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 }}
Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau is joined by Finance Minister Dominic LeBlanc, Minister of Foreign Affairs Melanie Joly, and Minister of Public Safety David McGuinty, as he responds to President Donald Trump's orders to impose 25% tariffs on Canadian imports, in Ottawa, Ontario, on Feb. 1, 2025.
Trump ignites trade war. Will there be a legal response?
On Saturday, US President Donald Trump signed an executive order applying 25% tariffs on all Canadian and Mexican imports, excluding Canadian energy, which will be tariffed at 10%. The order, which takes effect on Tuesday, also imposes a 10% tariff on all Chinese imports. Trump threatened to escalate tariffs further if any of the countries retaliated, which Mexico and Canada have already done.
Canada will apply 25% tariffs on $155 billion of American goods, from orange juice to appliances to car parts, phased in over three weeks. Ottawa will also consider nontariff measures relating to energy and procurement, and provincial liquor monopolies areremoving American alcohol from their shelves. Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum also retaliated with “tariff and non-tariff measures in defense of Mexico's interests,” without specifying the rate.
China has responded with plans to implement “countermeasures” and called Trump’s tariffs a “serious violation” of international trade rules, which it will contest before the World Trade Organization.
On what basis did Trump issue the order? Trump expanded the scope of the national emergency he declared on Jan. 20 at the southern border of the United States, due to “the sustained influx of illicit opioids and other drugs” that is “endangering lives and putting a severe strain on our healthcare system, public services, and communities.” It now covers both Canada and China, which he accuses of not doing enough to combat fentanyl production, money laundering, drug gangs, and transnational crime.
Could legal challenges derail Trump’s tariffs? To declare this emergency, Trump invoked the US International Emergency Economic Powers Act, or IEEPA, the National Emergencies Act, or NEA, as well as sections 604 of the Trade Act of 1974 and section 301 of Title 3, United States Code.
But the IEEPA hasnever been used to justify tariffs. It allows for the imposition of sanctions, suchas those imposed by the Biden administration against Russia, which can be invoked immediately. Trump chose the IEEPA because it allowed him to bypass the lengthy investigations and consultations required by other trade laws he invoked during his first term.
It also allows him to claim the tariffs are legal under World Trade Organization rules, as the General Agreement on Tariffs and Trade’s Article XXI designates a national security exception. President Richard Nixon similarly invoked the Trading with the Enemy Act to impose 10% tariffs after the US quit the gold standard in 1971 to stave off a balance-of-payments crisis.
This may not bode well for a challenge by China before the WTO. But if American courts rule against Trump on his use of the IEEPA, his emergency declaration could be considered invalid, opening the door to penalties under global trade rules.
Finally, there’s the USMCA. A Congressional analysis found that tariffs would violate the tripartite treaty, but with Trump already threatening to withdraw from the agreement, it would appear he does not care. Trump said on Truth Social on Sunday that Americans will feel “SOME PAIN” but that “IT WILL ALL BE WORTH THE PRICE THAT MUST BE PAID.”
We’ll be watching to see who might challenge the US president in court – and whether they succeed. Meanwhile, the markets were taking a hit as of early Monday with stock futures lower and the dollar and oil rising.
Exclusive New Poll: US-Canada – Tariff-ied of What’s to Come?
Won’t you be my … frenemy?
It’s not a beautiful day in the North American neighborhood. Two days before the Feb. 1 deadline Donald Trump set to impose tariffs on Canada, Abacus Data and GZERO Media have an exclusive new poll on American attitudes toward their closest ally and neighbor. The upshot? This is the dawn of the new age of the political frenemy. Longtime American allies like Canada have reshaped their view of their largest trading partner into something much more threatening, going from friend to frenemy.
The Abacus Data-GZERO poll surveyed 1,500 Americans on politically radioactive issues like tariffs, fentanyl, and immigration. On the big one, tariffs, 47% of Trump voters support a 25% tariff on Canadian goods, while 67% of Democrats oppose it. Why the split? Republicans see it as a pain-free exercise. Only 19% of Trump voters believe tariffs on Canada will have a negative impact on them, as opposed to 65% of Democrat voters. “It’s striking how many Trump supporters appear unfazed by the impact of tariffs or Canadian retaliation,” says David Coletto, CEO of Abacus. “They may see it as cost-free now, but that blind spot could become a real liability if people start feeling the economic hit.”
