The Chamber has expressed concerns about certain proposals in previous trade agreements. | AP Photo Chamber calls many Trump administration NAFTA proposals 'dangerous'

The largest U.S. business group strongly urged the Trump administration Friday to withdraw a number of "highly dangerous" proposals in talks to renegotiate NAFTA and warned that pulling out of the pact would have disastrous consequences for many states that backed President Donald Trump in the election.

"Today, we’re increasingly concerned about the state of the negotiations," John Murphy, senior vice president at the U.S. Chamber of Commerce, told reporters. The comments come a few days before the United States will host Canada and Mexico for the fourth round of talks on renegotiating the nearly 24-year-old pact.


The Chamber has expressed concerns about certain proposals in previous trade agreements, but never on as many proposals as are currently under consideration in the NAFTA talks, Murphy said.

Many businesses, large and small, are concerned about the effects that many of the Trump administration proposals or planned proposals would have on trade. Those at issue would reduce Canada and Mexico's access to the U.S. government procurement market, create a new domestic content provision for autos and tighten regional content requirements, and automatically terminate the agreement after five years unless all three countries agree to renew the pact — known as a sunset clause.

"We see these proposals as highly dangerous, and even one of them would be sufficient to move the business and agriculture community to oppose an agreement that included them," Murphy said.

The veteran business official said the administration's proposals for revamping the dispute settlement provisions of the pact have also caused concern, as has another proposal to create a new anti-dumping mechanism for seasonal and perishable products.

"I would say the vast majority of the U.S. business and agricultural community opposes these proposals broadly and emphatically," Murphy said. "This will do harm" to American companies that currently benefit from the pact, he said, putting it in contrast to the White House's pledge that it will "do no harm" with the changes.

In an unusual turn, the AFL-CIO — which on Thursday gave the Trump administration an "F" for the openness of the negotiations — came to the defense of U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer, who is spearheading the NAFTA talks.

"The U.S. Chamber's negative reaction to even discussing creative trade solutions reveals a lot about how much corporate CEOs benefit under the NAFTA status quo," AFL-CIO President Richard Trumka said in a statement Friday. He also accused the business group of trying to keep "the same old broken trade rules" at the expense of working people.

A spokeswoman for the Office of the U.S. Trade Representative, Emily Davis, brushed off the Chamber's criticism, which she characterized as an example of the entrenched interests that Trump came to Washington to uproot.

“The president's objectives with the NAFTA renegotiation are to create great jobs for Americans and reduce an unconscionable trade deficit," she said. "The president has been clear that NAFTA has been a disaster for many Americans, and achieving his objectives requires substantial change. These changes of course will be opposed by entrenched Washington lobbyists and trade associations. We have always understood that draining the swamp would be controversial in Washington."

Canada and Mexico also strongly oppose the ideas, creating a major concern that if the Trump administration proceeds with the proposals "it will lead to a chaotic breakdown" in the talks, Murphy said.

If that happens and Trump follows through on threats to withdraw from the pact, that would quickly lead "to the loss of hundreds of thousands of American jobs. It would be an economic and political debacle," Murphy said, noting both Mexico and Canada have made clear they would not continue to negotiate under those conditions.

“Withdrawing from the NAFTA would immediately blow up in the face of the administration,” he continued. “Those would feel the pain most thoroughly and immediately are in states that voted for the president and they would know who brought this about. So, as a political proposition, it’s just as big a loser as it is economically.”

In one sign of concern in rural communities, wheat farmer groups on Thursday expressed frustration with the Trump administration's preoccupation with renegotiating deals like NAFTA and the U.S.-South Korea Free Trade Agreement, instead of following through on campaign promises to negotiate new bilateral pacts.

Sign up for Morning Trade A speed read on global trade news — weekday mornings, in your inbox. Email Sign Up By signing up you agree to receive email newsletters or alerts from POLITICO. You can unsubscribe at any time. This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.

“In the decade since KORUS was negotiated we have no new trade agreements and zero additional market access for wheat farmers," Vince Peterson, president of the U.S. Wheat Associates, said.

Murphy emphasized that the U.S. Chamber supports the idea of modernizing NAFTA and believes that a new deal that would be good for Canada, Mexico and the United States can be struck and win approval in Congress.

"So, we're urging the administration to recalibrate its approach and stop and listen to the business community, the agriculture community, the people who actually engage in trade and return to principle of 'do no harm' because these proposals, if adopted, will do harm," he said.

