Trending Now
We have updated our Privacy Policy and Terms of Use for Eurasia Group and its affiliates, including GZERO Media, to clarify the types of data we collect, how we collect it, how we use data and with whom we share data. By using our website you consent to our Terms and Conditions and Privacy Policy, including the transfer of your personal data to the United States from your country of residence, and our use of cookies described in our Cookie Policy.
{{ subpage.title }}
People gather for the "Elbows up" rally on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada, on March 9, 2025.
China, Mexico, and Canada take different paths to tackle tariffs
On March 4, 2025, US President Donald Trumpincreased tariffs on Chinese imports from 10% to 20%. The same day, the US imposed a 25% tariff on imports from Canada and Mexico. Two days later, Trump announced that goods and services covered by the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, aka USMCA, would be exempt until April 2, when reciprocal tariffs are set to take effect against all countries around the globe. Canadian energy and potash remain tariffed at 10%, while its steel and aluminum are tariffed at 25%.
Faced with these realities, Mexico, China, and Canada are pursuing very different strategies. What’s working, what’s not, and what’s next?
Mexico has opted for a “respectful” approach prioritizing dialogue over reprisals. In January, President Claudia Sheinbaum launched “Plan Mexico” to address her country’s $105 billion trade imbalance with China by boosting domestic production and attracting investments. She also aggressively tackled drug cartels and migration, Trump’s two pet peeves at the border. In a phone call on March 5, Trump told her, “You’re tough,” and announced his intent to grant Mexico its USMCA reprieve until April 2.
China has taken decisive retaliatory actions – but also sees an opportunity. Vowing to fight “to the bitter end,” Beijing imposed additional tariffs ranging from 10% to 15% on specific American imports, notably soybeans, pork, beef, chicken, and cotton, which will hurt Trump’s Midwestern voters. But China will also leverage America’s April 2 tariffs to boost trade with other nations, potentially offsetting losses in the US market.
Canada has been the most aggressive, going “elbows up” – a hockey term signaling defiance. Ottawa imposed counter-tariffs that could imperil 3.7 million jobs in red US states, and Ontario Premier Doug Ford threatened to impose a surcharge on electricity exports (which he later withdrew). This week, newly appointed Prime Minister Mark Carney will travel to Europe to shore up trade with the UK and France, rather than engaging first with Washington.
Why the tough stance? For Canada, this isn’t just about tariffs. Trump’s continuous talk of making Canada the 51st US state has enraged Canadians, who are canceling US holidays and boycotting American products. It has also upended the next Canadian election, which Carney is expected to call within days, and which he could now win on the back of anti-Trump sentiment.Ontario Premier Doug Ford prepares to speak to an American news outlet in his office at the Queens Park Legislature in Toronto on Monday, March 10, 2025.
Canada and US to discuss renewed USMCA following tariff de-escalation
In a major development on Tuesday, Ontario, Canada, suspended its 25% surcharge on exports of electricity to Michigan, New York, and Minnesota. Premier Doug Ford also said that he, US Secretary of CommerceHoward Lutnick, and the United States Trade Representative will meet on March 13 to discuss a renewed USMCA ahead of the April 2 reciprocal tariff deadline. Ford announced the move on X and indicated that he and Lutnick had a “productive conversation about the economic relationship between the United States and Canada.”
The announcement followed US President Donald Trump’s threat Tuesday morning that tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum imports would increase from 25% to 50% starting March 12. Trump said he would declare a “national emergency” in the three states and posted to Truth Social, “Why would our Country allow another Country to supply us with electricity, even for a small area? Who made these decisions, and why? And can you imagine Canada stooping so low as to use ELECTRICITY, that so affects the life of innocent people, as a bargaining chip and threat?”
In response to Ford’s suspending the electricity surcharges from Ontario, Trump reversed course late Tuesday, revoking his imposition of the additional 25% tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum. But the planned 25% tariff on the industry will still go into effect on Wednesday.U.S. President Donald Trump attends a press conference with British Prime Minister Keir Starmer (not pictured) at the White House in Washington, D.C., U.S., February 27, 2025.
Trump’s tariffs back on, until they’re not
US President Donald Trump announced Thursday thata 25% tariff on Mexican and Canadian goods will take effect on March 4, reversing comments made one day earlier that suggesteda delay until April.
Why the change? Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnicksaid last month that if the two countries made progress on border security, there could be room for negotiation. But Trump claims drugs are still “pouring into our country”and added, “We cannot allow this scourge to continue to harm the USA.” He also blamed China for the flow of fentanyl and announced that he would add an additional 10% tariff on Chinese goods on the same date.