Abacus Data
Canadian officials have made an extraordinary effort to convince Americans that punishing Canada with high tariffs will drive up the cost of their goods, but it’s worked about as well as using winter boots to skate on ice. “Everything the American consumers buy from Canada is suddenly going to get a lot more expensive,” Prime Minister Justin Trudeau told CNN a few weeks ago, using examples like energy. “Canadian energy powers American manufacturing, businesses, and homes,” he said.
Clearly this has not landed with Trump voters, who not only see tariffs as a net benefit to Americans but also believe that Canadians are taking advantage of them. That’s right, even though the free trade deal was negotiated by Ronald Reagan and Trump, somehow crafty ol’ Canada pulled a fast one on both of them. According to the poll, 67% of Trump voters believe the free trade pact benefits Canada “way more” than it does the US. Overall, 50% of Americans believe there is a huge trade deficit between the US and Canada, which means that Americans are basically “subsidizing” their northern neighbor.
Abacus Data
That’s not true, by the way. The trade deficit between the US and Canada is not $250 billion, as Trump repeats, but less than $100 billion, mainly because Canada supplies the US with 24% of its energy, at a discounted price.
On immigration, there is another consequential gap between perception and reality. Fifty-four percent of Trump voters think “millions of illegal immigrants” come from Canada (44% of Americans overall believe this). The reality? It’s about 1% of the total number of immigrants crossing illegally into the US. And Canada just spent another billion dollars to stop that amount in hopes of appeasing Trump into calling off the tariffs.
Finally, on the other tariff trigger point: drugs. Thirty-two percent of Americans believe that a lot of the fentanyl that comes into the US originates in Canada. There are drug labs in Canada, for sure, but they account for less than 1% of the fentanyl that comes from places like Mexico, China, and other countries.
You might think from all this that the US really doesn’t like Canada, but here is the weird part:87% of Americans have a positive or very positive view of Canada, according to the poll. An optimist might see the fact that less than half of Trump supporters want these tariffs as evidence that he doesn’t really have a mandate from his base. So what is it?
“These findings paint a portrait of an American public torn between long-standing goodwill toward Canada and the view that Canada may be getting the better end of existing trade deals,” says Coletto. “On one hand, most Americans describe Canada as an ally … On the other hand, more than half believe Canada benefits ‘way more’ from free trade, echoing President Trump’s narrative that tariffs are needed to level the playing field.”
The partisan difference is notable, but geography matters as well. “Americans in border states register deeper anxiety about the fallout from a potential trade war,” Coletto says. “This underlines the importance of these border communities: Their direct exposure to cross-border trade could serve as a bellwether for how the broader American public will ultimately judge the practicality and fairness of tariffs.”
All this leaves a massive challenge in a very short time: Canadian leaders need to somehow convince Americans — or, more concretely, President Trump — that high tariffs on Canada will hurt Americans.
“The more Canadians can demonstrate that these punitive measures undermine shared prosperity, the likelier they are to sway uncertain or moderate Americans and mitigate the worst outcomes of an escalating trade dispute,” says Coletto. “But we also have to be aware that Trump voters are captive to his rhetoric, and what they think and feel is likely all he cares about.”
This is what the age of the frenemy looks like. Won’t you be my neighbor?
___________
To see the full Abacus Data-GZERO poll and David Coletto’s deep dive into the numbers, please click here.
Graphic Truth: Will tariffs axe US wood imports?
Donald Trump plans to put 25% tariffs on Canada starting this Saturday, Feb. 1, which could have ripple effects on the US housing market. The US imports more wood from Canada than any other country, and tariffs will raise construction costs in an already tight market where nearly half of Americans can’t afford a home.
After Canada, the US imports most of its wood from China and Mexico – which Trump has also threatened steep tariffs on – as well as Brazil and Germany.
President-elect Donald Trump attends the 2024 Senior Club Championship award ceremony at his Trump International Golf Club in West Palm Beach, Florida, back in March.
Don’t Panic: 4 Rules for Responding to Trump Threats
Amid all the geopolitical chaos, the best advice of the year: Don’t panic.
