [6].
1. The headline numbers: small GDP and wage gains, limited employment effects
Official impact studies and the International Trade Commission’s modelling show USMCA’s macro effects are positive but tiny—US GDP projected to rise around 0.35 percent over several years, wages up roughly 0.27 percent (about $150 per worker annually) and employment effects measured in the low hundreds of thousands at most in some scenarios—results that many economists characterise as statistically modest [2] [1]. These are the quantitative anchors often cited by supporters to argue that the agreement did not harm aggregate U.S. employment, but the magnitude undercuts claims that USMCA substantially "fixed" NAFTA-era damage [2] [1].
2. Enforcement and the Rapid Response Mechanism: wins on paper, gaps on the ground
USMCA’s signature innovation for labor— the Rapid Response Mechanism (RRM) and stronger labor provisions—has produced concrete victories in specific cases and a “demonstration effect,” yet several reports and union leaders say those wins have diminished and widespread enforcement gaps remain, especially in Mexico where collective bargaining and freedom of association often remain aspirational [7] [8] [9]. Labor advocates view the RRM as a tool that helped tens of thousands in early cases but not as a systemic fix; they push for revisions in the 2026 joint review to make enforcement more effective [7] [8].
3. Who benefits: winners include manufacturers and integrated supply chains, losers are diffuse
Manufacturing groups and trade associations argue that USMCA underpins nearshoring, investment and supply-chain resilience—claims backed by reported increases in regional trade and investment and industry statements about new plant investments tied to North American integration [3] [4]. Critics counter that these gains often accrue to firms and capital, while workers face persistent wage gaps—Mexican manufacturing wages remain far lower than U.S. counterparts—so the benefits for American frontline workers are indirect and uneven [8] [6].
4. Distributional effects: modest aggregate gains mask local dislocations
Multiple analysts warn that trade policy changes redistribute rents and can shift job opportunities across sectors and communities; the USMCA’s measured national-level boost does not negate local losses in exposed towns or sectors, nor does it automatically raise Mexican productivity or narrow Mexico–U.S. wage differentials that drive offshoring pressures [10] [8]. The ITC models find small net wage and output gains, but Brookings and other researchers stress that market-structure, informal labor markets and domestic regulations mediate whether those gains translate into better working-class outcomes [1] [10].
5. Politics, narratives and vested interests shape the record
Pro-business groups portray USMCA as essential infrastructure for North American competitiveness and point to investment and stability arguments as reasons to renew the deal [3] [11], while unions and progressive groups frame the agreement as under-delivering on worker protections and call for renegotiation or stronger enforcement in the 2026 review [5] [7]. Both sides have clear agendas—industry seeks regulatory certainty; labor seeks binding, enforceable worker gains—so assessments reflect those priorities as much as the empirical evidence.
6. Bottom line: did USMCA benefit American workers?
Yes, but modestly and unevenly: empirical modelling and some trade indicators show small net economic and wage benefits for the United States and strengthened regional supply chains, yet enforcement deficits, persistent wage differentials with Mexico, and uneven local impacts mean those benefits have not translated into broad-based, durable gains for many American workers; major stakeholders across academia, labor and industry now press for changes in the 2026 review to make the agreement more pro-worker and to close enforcement gaps [1] [2] [8] [7].