The reality: US border data showsa 97% decline in fentanyl seizures coming from Canada from December to January. In that time, Canada began deploying its $1.3 billion border security package and appointed a fentanyl czar. Canada’s ambassador to the US, Kirsten Hillmann, also noted that illegal migration from Canada dropped by 90% in recent months, a fact that apparently was positively received in Washington.
What’s next? Canadian public safety officials are in Washington, DC, this week to present evidence of Canada’s progress in a last-ditch attempt to keep tariffs at bay. Additional tariffs on steel and aluminum tariffs are due to stack on top of the 25% tariffs starting March 12.
Could things change again? Based on Trump’s previous flip-flops, anything is possible. For now, industries on both sides of the border are preparing for the worst.
Mexico's President Claudia Sheinbaum holds a press conference in Mexico City, Mexico February 3, 2025.
Trump strikes last-minute tariff deal with Mexico and Canada – but not China
With hours to spare, President Donald Trump hit pause on a North American trade war, reaching agreements with both Mexico and Canada to delay the imposition of 25% tariffs that had businesses and markets sweating.
The deals, brokered after multiple calls with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau and Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum, postpone the application of tariffs by 30 days while both countries work to secure their borders with the United States. Mexico agreed to deploy 10,000 troops to curb drug smuggling and illegal immigration, while Canada appointed a fentanyl czar and committed to a Canada-US Joint Strike Force targeting drug trafficking and organized crime.
There was no movement, however, with Beijing. Ten percent tariffs on Chinese imports took effect at 12.01 a.m. on Tuesday, prompting China to hit back with additional tariffs (both countries already had some tariffs in place) on liquefied natural gas, coal, farm machinery, and various other US products. Beijing also imposed new export restrictions and launched an antitrust investigation into Google. Earlier, Beijing said it would challenge the tariffs before the World Trade Organization.
Trump has also warned that tariffs on the EU are coming, prompting UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer to insist that Britain won’t pick sides between the US and the EU, despite his push for closer relations with the continent.
While Mexican and Canadian businesses and consumers breathe a sigh of relief, Trump’s hardball negotiation tactics may negatively impact relations with both countries, particularly Canada, in the longer term. Canadian leaders have said they will actively pursue trade deals with other partners, there has been speculation about Canada joining the EU, and there remains uncertainty about whether the United States remains a trusted ally after Trump forcefully repeated his hope that Canada would become the 51st state – just an hour before his final conversation with Trudeau.
Why is Trump starting a trade war with Canada?
Ian Bremmer's Quick Take: A Quick Take on the US-Canada relationship, which, right now, is on ice. And I don't mean the hockey kind. Trump, the tariff-man, cometh. Some 25% across the board on Canada, on Mexico too, except on Canadian oil, that's only 10%. Why? Why 10% on oil? Because that's actually what makes up Canada's surplus with the United States. So, wouldn't you actually hit that sector harder if you were trying to balance the budget? And the answer is, of course, no. That's like saying Canada's a friend and China's an enemy, and so wouldn't you hit the Chinese harder than the Canadians instead of the Chinese only 10%, the Canadians 25%, Mexico 25%, but that's also not the case. Why? Because China can cause a lot more damage to the United States. And so therefore, President Trump has to be more careful. Canada, Mexico, a lot smaller, much easier to punch down against the Canadians, even if it's technically punching up, given where they sit geographically. And except for oil, where the United States gets 4 million barrels a day, which is much more than the US gets from the rest of the world combined. And that quality of crude, only replaceable in terms of the kind of crude it is from Venezuela with massive sanctions and run by a dictator, and they've destroyed much of their own oil sector, so that's not a capability, which means that the Canadians can't send it anywhere else, the Americans can't buy it anywhere else, but the US is more powerful, so Trump thinks he can get away with it.
So, why? If it's not about oil and it's not really about the trade surplus, then why is it that Trump is doing this? What he says, is it's about fentanyl and illegal migrants, that the Canadians are not policing their border. Again, doesn't make a lot of sense. It makes more sense for Mexico, and again, there's a big question about whether the smartest thing to do is, you know, shoot first and ask questions later, or negotiate credibly first and not undermine the economies, the much weaker economies of your friends. But when it comes to Canada, the argument doesn't make sense at all. Fentanyl, we're talking about on average every year about 10 kilos of fentanyl that is interdicted at the border, which is, by the way, that's every year from Canada. That's less than what you see in Mexico every day. So, it's way under 1% of the total.
