If the Trans-Pacific Partnership of Origin (TPP) were to enter into force, existing agreements, such as NAFTA, would be reduced to provisions that do not conflict with the TPP or require greater trade liberalization than the TPP.  However, only Canada and Mexico would have the prospect of becoming members of the TPP after U.S. President Donald Trump withdrew the United States from the agreement in January 2017. In May 2017, the remaining 11 members of the TPP, including Canada and Mexico, agreed to pursue a revised version of the trade agreement without U.S. participation.  In its May 24, 2017 report, the Congressional Research Service (CRS) wrote that the economic impact of NAFTA on the U.S. economy was modest. In a 2015 report, the Congressional Research Service summarized several studies as follows: ”In reality, NAFTA did not cause the huge job losses that critics feared, nor the significant economic benefits predicted by supporters. The overall net effect of NAFTA on the U.S.
economy appears to have been relatively small, not least because trade with Canada and Mexico accounts for a small percentage of U.S. GDP. However, there have been adjustment costs for workers and businesses as the three countries have prepared for more open trade and investment between their economies. :2 – Benefit U.S. farmers, ranchers and agricultural businesses by modernizing and strengthening food and agricultural trade in North America. On the other hand, critics of the agreement claim that it is responsible for job losses and wage moderation in the United States, driven by low-wage competition, from companies that have relocated their production to Mexico to reduce costs and a growing trade deficit. Dean Baker of the Centre for Economic and Political Research (CEPR) and Robert Scott of the Economic Policy Institute argue that the post-NAFTA increase in imports has resulted in a loss of up to six hundred thousand U.S. jobs over two decades, although they acknowledge that some of this import growth would likely have occurred without NAFTA. The USMCA is expected to have a very small impact on the economy.  An International Monetary Fund (IMF) discussion paper published at the end of March 2019 stated that the agreement would have a ”negligible” impact on the general economy.   The IMF study predicted that the USMCA ”would have a negative impact on trade in the automotive, textile and clothing sectors, while achieving modest welfare gains, mainly due to improved access to the goods market, with a negligible impact on real GDP.”  The IMF study concluded that the economic benefits of the USMCA would be greatly enhanced if Trump`s trade war ended (i.e., the United States lowering tariffs on imports steel and aluminum from Canada and Mexico and that Canada and Mexico will lower retaliatory duties on imports from the United States)  The provisions of the agreement cover a broad spectrum , including agricultural products, the homeless, industrial products, working conditions, digital trade. Among the most important aspects of the agreement are improving U.S. dairy farmers` access to the Canadian market, guidelines for a greater proportion of automobiles produced in the three countries and not imported from other countries, and maintaining the dispute settlement system, which is similar to that contained in NAFTA.
  Much of the debate among political experts has focused on how to mitigate the negative effects of agreements such as NAFTA, including whether workers who lose their jobs are compensated or whether they are proposing retraining programs to help them move into new sectors.