North America faces escalating economic and geopolitical pressures. Volatile tariffs, supply chain vulnerabilities, and the growing influence of global rivals threaten the stability of the Western Hemisphere. Traditional trade agreements often function as fragile, temporary pacts. They leave border communities, job markets, and national security exposed to shifting political winds.
To solve these systemic challenges, author and strategist Richard B. Alman proposes a transformative blueprint. His latest book, North American Unity Plan (NAUP), outlines a permanent structural partnership designed to stabilize markets across the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. In this interview, we speak with Alman to explore how shared-ownership Free Trade Zones and unified economic strategies can secure the continent’s future.
Hello Richard B. Alman, welcome to Worldauthors.org! Traditional trade agreements often face renegotiations and political hurdles. How does the structural collaboration proposed in the North American Unity Plan differ from standard pacts like the USMCA?
The North American Unity Plan, or NAUP, is a structural solution to a structural problem. It’s not another negotiated agreement that can be unwound by the next administration. It’s a legally binding, co-ownership model that ties the economic interests of the United States, Canada, and Mexico together in a way that makes unilateral punishment genuinely costly for the country that tries it. When you own something together, you don’t blow it up to make a point. You protect it because your own wealth depends on it. That’s the core logic, and it’s the kind of logic that holds up even when political winds shift
A central pillar of NAUP is the creation of cross-border Free Trade Zones (FTZs) with a 50/50 shared ownership and workforce model. Can you walk us through how these massive industrial zones would operate in practice?
Co-ownership solves the trust problem. When countries share equity in the same assets, they have a financial reason to protect the relationship rather than damage it. Revenue sharing solves the fairness problem. When both sides can see exactly how the money flows and confirm that it’s being split equally, the resentment that builds from feeling like the other side is getting a better deal starts to dissolve. Balanced employment solves the political problem. The loudest objection to cross-border economic cooperation has always been that it sends jobs away. When the employment model is built to distribute jobs on both sides, that objection loses its force.
And tariff relief through legal designation solves the immediate practical problem that’s costing businesses money right now. Under the NAUP model, properties within designated Free Trade Zones can receive tariff relief as soon as they’re legally designated, even before construction is complete. A business that leases space in a designated zone gets the tariff benefit immediately. That’s not a promise contingent on future negotiations. It’s a legal structure that delivers real economic relief on a defined timeline.
You emphasize that NAUP acts as a geopolitical bulwark against rivals like China and Russia. How exactly does this level of economic integration prevent foreign military or economic footholds in Canada and Mexico?
You’ll also discover why the geopolitical dimension of this plan is inseparable from the economic one. A North America that operates as a unified economic bloc doesn’t just generate more wealth. It closes the doors that China and Russia have been trying to push open in the Western Hemisphere. Economic dependency is one of the primary tools both countries use to build influence. When Mexico or Canada has unmet economic needs, outside powers offer to meet them, and those offers come with strings attached. NAUP removes the unmet need by building the economic capacity within the continent. That’s how you prevent foreign footholds without firing a shot.
There’s a dimension to North America’s trade instability that rarely gets discussed in the same conversation as tariffs and supply chains, but it belongs there. Every time the US, Canada, and Mexico are fighting with each other, they’re creating space for outside powers to move in. And those outside powers are not passive observers. They’re actively looking for the openings that North American discord creates.
China and Russia have both been expanding their economic presence in the Western Hemisphere for years. The methods are different, but the strategic logic is the same: find countries with unmet economic needs, offer to meet those needs, and build dependencies that translate into political influence over time. It’s not a conspiracy. It’s just how economic statecraft works, and it works because it delivers real short-term benefits to the countries that accept the offers.
Mexico is the most visible example of this pressure right now.
Mexico sits at a genuine crossroads. It has a large, young workforce, significant manufacturing capacity, and a geographic position that makes it a natural hub for North American production. But it also has infrastructure gaps, uneven economic development across regions, and a history of feeling like a junior partner in its relationship with the United States. When the US applies economic pressure through tariffs or immigration policy, Mexico looks for ways to diversify its relationships. That’s rational. And when China offers infrastructure investment or trade terms that look attractive compared to what the US is offering in a given moment, those offers get serious consideration.
The same dynamic plays out in Canada, though it gets less attention. Canada’s resource wealth, particularly in energy and critical minerals, makes it strategically valuable to any global power looking to secure supply chains. When Canada feels like its trade relationship with the US is unstable or one-sided, it has both the incentive and the capacity to develop alternative economic partnerships.
Beyond macroeconomics, your book highlights “Social Cohesion” and the dignification of labor. How will bringing high-quality jobs to border regions address the root causes of dangerous migration?