Illegal migrants, it's a larger problem from Canada. Here you're talking about roughly 5% of the interdiction on the northern border of illegals coming into the United States compared to 80% from Mexico, and the remainder mostly by sea and occasional air transit. And yes, I'm talking about what is being stopped, not what's getting through, which you can't measure as easily, but it's not like Homeland Security isn't tracking where illegal migrants are actually coming from. And this is not anywhere close to the issue from Canada than it is from Mexico. But that's not really the issue here either because national security issues are more likely to hold up as legal reasons for the US president to invoke IEEPA, the International Emergency Economic Powers Act. And so, if you're worried that the court's going to strike down your tariffs because you don't actually have the law behind you, this is the way you couch it.
And also, Trump doesn't really care what arguments he's using. It's to show that he can't and to get his supporters to go with him to make better deals for the US no matter what. But the timing here is strategically horrible for Trump. Canada is at the beginning of an election, and this from Trump is remarkably unifying for the Canadians. Using fake news to justify a trade war and then leaning in to say that Canada can join as a 51st state if they want. Now, there are plenty of Canadians that over the last eight years have supported Trump. Remember the trucker strike, for example. I mean, I certainly see it and I hear it on my trips there, but these are not America First, Canadians. These are Canada First, Canadians, and they don't want the Canadians to fold to Trump. In fact, the only people that I hear saying quietly that they wish the Canadians would fold are the globalists.
They're the corporate and financial elites in Canada that just really want this to go away because it's hurting their profits. And they're trying to find a way to say, "Well, just give him a win. It'll be okay." But I mean, in terms of the average Canadian, no, no, no, no, no, they want their political leaders, whether it's the Conservative Party or the Liberal Party, to stand up to Trump. And that's why you've seen in the last 24 hours, Liberal leaders, whether it's Trudeau, or it's Chrystia Freeland, or Mark Carney, who are the two that are contesting for the premiership, or it's Pierre Poilievre leading the conservative party, or Doug Ford, head of Ontario, who's also a major conservative leader in Canada, and they're all saying the same thing, which is they've got to stand up for Canada, to hit Trump back hard, that they can't take this laying down. And these are also the people that are booing the US National Anthem at hockey games across the country in Canada right now, which I have not seen happen in Canada, frankly, since the US war in Iraq.
I am not someone who opposes tariffs as a matter of course. I think that tariffs can be a useful tool of economic and national security influence. They can help to deal with national security concerns. They can help nudge rebalancing of economies for domestic reasons that matter politically. And we saw some of that during Trump's first term. We saw some of that during Biden's term. But for Trump's first term, he then had strong economic voices internally that were also moderating his behavior, that stopped fights from becoming long-term destructive. People like Robert Lighthizer, who was the US trade rep. Jared Kushner, who was a senior advisor, had a lot of access and influence of course to his father-in-law. Steve Mnuchin, the Secretary of Treasury. That's not remotely the case this time around. That's not what you're seeing from Treasury Secretary Bessent or from Commerce Secretary Lutnick. Much, much weaker, much more divided forces internally.
So instead, you are taking on America's closest friend, most trusted ally, not to mention critically integrated economy with the United States, and you are hitting them in the teeth harder than you are hitting anyone else. And I would argue that this is a big mistake, long-term, for the United States and frankly for everyone but America's adversaries, who will take advantage of weakness of US allies that have been historically very strong, and that have been harder for adversaries to deal with.
So what is it that the United States stands for? And I go back, I think when I was a kid and when I was starting my studies, 1989, Wall comes down, and around the world, people saw that, and they weren't all pro-American, not by a long stretch, but they would still stay that the United States had values, that it was trying to stand for freedom and liberty and a free market economy. Not always consistently, but nonetheless, the general sense that that was something that the United States wanted to be seen as promoting. And today, you go to Canada, or you go to Denmark, or you go to Panama, or you go to Japan, or South Korea, the European Union, you name it, and you ask people what America stands for, and they say, "Power," and they say, "Money," and they specifically say, "Pay for play." And that is penny-wise and pound-foolish for the United States.
And I don't know how US Canada is going to ultimately resolve itself. I don't think it's going to be resolved quickly. I think there will be a lot of economic pain on both sides, a lot more for the Canadians than the Americans because they're in a weaker position, but sooner or later, I think economic interest on both sides will lead to a deal. And I think, I expect that this is not going to lead to a permanent trade war between the Americans and the Canadians, but you would have to go back to pre-war times to find a major country doing more than the US is doing right now, and President Trump is doing right now, to undermine America's closest alliances. That is what's happening here. And I think long-term, this is really not in the interest of the United States, in the interest the American people, and it's certainly not in the interest of having a sustainable and stable world.
