Although NAFTA has not kept all its promises, it has remained in place. Indeed, in 2004, the Central American Free Trade Agreement (CAFTA) extended NAFTA to five Central American countries (El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Costa Rica and Nicaragua). In the same year, the Dominican Republic joined the group in signing a free trade agreement with the United States, followed by Colombia in 2006, Peru in 2007 and Panama in 2011. The Trans-Pacific Partnership (TPP), signed on October 5, 2015, represented an extension of NAFTA to a much larger extent. In early 2020, the U.S. Congress approved the USMCA with large bipartisan majorities in both chambers, and the agreement came into effect on July 1. Nevertheless, some critics have complained that the new rules of origin and minimum wage requirements are cumbersome and boil down to state-run exchanges. Alden of CFR was blood pressure and said that the government could recognize the restoration of cross-party cooperation in U.S. trade policy. But he warns: “If this new mix of Trump nationalism and democratic progressivism is what it takes now to conclude trade agreements with the United States, there could be very few buyers.” On September 30, 2018, the deadline for negotiations between Canada and the United States, an interim agreement was reached between the two countries, thus retaining the trilateral pact when the Trump administration submits the agreement to Congress.  The new name of the agreement was the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA) and came into force on July 1, 2020.
  According to the Sierra Club, NAFTA has contributed to large export-oriented agriculture, resulting in an increase in the use of fossil fuels, pesticides and GMOs.  NAFTA has also contributed to environmentally harmful mining practices in Mexico.  It has prevented Canada from effectively regulating its oil sands industry and has created new legal opportunities for transnational companies to combat environmental legislation.  In some cases, environmental policy has been neglected as a result of trade liberalization; In other cases, NAFTA`s investment protection measures, such as Chapter 11, and measures to address non-tariff barriers to trade have threatened to discourage stronger environmental policy.  The most severe increases in pollution attributable to NAFTA were in the base metals, Mexican petroleum and transportation equipment sectors in the United States and Mexico, but not in Canada.  According to Chad P. Bown (Senior Fellow at the Peterson Institute for International Economics), a renegotiated NAFTA, which would restore barriers to trade, is unlikely to help workers who have lost their jobs, regardless of their cause, to use new employment opportunities.”  NAFTA has increased Mexican agricultural exports to the United States, which have tripled since the implementation of the pact. Hundreds of thousands of jobs in the automotive industry have also been created in the country and most studies [PDF] have found that the agreement has increased productivity and reduced consumer prices in Mexico.
The former Canada-U.S. free trade agreement was the subject of controversy and controversy in Canada and was touted as a theme in the 1988 Canadian election.