WASHINGTON — The White House and House Democrats reached an agreement to strengthen labor, environmental, pharmaceutical and enforcement provisions in President Trump’s North American trade pact, a significant development that made it all but certain that the signature trade deal would become law.
The agreement on a revised United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement was announced on Tuesday by Speaker Nancy Pelosi after months of negotiations, handing Mr. Trump one of his biggest legislative victories less than an hour after she unveiled articles of impeachment.
Ms. Pelosi went directly from a news conference on impeachment to another on the trade deal, where she and top Democrats, including Representative Richard E. Neal of Massachusetts, pointed to concessions they had secured in closed-door negotiations with the administration.
“We’re declaring victory for the American worker,” Ms. Pelosi said. “It is infinitely better than what was initially proposed by the administration.”
The timing of the handshake agreement offers Mr. Trump a crucial victory to promote on the campaign trail during his re-election bid and House Democrats tangible proof that they are able to legislate while preparing to vote on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress against the president.
Mr. Trump, who spent weeks blaming Ms. Pelosi for standing in the way of a trade deal that he said would help workers, trumpeted the progress on Twitter on Tuesday morning. “Looking like very good Democrat support for USMCA. That would be great for our Country!”
In a statement, Mr. Trump’s top trade adviser, Robert E. Lighthizer, called the announcement a victory for Mr. Trump.
“After working with Republicans, Democrats, and many other stakeholders for the past two years, we have created a deal that will benefit American workers, farmers and ranchers for years to come,” he said.
Ms. Pelosi repeatedly rebuffed Republican suggestions that Democrats had timed the announcement to try to minimize any negative fallout from the impeachment proceedings.
“Not any one of us is important enough to hold up a trade agreement that is important for American workers,” she said.
The administration agreed with Canada and Mexico on revisions to the North American Free Trade Agreement one year ago, but the deal requires the approval of Congress, including the Democratic-controlled House. Ms. Pelosi and her colleagues have used that vote as leverage to secure long-sought policy changes to a long-maligned trade deal.
“Make no mistake,” Representative Earl Blumenauer, Democrat of Oregon, said Tuesday. “This is a Democrat’s agreement that we fought for, and it’s going to be the template going forward for writing new trade agreements.”
Ms. Pelosi was more candid in a private meeting with her caucus on Tuesday morning. “These have been the fights,” she said, referring to the changes they secured. “And we stayed on this and we ate their lunch.”
Mr. Neal, the chairman of the Ways and Means Committee, said he remained hopeful that the House could vote on the agreement before the end of the year. Senator Mitch McConnell of Kentucky, the majority leader, said that the Senate would not bring the deal for a vote before Dec. 20, when lawmakers are scheduled to leave for a holiday break.
“That’ll have to come up, in all likelihood, after a trial is finished in the Senate,” he said, referring to the impeachment proceedings.
Among the biggest victories was an agreement to remove intellectual property protections for the pharmaceutical industry, which Democrats warned could undermine efforts to make health care more affordable. Democrats also persuaded the White House to strengthen the deal’s enforcement provisions, and obtained commitments to ensure Mexico is adhering to labor reforms.
Those changes were critical to winning the support of labor unions, including the influential AFL-CIO, which endorsed the revised pact just moments before Ms. Pelosi’s announcement.
In fact, the deal addressed so many of the Democrats’ concerns that some Republicans appeared skeptical of the final agreement and suggested that Mr. Lighthizer had given away too much.
Senator John Cornyn, Republican of Texas, voiced concern that Mr. Lighthizer had potentially spent more time talking with House Democrats than Republicans on the final product. And Senator Patrick J. Toomey, Republican of Pennsylvania and one of the most ardent critics of the deal, railed against both the original deal and the new changes, including the removal of the pharmaceutical provision.
“It’s clearly moved way to the left,” Mr. Toomey told reporters. “It seemed to be just a one-way direction in the direction of Democrats.”
The changes must now be woven into implementing legislation that the House and Senate will both vote on. The pact will also need to secure the president’s signature and the final approval of the Mexican and Canadian legislatures.
In Mexico City, President Andrés Manuel López Obrador attended a signing agreement at the National Palace. The event was attended by Mr. Lighthizer and Jared Kushner, the president’s senior adviser and son-in-law, as well as Chrystia Freeland, who negotiated the pact on behalf of Canada.