The requirement for balanced employment distribution within each Free Trade Zone means that the workforce in any given zone must be drawn equally from the neighboring citizens of both participating nations. In a US-Canada border zone, 50 percent of the jobs must go to US workers and 50 percent to Canadian workers. This isn’t a target or a guideline. It’s a legal requirement built into the zone’s operating structure, with compliance tied to the revenue participation and tariff relief benefits that make the zone attractive to businesses in the first place. A company that doesn’t meet the employment distribution requirement doesn’t get the full benefit package. That creates a direct financial incentive to hire across both workforces, not just theThe jobs created in NAUP zones aren’t designed to be low-wage assembly work. The zones are built for manufacturing, industrial production, and the technology-integrated operations that come with modern production systems. The employment that anchors in these zones is skilled, stable, and well-compensated by the standards of the border communities where the zones are located. That matters for a reason that goes beyond the economics of individual workers. When high-quality jobs are anchored in a specific community, the economic multiplier effect is significant. Workers spend their wages locally. Local businesses grow. Tax revenues for local governments increase. Schools and infrastructure get better funding. The zone becomes a driver of regional economic development rather than an isolated industrial facility that extracts labor from the surrounding area without contributing to it.
The geographic logic of the zone placement reinforces this. Zones are located in border state pairs, which means they’re positioned in communities where cross-border economic activity is already part of daily life. The workforce draw comes from the communities on both sides of the border that are closest to the zone. Workers aren’t being relocated from distant cities. They’re being employed where they already live, which means the economic benefit of the jobs stays in the communities that need it most rather than concentrating in urban centers far from the border.
This design has a direct impact on migration dynamics that’s worth being explicit about. A significant portion of northward migration pressure from Mexico into the United States is driven by the absence of quality employment in Mexican border communities. When a 28-year-old in a border town in Tamaulipas can’t find stable work that pays a living wage, the calculation about whether to attempt the crossing changes. The risk of the journey gets weighed against the certainty of economic hardship at home, and for many people, the risk starts to look acceptable, cheaper or more convenient.
Your writing career spans diverse topics, from historical thrillers to analyzing artificial intelligence. How does your unique background influence the innovative geopolitical solutions you present in NAUP?
I have a very diverse set of interests, experiences and network. Throughout my career I have been involved with manufacturing , production and importation of many different products from dozens of countries. My experiences vary from fortune 100 Companies such as General Motors, to supplying the largest retailers in the USA like Walmart & Target. The dynamics have given me insight to the best, and the worst, of world trade issues and challenges. I studied Disruptive Strategies with the late Clayton Christensen (Harvard Business School) and have a very unusual vision of how to rethink issues and problems via a different path that allows for all stakeholders to benefit from the results. I developed the NAUP with the same mindset and was seeking to develop a pathway that not only was not subject to political challenges with new governments on all sides of the border, but actually made the three countries partners in a solution that will withstand changes in the shifting political winds.
Securing governmental buy-in is critical for a massive infrastructure project. How are you positioning NAUP as a high-impact legacy project for upcoming political administrations?
The 50/50 Shared Equity Framework is the structural core of the NAUP, and every element of it is designed around one central insight: when people own something together, they protect it together. That’s not idealism. That’s how ownership works. The forced cooperation that co-ownership creates isn’t forced in the sense of being coerced. It’s forced in the sense that the math makes cooperation the only rational choice. You don’t impose tariffs on your own assets. You don’t destabilize a revenue stream that flows into your own budget. You don’t undermine employment in a zone where your own citizens hold half the jobs.
The three pillars work together as a system. Co-ownership and revenue sharing creates the financial alignment between governments. Balanced employment distribution creates the political alignment between citizens. Tariff relief through legal structure creates the immediate economic benefit that gets businesses and investors to commit. Remove any one pillar and the system weakens. Keep all three in place and the structure becomes self-reinforcing, because every party involved has a financial reason to keep it working.
The revenue model creates something that current trade agreements don’t: a permanent, contractual income stream for national authorities that doesn’t depend on the health of the broader trade relationship. That income stream is what converts governmental interest from theoretical to financial, and financial interest is what survives changes in administration, shifts in political priorities, and the ordinary turbulence of democratic politics.
The workforce model closes the political objection that has killed more trade initiatives than any other: the jobs question. When employment is distributed equally across both nations by legal requirement, with compliance tied to the financial benefits of zone participation, the argument that cross-border cooperation sends jobs away loses its foundation. The jobs are on both sides. They’re verifiable. They’re anchored in the communities where workers already live.
Our discussion reveals that continental stability requires more than temporary tariff relief. The core principles of the North American Unity Plan highlight the necessity of mutual fiscal gains, shared sovereignty, and proactive national defense. By addressing both the economic and human elements of border dynamics, Alman’s framework offers a comprehensive approach to securing our industrial future.
As global competition accelerates, maintaining a unified and resilient North America is essential. Structural collaborations will protect critical supply chains, stabilize regional economies, and deter geopolitical threats. Alman’s solution provides a clear, actionable path forward. By rethinking how we manage our borders, we can build a lasting legacy of prosperity and security for the entire continent.
Get a copy at www.amazon.com/dp/B0HBXFS6TM