As they dined at Mar-a-Lago on a main course of tough, over-cooked tariff talk, President-elect Donald Trump suggested to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau — in what the Canadians present later called a joking manner — that Canada might make a good 51st state. Naturally, people freaked out. First, Trump threatens to destroy the Canadian economy with 25% tariffs on everything, and now this? An invasion?
As the breathless coverage spilled over the international media, my colleague Gerry Butts went on Bluesky with a message: “Trump used this 51st state line all the time with Trudeau in his first term. He’s doing it to rattle Canadian cages. When someone wants you to freak out, don’t.”
It is sound advice. Don’t freak out.
Canada is no more going to become the 51st state in the next four years than California, British Columbia, and Oregon are going to break away and become Cascadia. Jokes are not policy.
So what’s up?
Trump is a zero-sum negotiator. He uses the powerful leverage he has to create “I win, you lose” deals. Threats give him a real negotiation advantage before the actual negotiations happen. That is the prerogative of the Big Dog countries, especially those run by strongmen, mercantilist leaders like Trump. Trump threats are simply the expected prelude to any deal. But what is real and what is rhetoric? And how to respond?
Invasion: Rhetoric. Dismiss.
Tariffs: Real. Discuss.
Rule One: Stick With Facts. Don’t get caught up in the torrent of tweets and taunts. Don’t give anything away until the actual negotiations start. Facts are your best friends.
Facts? Really? You might think that since Trump has ushered in the post-fact world, facts are a diminishing currency. That is a dangerous bet. For example, at the root of the 51st state jab are the much more dangerous Trump threats to slap 25% tariffs on all goods coming in from Canada and Mexico. Trump based this threat on what he says is the heavy flow of fentanyl and illegal migrants across the border.
Initially, that threat caused panic. Alberta Premier Danielle Smith immediately went into appeasement mode, telling the CBC’s Power and Politics, “It’s incumbent, I believe, on the federal government, along with all of the provinces, to work together to address those concerns if we want to be able to avoid these devastating tariffs that’ll hurt all of us.”
She’s not wrong that the Trump rhetoric needs to be addressed, which is why Trudeau immediately got on a plane and took his team for a strategic schmooze fest at Mar-a-Lago. Trump prizes personal relationships above all else, so a connection matters.
Rule Two: Don’t Take It Personally. Even though Trump has a long-standing sour relationship with Trudeau — he’s even called the Canadian PM “two-faced” — in Trumplandia, that doesn’t matter. His relationships with people change like the weather in the Rocky Mountains: If you don’t like what is happening, wait five minutes. It will change.
Trump is quick to anger and quick to forget. Can he get over his past irritations with Trudeau? Well, he got over JD Vance comparing him to … that guy who ran Germany in the war. He nominated former rival Marco Rubio, whom he used to mock as “Little Marco,” for secretary of state. Trump doesn’t hold the very grudges he creates, and the best way to get over that is to find a way to make nice, show loyalty, and suck up. That’s what the Trudeau visit was all about. Feelings first. Facts second.
That doesn’t mean giving anything away. And that’s where the facts come in. On fentanyl and border security, the reality is far different than the rhetoric. Canada is hardly a major threat to the US on either issue.
“The facts are hard to deny,” Kirsten Hillman, Canada’s whip-smart ambassador to the US, pointed out on X. “Last year, 0.6% of illegal crossings and 0.2% of fentanyl seizures by US authorities were at the northern border.”
That’s right. Only .2% of fentanyl seizures happened at the Canadian border. If you want to go deeper, check out the latest stats from the US Customs and Border Protection agency, which shows that the problem of fentanyl is largely at the Mexican border, not the Canadian one.
In fact, the CBP’s top official, Troy Miller, has an extensive interview on the US government website about fentanyl coming over the US border. Guess what? He mentions the southwest border 21 times and Mexico specifically seven times. Canada? Not a word. Canada and the northern border are not mentioned a single time. Why? It is simply not a major issue.