Mr. Lighthizer called the agreement “the first truly bipartisan agreement,” saying it was “nothing short of a miracle that we have all come together.”
Mr. Lighthizer on Tuesday briefed groups of House and Senate Republicans by phone on the changes. While some expressed concern, most Republicans appeared to maintain their support for the new trade pact, even with the new changes negotiated by Democrats.
Senator Rob Portman, Republican of Ohio, declared “relief” in an interview, and noted that such a compromise in a divided government “is a rare feat around here, and we should celebrate it.”
And as Mr. Neal left the news conference, Representative Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the Republican whip, shook his hand. A spokeswoman said Mr. Scalise had promised Mr. Lighthizer strong Republican support for the deal.
“There’s a Republican leader saying it was good,” Mr. Neal said as he entered an elevator. “That wasn’t staged.”
The agreement came as a huge relief to industries that have grown up around NAFTA and rely on tariff-free trade across Canada, Mexico and the United States. The lack of movement in Congress, combined with Mr. Trump’s threats to walk away from the original NAFTA pact, had created crippling uncertainty among businesses.
“This is finally good news on the trade front after a long, hard year,” said Rufus H. Yerxa, the president of the National Foreign Trade Council, which represents major exporters. “We believe this agreement will further strengthen the North American region, bringing about the commercial stability and certainty that our companies need to remain competitive in the global economy.”
The administration and Republicans in both chambers have hammered Ms. Pelosi and her caucus to take action. Even within Ms. Pelosi’s majority, several moderate members and a number of the freshmen who flipped Republican-held seats in 2018 had begun pressuring leadership for a vote on the pact before the end of the year.
The deal announced Tuesday offered Ms. Pelosi and her core allies justification for the delay by establishing what she said would be a legacy agreement that set the standard for future trade deals.
In addition to updating rules for digital commerce, Mr. Trump’s U.S.M.C.A. raised the threshold for the proportion of a car’s value that must be made in North America in order to qualify for the pact’s zero tariffs. It also rolls back a special system of arbitration for corporations long opposed by Democrats.
One of the most significant revisions will roll back protections for new pharmaceutical products, in particular an advanced class of drugs called biologics, which were initially given 10 years of patent protection from cheaper alternatives. It also removed language that would ensure patent protections when drug companies find new uses for their existing products, a process known as “evergreening.”
Those changes are a big departure from past trade agreements, which sought to lock in stronger protections for intellectual property, long seen as a competitive advantage for the American economy.
Just three years ago, Republicans blocked the progress of the Trans-Pacific Partnership, a 12-country trade deal negotiated by President Barack Obama, over complaints that similar protections for drug companies were not strong enough. The pact never gained enough support for a congressional vote under Mr. Obama, and Mr. Trump pulled the United States out of the deal during his first week in office.
Mr. Blumenauer said the pharmaceutical revisions would “change the landscape” on trade agreements. “If we go back and review the other trade agreements we’ve had, they are replete with pharmaceutical protections,” he said. “This is a very significant shift.”
The drug industry was not pleased.
“The announcement made today puts politics over patients,” Stephen J. Ubl, the president and chief executive of the Pharmaceutical Research and Manufacturers of America, said in a statement. “The only winners today are foreign governments who want to steal American intellectual property and free ride on America’s global leadership in biopharmaceutical research and development.”
The revisions also beefed up labor protections, especially in Mexico. While Mexican negotiators succeeded in rebuffing Democrats’ demand for American inspections of Mexican factories, they agreed to additional funding and oversight to ensure that Mexico proceeds with strengthening its labor laws and unions. The United States will also be allowed to block goods from specific Mexican factories if companies are found in violation of labor rules.
Democrats also said they had succeeded in bolstering enforcement of the trade pact by stripping out a provision — added by Mr. Lighthizer — which had curbed the ability of countries to bring disputes against one another.
In a loss for Ms. Pelosi, the pact will still contain certain legal protections that may shield online platforms like Facebook and Twitter from some lawsuits over content posted by their users.
Ms. Pelosi acknowledged the inclusion of those provisions was a “disappointment,” adding, “I mean, I lost.”
Catie Edmondson and David McCabe contributed reporting from Washington, and Elisabeth Malkin from Mexico City.
Get more stuff like this
Subscribe to our mailing list and get interesting stuff and updates to your email inbox.