How NAFTA’S Replacement is a poison pill for the United States of America

The history of the long march to a North American Union:

“In short, the ‘house of world order’ will
have to be built from the bottom up rather
than from the top down,” wrote former
Deputy Assistant Secretary of State Richard
N. Gardner in April of 1974. “An end
run around national sovereignty, eroding it
piece by piece, will accomplish much more
than the old-fashioned frontal assault.”

Richard Gardner [former Deputy Assistant Secretary of State]
  • Following World War II the development of the UN begin the process of piecing the nations together~
  • 1919: The League of Nations created under the Treaty of Versailles
  • 1945: Creation of the UN 
  • 1962: Lincoln Bloomfield wrote 1962 a report called “a world effectively controlled by the United Nations” .  In this report he argued that “global government could be brought about regionally”
  • He wrote “ that ever larger units evolve through customs unions , confederations, regionalism, ect ultimately the larger units coalesce under a global umbrella” in that report he explicitly mentions tactics such as “going  to war or threatening war” as ways nudge countries along to the global umbrella[ cited from Source Document]
  • [Note]
  • 1973: The people did push back against the formation of the EU and the then British Prime  Minister Edward Heath lied “ there are some in this country  who fear that in going into Europe we shall in some way sacrifice independence and sovereignty…these fears , I need hardly say are completely unjustified”

[NOTE] This is very much the same technique that was used to push the Hart -Celler Act through in the US-Those in charge simply resort to outright lies to manipulate the public

  • 1995: Brzezinski  (longtime CFR member) at a speech on “State of the World Forum” : “we cannot leap into world  government in one quick step in brief the precondition for  eventual globalization – genuine globalization – is progressive regionalization, because thereby we move toward larger, more stable , more cooperative units”
  • 1994: NAFTA
  • 1995: The UN created the Commission on Global Governance. it released the report “ Our Global Neighborhood” ~ “the UN must gear itself for a time when regionalism becomes more ascendant worldwide and assist the process in advance of that time” “regional cooperation and integration should be seen as an important and  integral part of a balanced system of global governance”

*The above referenced UN document on Global Governance can be read in its original entirety below:

  • 2015: TPP Drafted ( enacted in 2016)

 “The UN represents not a final stage in the development of world order but only a primitive stage”- John Foster Dulles [one of the co-founders of the Council On Foreign Relations]

“ the union is the vanguard of this changing world, it indicates a future of princes without  sovereignty….the new entity is faceless and those who are in command can neither be pinned down nor elected. …that is the way Europe was made too: by creating communitarian organisms without giving the organisms presided over by national governments the impression that they were being subjected to a higher power…I don’t think it is a good idea to replace this slow and effective method- which keeps national states free from anxiety while they are being stripped of power- with   great institutional leaps. Therefore I prefer to go slowly to crumble pieces of sovereignty little by little avoiding brusque transitions from national to ( EU) Federal Power. ~

2000: ( July, 13) [Cited Italian newspaper “The Paper La Stampa”] Giiliano Amato outlined the strategy of deception [article in the paper La Stampa]

[NOTE] Since the inception of a a “global power”that is what the powers that be have done- they have slowly eroded sovereign nations using free trade agreements and compacts and treaties. Those in charge have realized that the populations will surrender power to a regional organization much easier than a world government

Examples of Currently existing Binding Treaties and  Agreements that Integrate Nations Under a Regional/Global Rule:

  • European Union
  • African Union- primarily  run by the US, EU and  China  Beijing built the headquarters and Eu is funding 80% of the budget-
  • Union of South Aermican States  (UNASUL)
  • Eurasian Union

[NOTE] All the  larger regional unions are implemented by smaller trade agreements and pacts – like NAFTA, APEC, ASEAN TPP and possibly the USMCA.

Overview of TPP:

TPP is a free trade agreement that was negotiated among 12 pacific rim countries.

  • 5600 pages
  • Represents 40 of the worlds GDP
  • TPP established a commission that put unelected officials from the countries involved in it to oversee the implementation and mitigate differences.
  • The TPP aimed at integrating the US and the EU under transatlantic bureaucracy.

