This investigation examines over 300 articles in The New York Timesfrom 1993 that concern the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). In constructing a critical analysis of The Times'sdiscourse on NAFTA, I begin with an overview of the factors that impact on contemporary media-government relations in the United States (e.g., “information subsidy,” stereotyped narrative forms into which news accounts are typically organized). Thereafter, I demonstrate how the private sector's and Clinton government's emphatic support for the agreement was regularly insinuated into The Times'scoverage. Despite “legitimate controversy” that surrounded NAFTA, The Times'ssourcing patterns distinctly shaded toward pro-NAFTA sources. Moreover, the Clinton government's “market/democracy” and “economic invasion” appeals for NAFTA became prominent storylines in The Timesdespite their implausibility. Conversely, The Times's treatment of the NAFTA opposition (most particularly, the opposition of unions and Ross Perot) was harsh and encased within personalized narratives that skirted away from substantive analysis. Given the stakes involved in this complex, high profile, and consequential issue, I conclude by theorizing what The Times'sNAFTA discourse implies about journalism and U.S. democracy.