So that's it for me. I'll talk to you all real soon and be good.
Scott Bessent, U.S. President-elect Donald Trump's secretary of treasury.
Trump vs. the Treasury on tariffs
Is US President Donald Trump already at odds with his cabinet picks? Rather than impose high tariffs on select countries all at once, US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has suggested that Washingtonlevy universal 2.5% tariffs on all US imports and gradually raise them, giving businesses time to adjust and countries time to negotiate.
This contradicts Trump’s strategy of hitting high and hard like he did when he threatened 25% and 50% tariffs on Colombia over the weekend. The tariff war between Washington and Bogota lasted less than 12 hours, with Colombian President Gustavo Petroinitially matching Trump’s tariffs before both countries backed down and deportation flights resumed.
When asked about Bessent’s suggestion of gradual tariffs, Trump rejected it and said hewanted a “much bigger” rate. He has repeatedly threatened to impose 25% duties on Canada and Mexico from Feb. 1, which White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavittconfirmed on Tuesday “still holds.”
Is this split a tempest or a tiff? According to Nancy Wei, a trade and supply chains analyst at Eurasia Group, it’s neither. “Bessent’s recommendation for a 2.5% across-the-board tariff appears to be a strategic negotiating position rather than a direct disagreement with President Trump,” she says.
“The upcoming confirmation hearing for Commerce Secretary [nominee] Howard Lutnick will be telling, as his views on gradual tariff implementation — if questioned — could provide insights into the administration’s overall strategy.”
President Donald Trump makes a special address remotely during the 55th annual World Economic Forum meeting in Davos, Switzerland, on Jan. 23, 2025.
The Big Tar-iffs: Will he or won’t he start a trade war?
The big Trump tar-“iff” now has a when: Feb. 1.
That’s when the busy new US president has promised to slap 25% tariffs on both Canada and Mexico. In his virtual address to the folks attending the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, on Thursday, President Donald Trump again singled out Canada for harsh treatment. “We have a tremendous deficit with Canada,” he said, reiterating his usual inaccurate tariff mantra. Trump claims the trade deficit is between US$200 and US$250 billion a year when it is significantly less than half of that, mainly due to energy exports.
Trump then followed up with his favorite new expansionist taunt. “You can always become a state,” he said to Canadians. “If you’re a state, we won’t have a deficit. We won’t have to tariff you.”
But what he said next was more dire because it was aimed directly at the industries that are core to the Canadian economy. “We don’t need them to make our cars,” President Trump said. “We don’t need their lumber, because we have our own forests. We don’t need their oil and gas. We have more than anybody.” In other words, we don’t need Canada at all.
Cue the economic peril clutching.
Let’s slow-walk through all this.
Will President Donald Trump really follow through with tariffs, or is it a negotiating tactic?
Yes, tariffs are coming the way cold comes in winter. Why so certain? Our general rule is to take the president of the United States both seriously and literally. As Trump said in his inaugural address, tariffs are now his primary source of government revenue, not just a tool for negotiation.
“Instead of taxing our citizens to enrich other countries, we will tariff and tax foreign countries to enrich our citizens,” he announced. “It will be massive amounts of money pouring into our treasury coming from foreign sources.” He even floated the idea of an “External Revenue Service,” so tariffs are the flywheel in the engine that Trump promises will drive a golden age.
In his Davos speech on Thursday, the president emphasized the warning. “If you don’t make your product in America,” he said to a large group of CEOs, “then, very simply, you will have to pay a tariff, differing amounts, but a tariff which will direct hundreds of billions of dollars, even trillions of dollars, into our treasury to strengthen our economy and pay down debt.”
Is he right that high tariffs will really work for the US?
Not as promised. This is where the Trump math breaks down and politics and economics collide. Trump’s tariff threats will drive some businesses to keep factories in the US instead of, say, Canada. For example, this week Stellantis announced it was going to build the new Dodge Durango in Detroit and not move it to Canada as initially thought. It will also reopen a previously closed plant in Illinois to build another vehicle. So, expect some short-term “wins” from the America-first, protectionist agenda.
After all, in his first term, Trump used tariffs on goods like steel, aluminum, and products from China to more than double the amount the government collected from duties to about $111 billion.