[NOTE] This would then lead to the US having to capitulate to the EU policies on other issues outside of trade [immigration, hate speech, online communications]

USMCA at a glance:

  • What is it – United states Mexico Canada Agreement
  • Intended to create an “ Integrated” Continent of North America
  • 1809 pages long

[NOTE] The United States Constitution that founded the country was written in 4 pages(

  • Created  by Robert Ligthizer – (Trumps lead USMCA negotiator)
  • Ligthizer is long time member of the  Council on Foreign Relationships – Lighthizer applauded the TPP- 
  • Jared Kushner also  had a very active role in creating
  • Extensive overlap of the TPP
  • Provides a way to enact legislation directly from the UN

[CITED from Source Document USMCA]

[NOTE]Following provides a direct quote from chapter 24 USMCA- Showing that the UN is directly written into the doc- this particular quote dictates when and where fishing is allowed in the three countries (US, Mexico, Canada)

These instruments include, among others, and as they may apply, United Nations Convention on Law of the Sea (UNCLOS), the United Nations Agreement for the Implementation of the Provisions of the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea of December 1982 relating to the Conservation and Management of Straddling Fish Stocks and Highly Migratory Fish Stocks, done at New York, December 4, 1995 (UN Fish Stocks Agreement), the FAO Code of Conduct for Responsible Fisheries, the 1993 FAO Agreement to Promote Compliance with International Conservation and Management Measures by Fishing Vessels on the High Seas(Compliance Agreement), done at Rome, November 24, 1993, the 2001 FAO International Plan of Action to Prevent, Deter, and Eliminate Illegal, Unreported, and Unregulated (IUU Fishing), and the 2009 Agreement on Port State Measures to Prevent, Deter, and Eliminate IUU Fishing ~W

The Powers That Be…Speaking about the USMCA in their own words:

  • Identical wording from the TPP is found all throughout the USMCA agreement. In fact, according to Roll Call, USTR Lighthizer admittedly said that the USMCA is “built on” many aspects of the TPP
  •   According to the online Huffington Post, “At least half of the men and women standing behind Trump during his Rose Garden ceremony praising the new deal were the same career service staff who negotiated nearly identical provisions in TPP, which Trump had railed against
  •  Trevor Kincaid, the USTR spokesman for the Obama administration, told the Post that it’s the same USTR team that worked under Obama. Speaking on the same program, Fordham Law Professor Matthew Gold elaborated how Trump’s “big win” in regard to the USMCA/NAFTA renegotiations with Canada comes directly from the TPP.“He got a large number of small updates most of which were in the TPP agreement, which he pulled out of. He got us back to a small increased access in the Canadian dairy market, almost all of which was in the TPP,” Gold said.

“The TPP was rejected because the ends didn’t justify the means; in the case of the USMCA, they are being celebrated.” ~

And Gold should know the details of the TPP. He served in the Obama administration as a leading figure on North American affairs and was involved in the TPP negotiations, according to his bio: Professor Gold previously held anappointment within the Executive Office of the President as the Deputy Assistant U.S. Trade Representative for North America, in which he was the United States’ lead negotiator and policy advisor focused on North American trade. In that capacity, he was a trade advisor to the President for the North American Leaders Summit, and … was a participant in the talks that brought Canada and Mexico into the Trans-Pacific Partnership Negotiation

The Contents of The USMCA:

34 chapters  (12 more than the original NAFTA)

The following is a list of the 34 chapters:

1. Initial Provisions and General Definitions

2. National Treatment and Market Access for Goods: US Tariff Schedule, US TRQ Appendix, MX Tariff Schedule, CA Tariff Schedule ,CA TRQ Appendix

3. Agriculture: Agriculture Chapter, Mexico-US Bilateral Annex, Canada-US Bilateral Annex, Alcohol Annex, Proprietary Food Formulas Annex

4. Rules of Origin: with Product Specific Rules

5. Origin Procedures

6. Textiles and Apparel

7. Customs and Trade Facilitation

8. Recognition of the Mexican State’sDirect, Inalienable, and Imprescriptible Ownership of Hydrocarbons

9. Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures

10. Trade Remedies

11. Technical Barriers to Trade

12. Sectoral Annexes

13. Government Procurement

14. Investment

15. Cross-Border Trade in Services

16. Temporary Entry

17. Financial Services

18. Telecommunications

19. Digital Trade

20. Intellectual Property

21. Competition Policy

22. State-Owned Enterprises

23. Labor

24. Environment

25. Small and Medium-Sized


26. Competitiveness

27. Anticorruption

28. Good Regulatory Practices

29. Publication and Administration

30. Administrative and Institutional Provisions

31. Dispute Settlement

32. Exceptions and General Provisions

33. Macroeconomic Policies and Exchange Rate Matters

34. Final Provisions

Areas of  concern:

The USMCA specifically has applicable tenants to the following areas (which were not addressed in the NAFTA) [CITED from Source Document USMCA]

  1. the erosion of national sovereignty
  •  submission to a new global governance authority,
  •  the unrestricted movement of foreign nationals,
  • workers’ rights to collective bargaining,
  • regional measures to combat climate change

Powers that are distributed throughout the agreement :

[NOTE] The USMCA delegates powers from all attributes of government ( not just trade issues)

  • Free trade
  • Intellectual Property
  • Right to Work Laws
  • Gender Laws
  • Diversity
  • Migrant Rights
  • Like the TPP Commission,the USMCA’s Free Trade Commission can also “consider proposals to amend or modify” the agreement [CITED from The Roll Call]
  • The commission is created from unelected non- citizens who will govern the US laws on trade, foreign policy and more

Chapters of Concern:

Chapter 8: Recognition of the Mexican State’s Direct, Inalienable, and Imprescriptible Ownership of Hydrocarbons-

[NOTE]According to what is written in the chapter this only applies to the Mexican Constitution

[QUOTE from USMCA Chapter 8] the United States and Canada recognize that :

  1. (a) Mexico reserves its sovereign right to reform its Constitution and
  2. its domestic legislation;

NOTE]Grants Mexico domestic political sovereignty

[NOTE]Grants Mexico sole control over any domestic energy source that they encompass inside their borders-

  1. (b) The Mexican State has the direct, inalienable and imprescriptible ownership of all hydrocarbons in the subsoil of the national territory including the continental shelf and the exclusive economic zone located outside the territorial sea and adjacent thereto, in strata or deposits, regardless of their physical conditions pursuant to Mexico’s Constitution.

[NOTE]While chapter 8 grants specific powers to Mexico it, outlines that the  US and Canada will acquiesce to those powers that are granted to Mexico- no additional chapters grant any specific powers to the US or Canada 

Chapter 23: Labor:

[NOTE] This chapter is especially troubling given the verbiage that addresses sexual orientation  and gender identity]

Issues Addressed:

  • Minimum Wage Laws
  • Collective Bargaining
  • Gender Identity Laws
  • Diversity
  • Protection of Migrants

[CITED Article 23.8]

Migrant Workers:

The Parties recognize the vulnerability of migrant workers with respect to labor protections. Accordingly, in implementing Article 23.3 (Labor Rights), each Party shall ensure that migrant workers are protected under its labor laws, whether they are nationals or non-nationals of the Party.

[NOTE]Chapter 23 creates a frame of leaving the United States subordinate to the International Labor Organization (ILO) as well as the prior constructed documents:


  1. The ILO’s Declaration on Fundamental Principles and Rights at Work (1998)
  2. Declaration on Social Justice for a Fair Globalization   

Article 23:3 of Chapter 23:

“each country [must] adopt and maintain in its statues and regulations the effective recognition of the right to  collective bargaining”

  • [Note] meaning that there would no longer be individually acknowledged labor laws for each country. They would need to be “integrated”.
  • [Note] the effect of this could mean that issues such as right to work laws that allow workers to opt out of a labor union, would  be decided by a trilateral  commission composed of non-elected bureaucratic individuals,  some of whom are foreign nationals and do not reside in the  United States.

Example of Prior Trade Treaties being used to alter and overrule established US law:

  • Example of previous instance of international regimes using trade treaties to overturn US laws: [CITED: Congressional Office of Oversigh

 In 2008, when

Congress amended the Agricultural Marketing Act of 1946 to require meat products such as beef and pork sold in the United States to have country of origin labels (COOL), Canada claimed the law violated WTO (World Trade Organization) rules. As a result, Canada and other countries, including Mexico, took the United States to arbitration under a WTO Dispute Settlement Body (DSB). The WTO DSB ruled in favor of Canada and Mexico stating that they could retaliate by imposing over $1 billion in tariffs on U.S. products unless the United States repealed the law. On June 10, 2015, the Republican-dominated House of Representatives voted 300 to 131 in favor of repealing COOL, in compliance with the WTO DSB’s decision. COOL’s repeal was also included in the $1.4 trillion omnibus-spending bill passed by Congress and signed into law by President Obama in December 2015. In the interest of “freeing world trade,” a supranational tribunal of the WTO ruled against the freedoms and rights of every American to make an informed decision about where the beef, pork, or chicken products they wish to purchase and eat come from.


