The U.S. Chamber of Commerce attributed to nafta that U.S. trade in goods and services with Canada and Mexico increased from $337 billion in 1993 to $1.2 trillion in 2011, while the AFL-CIO held the agreement responsible for sending 700,000 U.S. manufacturing jobs to Mexico at that time.  The political divide was particularly large in terms of views on free trade with Mexico. Contrary to a positive view of free trade with Canada, which 79% of Americans called fair trade partners, only 47% of Americans thought that Mexico practiced fair trade. The gap between Democrats and Republicans has widened: 60% of Democrats thought Mexico was fair trade, while only 28% of Republicans did. That was the highest number of Democrats and the lowest figure ever recorded by Republicans in the Chicago Council survey. Republicans had more negative views on Canada than fair trade partners and Democrats.  The North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) was inspired by the success of the European Economic Community (1957-1993) in removing tariffs to stimulate trade among its members. Supporters argued that the creation of a free trade area in North America would bring prosperity through increased trade and production, resulting in the creation of millions of well-paying jobs in all participating countries. 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 In 1984, Congress passed the Trade and Customs Act, which gave the president the quick power to negotiate free trade agreements. He only allowed Congress to approve or disapprove of Congress, and he could not change the negotiating points. Controversy over the provisions of the Treaty on the Application of Environmental Protection remained high in the late 1990s. North American trade interests have tried to weaken a major NAFTA agreement on environmental protection and enforcement. This agreement – one of the few provisions welcomed by environmental groups allows groups and ordinary citizens to criticise Member States for not enforcing their own environmental laws. A three-country environmental cooperation commission is tasked with investigating these allegations and disclosing public reports. « This process is slow, but the embarrassment factor has proven surprisingly high, » Business Week noted. Since 2005, the U.S.
government has opposed NAFTA revisions. But the Canadian government and many companies in the three countries continue to work to amend this agreement. A study published in the August 2008 edition of the American Journal of Agricultural Economics found that NAFTA increased U.S. agricultural exports to Mexico and Canada, although most of the increase occurred a decade after its ratification. The study focused on the impact of phase-in periods in regional trade agreements, including NAFTA, on trade flows. Most of the increase in membership agricultural trade, recently entered into the World Trade Organization, is due to very high trade barriers prior to NAFTA or other regional trade agreements.  The overall effect of Mexico-USA