WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump is unlikely to get much argument in Texas or any other trade-heavy state when he calls a new accord to revamp the North American Free Trade Agreement one of the most important trade deals "we've ever made."

That's because the alternative was Trump blowing up a pact that, despite his criticism, is an economic linchpin between the U.S., Mexico and Canada.

But now that economists, lawmakers and other trade experts are digging into the hundreds of pages of what Trump is calling the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, the outlook is far murkier for the president’s other monumental projections on trade, job growth and economic prosperity.

Some experts question if the deal is any upgrade. One compared it to an “awkward camel” rather than a “leaner, meaner horse” one might expect from a revamp. Others jeer it as NAFTA 0.8 — not 2.0 — for restricting some trade, upping some costs and leaving in place some key tariffs.

“It takes the phrase ‘free trade’ out of the title,” said Matthew Rooney, a former State Department official who is managing director of the George W. Bush Institute’s economic growth initiative. “It also takes some of the free trade out of the agreement.”

Is it #NAFTA 2.0 or #NAFTA 0.8? On closer inspection, it is a mixed bag - a good day for short- and medium-term clarity, but a small step back from a market driven by consumer choice and entrepreneurial decision-making --https://t.co/4gs4Q4eXeD — MRooney (@EconGrowth) October 2, 2018

Those early returns could have long-term consequences — particularly in a place like Texas, where deep trading ties to Mexico and Canada have made it the nation's No. 1 exporting state.

An early flaw in NAFTA was its boosters' overly rosy projections, such as then-President Bill Clinton's pledge that it would create 1 million jobs. That high bar loomed over all else, and there is still massive debate over whether NAFTA created jobs, lost jobs — or did both.

Trump has resisted the urge to put hard numbers on this deal, which must still be approved by Congress.

But he vowed the accord will “send cash and jobs pouring into the United States.” He said “our companies won’t be leaving the United States, firing their workers and building their cars elsewhere.” He said the pact would mean, “more than anything else, far more American jobs.”

Deal is mixed bag

Experts are much more circumspect.

“It advances some things, and it’s retrograde in other things,” said Tony Payan, director of the Mexico Center at Rice University’s Baker Institute for Public Policy, who made the camel comparison. “It’s a draw.”

The deal made at September's end between the U.S., Mexico and Canada is Trump's signature trade achievement to date.

It provides American farmers and ranchers some more access in areas like the Canadian dairy market. It creates new rules for auto manufacturing that are aimed at boosting American workers. It achieves the long-overdue task of accounting for e-commerce.

Above all, though, it keeps intact an integrated economic bloc, perhaps setting the stage for Trump to secure other deals with trading partners in Europe and Asia.

Preservation alone of the three-party accord was enough to earn plaudits from politicians, business leaders and others in Texas, where trade with Canada and Mexico accounts for tens of billions of dollars each year and supports hundreds of thousands of jobs.

“The goal here was to avoid a collapse of NAFTA,” said Joshua Zive, a Bracewell trade attorney who works with energy companies in Texas and across the U.S.

But the prevailing sense of relief, rather than outright enthusiasm, is also telling.

The economies of the U.S., Mexico and Canada are already stitched together quite tightly after 24 years under NAFTA. So it would’ve taken wholesale changes to reshape the pact in a way that has a momentous impact, one way or the other, on jobs and the economy.

That didn’t happen.

President Donald Trump has said a revamped NAFTA, dubbed by him as the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement, will send "cash and jobs pouring into the United States." Experts aren't so sure. (Al Drago / The New York Times)

With the exception of maybe a key change to auto manufacturing, “there is a sense that this was more of an update and a rebranding exercise than a dramatic rewrite,” said Antonio Garza, a former U.S. ambassador to Mexico who is now counsel at White & Case in Mexico City.

Texas energy effects

Take the energy sector, a dominant player in Texas.

The big win for the oil and gas business was the retention in Mexico, at least for that industry, of what’s known as the investor-state dispute settlement system. The setup, loathed by labor groups, is prized by businesses for providing protection to their direct government contracts.

But the industry lost that tool in Canada. The new accord also only integrated the energy sector “on a superficial level,” said Payan, the Rice expert. The deal didn’t even lift the tariffs that Trump this year imposed on steel and aluminum imported from Canada and Mexico.

“It’s difficult to see how this is sustainable in a close trading relationship,” Zive said, referring to metal tariffs that remain a big burden for oil and gas operators.

Auto manufacturing

Marquee changes to auto manufacturing, also important in Texas, provide another example.

At least 75 percent — up from 62.5 percent — of a vehicle would now have to be produced in a NAFTA country to receive duty-free treatment. There would be minimum standards for the sourcing of core auto parts, along with steel and aluminum. At least 40 percent of an automobile would also have to be made by workers earning at least $16 an hour.

Those provisions, taken with another to give Mexican workers better organizing rights, are designed to shift manufacturing jobs back to the U.S. and boost the wages of American workers.

Toyota’s statement on the announcement of the #USMCA: pic.twitter.com/vcYgKPRGxZ — Toyota Policy (@ToyotaPolicy) October 1, 2018

But labor leaders have generally been non-committal on the deal. Automakers like Toyota, whose North American headquarters are in Plano, have stressed the need to review details, though the industry is happy the pact guards against future auto tariffs on Canada and Mexico.

Some trade experts said the bottom line is that the added barriers restrict cross-border commerce and lead to only one certain outcome.

“Higher prices, period, end of story,” said Kristin Dziczek, an expert at the Center for Automotive Research in Michigan. “There is nothing in here that lowers prices for consumers.”

Whether the approach also "saves or creates jobs in the U.S. is still a big question mark," Garza said. Many vehicles imported from Mexico and Canada, for example, are already compliant. And if the new deal does indeed boost U.S. manufacturing, some experts question how long that would last.

Rooney, the Bush Institute expert, said “you may well see investment in autos and manufacturing come back to the U.S.” in the near-term. But he said the problem is that such movement would be driven by tariffs and other government policies, creating an illusion of profitability “that’s not real.”

“They will be losing competitiveness over time,” he said, comparing the North American auto industry to competitors in Asia and Europe. “And you will see the industry start to wither a little a bit as its competitiveness declines.”