  • all three countries agree to cooperate on “addressing gender-related issues in the field of labor and employment,”

NOTE] This verbiage mandates this social issue be addressed  by all three countries- this will lead to requirements that all three countries must have “integrated” ( the same) policies on these issues.

[NOTE] The following requires that “diversity” and equality be addressed- this will very  quickly take the ability away from the United States  to create its own laws to address these issues.:

  • as well as on “addressing the opportunities of a diverse workforce, including: …promotion of equality and elimination of employment discrimination in the areas of age, disability, race, ethnicity, religion, sexual orientation, gender identity … and protection of migrant workers.” (Emphasis added.)

[NOTE] The mention of migrant workers is a very dangerous slope- this could lead to a commission from all three countries deciding legislation on migrant policy such as DACA

  •  Also calls for no caps on the amount of foreign workers allowed to be brought into the US by foreign or US owned companies

Chapter 24 Environment Committee :

The USMCA also establishes a brand new Environment Committee-

  • This Environment Committee will make the US subordinate to the Free Trade Commission-  with the intent of achieving the Agenda 21 “Sustainable Development Goals”

[QUOTE]  USMCA’s Article 24.15 on “Trade and Biodiversity” states: “Parties recognize the importance of conservative and sustainable use of biological diversity, as well as the ecosystem services it provides, and their key role in achieving sustainable development.”

[NOTE] This can very quickly devolve into the United States becoming unable to create their own environmental policy and laws

Chapter 26 : The North America Competitiveness Committee

[QUOTE]  “ is intended for “promoting further economic integration among [all three countries].”

[NOTE]  Economic Integration will lead to social and political integration

[QUOTE] The Committee on Competitiveness- intended to “ equally distribute wealth among the three countries”

[NOTE] this can lead to established trilateral social security system- can also lead to international welfare

Chapter 30: Administrative and Institutional Provisions

  • Establishes the Free Trade Commission – with extensively broad powers
  • The USMCA Free Trade Commission, again like the TPP Commission, would be comprised of ministerial or senior-level officials from all three governments. And it would likewise oversee and direct a vast bureaucracy of subordinate committees (each related to a particular chapter of the USMCA), which the commission could merge or dissolve “in order to improve the functioning” of the agreement.

A Further Note About Immigration Policy in the USMCA:

The question becomes, then, whether the dispute resolution process of a trilateral agreement becomes a substitute for exercising the sovereign right of the United States to administer its laws consistent with the Immigration and Nationality Act. There is language in Chapter 16 that suggests that is the intent:

Except for this Chapter, Chapter 1 (Initial Provisions and General Definitions), Chapter 30 (Administrative and Institutional Provisions), Chapter 31 (Dispute Settlement), Chapter 34 (Final Provisions), Article 29.2 (Publication), and Article 29.3 (Administrative Proceedings), this Agreement does not impose an obligation on a Party regarding its immigration measures. [Emphasis added.]

It is obvious from the phrasing, then, that the chapters highlighted in bold are intended to impose immigration obligations on the signatories, and they are, of course, the relevant chapters of the accord.

There is a caveat: According to Chapter 16, such dispute mechanisms are to be reserved for cases that have the potential to adversely impact USMCA temporary entrants beyond the individuals involved in the immediate case before the court or tribunal, or in which there appears to a party to be a “pattern of practice”. (Author’s note: the phrase should probably read “pattern or practice” but it doesn’t.)

However, the problem, if indeed it proves to be a problem, is that any signatory nation may raise a case to the level of dispute resolution based on its own perception of whether or not the case has repercussions beyond the single denied entrant, and/or its own perception of what constitutes a “pattern or practice” (which might indeed be the fact of the matter, if the case is being adjudicated according to statutory law, and likely all similar cases would be decided the same way because of the statute). This raises the question of how often dispute settlement resolutions may be invoked to obtain results contrary to the provisions of the Immigration and Nationality Act. At this juncture, we don’t know. [CITED CIS].


At the time of this writing the USMCA is not yet law. President Trump has signed it and many members of the House and Senate have announced their support for it. However, I urge everyone who shares my concern over the sovereignty of the United States of America to please call their members of Congress and the White House to express your concerns. I understand we are working within a flawed and broken system, but at the moment it is the only