U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer said the Trump administration`s goal was to “stop the haemorrhages” of trade deficits, plant closures and job losses, pushing for tougher labor and environmental protection measures in Mexico and removing “Chapter 19 of the Dispute Settlement Mechanism” – a Canadian favorite and a thorn in the side of the U.S. wood industry. It is impossible to isolate the effects of NAFTA in the larger economy. For example, it is difficult to say with certainty what percentage of the current U.S. trade deficit, which reached a record $65,677 million at the end of 2005, is directly attributable to NAFTA. It is also difficult to say what percentage of the 3.3 million manufacturing jobs that were lost in the United States between 1998 and 2004 is the result of NAFTA and what percentage would have been created without this trade agreement. It cannot even be said with certainty that the intensification of trade between NAFTA countries is exclusively the result of the trade agreement. Those who support the agreement generally claim NAFTA loans for enhanced trade activity and reject the idea that the agreement has resulted in job losses or a growing trade deficit with Canada and Mexico ($8,039 million and $4,263 million respectively in December 2005). Critics of the agreement generally associate it with these deficits and job losses. According to a 2018 Sierra Club report, Canada`s NAFTA and Paris Agreement commitments have been met.
The Paris commitments were voluntary and NAFTA was mandatory.  The combined GDP of trilateral trade has increased by 258.5% in nominal terms since 1993. Under NAFTA Article 102, there are 6 stated objectives of the treaty. In 2015, the Congressional Research Service concluded that “NAFTA`s overall net impact on the U.S. economy appears to be 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. The report also estimated that nafta has added $80 billion to the U.S. economy since its inception, a 0.5% increase in U.S. GDP.
 Nafta has been structured to increase cross-border trade in North America and increase economic growth for each party. Nevertheless, NAFTA has somewhat met its objectives, bringing U.S.-Mexico trade to $481.5 billion in 2015 and U.S.-Canada trade to $518.2 billion. This represents an increase of 255% and 63.5% respectively, according to the Mexican Embassy in Canada. While the jury goes beyond the question of whether these phenomenal increases are due exclusively to NAFTA (which they are almost certainly not), experts believe that the contract certainly helped. Economists generally agreed that the U.S. economy as a whole benefited from NAFTA by increasing trade.   In a 2012 survey by the Global Markets Initiative`s panel of economic experts, 95% of participants said that U.S. citizens benefited on average from NAFTA, while no one said that NAFTA was detrimental to U.S. citizens on average.  A review of the 2001 Journal of Economic Perspectives showed that NAFTA was a net benefit to the United States.  A 2015 study showed that welfare in the United States increased by 0.08% and intra-block trade in the United States by 41% due to NAFTA tariff reductions.
 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.