Sounds like a lot, but it’s not. In 2023, the US government took in over $4.2 trillion in income and payroll tax. Even with 10% tariffs on all goods from China and 25% tariffs on Canadian and Mexican goods, the US government would take in only another $140 billion in 2025, according to the Committee for a Responsible Budget.
That’s not nearly enough to finance new tax cuts. For example, Trump has promised to extend his 2017 tax cuts in 2026. The Congressional Budget Office estimates doing so will cost about $4.7 trillion in lost revenue between now and 2035. That leaves a Grand Canyon-size hole that revenue from tariffs and savings from government cuts can never fill. Deficits will explode.
So will tariffs really be 25% across the board on Canada and Mexico, or will President Trump come down to a more manageable level on a few select goods?
That remains very unclear. The president didn’t slap these tariffs on week one, revealing they may have dropped as a symbolic priority for him. That opens up some room to maneuver to negotiate until the Feb. 1 deadline, and now there is even further hope for exceptions. The president has also asked for a report on trade and unfair practices to be delivered to him by April 1, which offers yet another potential delay in the tariff war. There will be lobbying, networking, and a full-bore strategy to give Canada some kind of carveout.
Still, neither date removes the possibility of the promised tariffs happening at some level. The president needs revenue, and tariffs are his preferred tool, despite the math.
Will Canada retaliate dollar for dollar?
Yes. The same strategy Canada deployed in Trump 1.0 during the steel and aluminum tariffs will be deployed again, and the list amounting to CA$37 billion worth of goods — including things like Florida Orange juice — is already made and ready to be deployed. After all, if Trump goes through with the tariffs, Canada could get pushed into a recession, with up to 5% of its GDP hit. While goods and services in both countries will get more expensive for citizens, it will hurt Canada much more for one reason: Canada sends almost three-quarters of its exports to the US, compared to just a little more than 17% of US exports crossing the other way.
If there are 25% tariffs across the board, will Canada use the nuclear option and try to cut off energy exports to the US, risking a full national unity crisis?
Very unclear. All the premiers and territory leaders met this week with Justin Trudeau to align their retaliation strategy, which includes energy … except for Alberta Premier Danielle Smith, for whom any inclusion of fossil fuel exports in a trade war is strictly off-limits. This is the lifeblood of the Alberta economy, after all, and she is protective of her province. However, her position deeply hampers a united Canadian response and allows the new US administration to deploy a divide-and-conquer strategy, knowing they can absorb any trade shocks better than Canada, especially if they do not include energy.
Is Trump still serious about taking over Canada by economic force?
Unclear. That view has certainly created a surge of patriotism in Canada and escalated tough trade talk as politicians jockey to wear the “Captain Canada” label. But if there is a desire to have an integrated North American economy — newsflash! — we already have one.
Energy alone is the best example. The US imports 24% of its crude oil from Canada, and that is very hard to replace because US refineries are retooled to process Canadian heavy crude oil, not the kind of oil the US extracts from fracking. Not only that, when looking at all energy products that flow across the border, like natural gas, there is a combined network of pipelines in North America that is over 281,000 miles long! With the free trade agreement, integrated fossil fuel pipelines, and hydroelectric systems in the East supplying electricity to the Northeastern states, it would be hard to find two more interconnected economies anywhere in the world.
In other words, on Feb. 1, the US and Canada are headed for a trade war they don’t need over a prize they both already have.
President Donald Trump signs executive orders in the White House.
Trump uses uncertainty on tariffs for leverage
In November, Trump said he would impose those tariffs on Day One, which was Jan. 20, but the document he was signing when he made his remarks calls for a comprehensive report on trade to be delivered to him by April 1, setting out his options.
That process will allow American trade and national security officials to have input “in a formal way, rather than the kind of monarchical court that was going on at Mar-a-Lago,” says Eurasia Group analyst Graeme Thompson.
That means that Canada and Mexico will likely have the opportunity to make their case for continued trade before Trump acts, but he is going to be pushing hard for concessions.
The fresh tariff threats should be thought of as “a negotiating tactic,” says Thompson, but that doesn’t mean there won’t be tariffs. “The bottom line is, whether they come today, tomorrow, next week, or next month, Canada is going to have to live with the specter of US tariffs hanging over its head on any issue at any time for the next four years.”
Trump will reportedly use the threats to force Canada and Mexico to renegotiate the USMCA in an attempt to shift auto manufacturing from those countries to the United States.
Canada and Mexico can both be expected to push back hard to protect jobs in their countries but may be forced to make difficult tradeoffs to avoid broader tariff pain.