Rule Three: Know What Actually Needs Work. On the other hand, illegal migration is a real issue, both internationally and domestically. There is a key section along the US-Canadian border called the Swanton Sector (which covers parts of New York, Vermont, and New Hampshire), and illegal immigration rates there have spiked according to stats from the CBP. But how bad is it? 23,000 arrests were made at the northern border between October 2023 and September 2024. That is up from 10,000 in 2023. Compared to Mexico, where over 47,000 arrests were made in November of this year alone, it’s a trickle (700 were arrested in November in Canada). Still, politically it is an issue Canadians will have to deal with if they want to avoid tariff punishments. Doing nothing is not an option.
Illegal migration is now driving election outcomes in France, Ireland, Germany, and many other places, so this ain’t a surprise. But proportionality matters, and the facts that prove that point can get lost in the storm of threats. It is critical this doesn’t happen.
Rule 4: Follow the Money. There is a high probability that a tariff-driven trade war — or skirmish — is coming very soon, and the facts here will be crucial. After all, high tariffs will hurt the very people Trump represents — namely, American workers. High US tariffs on Canadian goods will raise prices for US consumers and make life for them more miserable. That is a political loss for Trump.
Over 34 US states rely on Canada as their major trading partner, so expect state governors to pressure the White House to ease up on the tariff talk so as not to jeopardize the bilateral trading relationship that sees over US$2.7 billion worth of goods and services crossing the border each day.
To protect that, Canadian leaders will have to think hard about decoupling their trade relationship with Mexico, especially when the new US-Mexico-Canada trade deal gets renegotiated in 2026. The politics of the southern border have always cross-infected the northern one, but if the infection threatens to be economically fatal, there will be a change. The famed three amigos might be reduced to two.
But that is not for right now. Trade deals are not made on social media; they are negotiated face to face, when genuine swaps and deals can happen. Better to build relationships now over dinner, and serve up facts for dessert.
And don’t panic.
It hasn’t even started yet.
Graphic Truth: De massive problem with “de minimis” packages
Supporters of the current threshold say it streamlines trade, particularly in a world in which e-commerce is soaring. But critics point out that the US threshold is way higher than anyone else’s, and that foreign exporters often exploit that to evade import duties and inspections.
Chinese e-commerce exporters in particular use de minimis rules to skirt US tariffs, while drug cartels ship fentanyl to the US in a similar way. Someone even tried to import a helicopter from Venezuela by breaking it up into small packages labeled as “personal effects.”
The Biden administration recently cracked down on Chinese exporters’ abuse of de minimis thresholds, and the incoming Trump administration is certain to hit this issue even harder.
Here’s a snapshot of how the US threshold compares globally, along with a look at the massive rise in de minimis shipments to the US over the past 10 years.
Rep. Michael Waltz, R-Fla., speaks during Day 3 of the 2024 Republican National Convention at Fiserv Forum in Milwaukee, WI, on July 17, 2024.
Trump picks Trudeau critics for Cabinet
President Donald Trump’s credulity-straining Cabinet picks (Matt Gaetz and Tulsi Gabbard, for example) are getting all the attention, but anyone interested in the relationship between Canada and the United States will want to know that two of his lower-profile nominees are no fans of the Canadian prime minister.
Trump’s next national security advisor, Rep. Michael Waltz, has a long track record of critical public comments about Justin Trudeau, suggesting he is weak on China and that Canadians should get rid of him.
Waltz represents Florida’s 6th District in the House of Representatives, which includes Daytona Beach, a frequent destination for Canadian sunseekers, which may explain his interest in Canadian politics.
In May, Waltz shared a post from Conservative leader Pierre Poilievre: “This guy is going to send Trudeau packing in 2025 (finally) and start digging Canada out of the progressive mess it’s in.”
Waltz’s dim view of the Trudeau government may strain security cooperation between the two countries, but Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, is more likely to be front and center at the conflict point.
Homan, the former acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, will be in charge of implementing Trump’s plan to deport millions of undocumented foreigners. Homan is from West Carthage, NY, just south of the northern border, which he sees as a threat because of irregular crossings.
On Monday, he told a local TV station there that he intends to make it harder for illegal immigrants to get into the United States, promising to arrest any who try.
“We’re gonna lock you up,” he said. “So more agents, we’ll end catch and release, and President Trump will need to work with Prime MinisterJustin Trudeau and say, ‘look, you need to enforce the immigration laws you have because this is a gateway to the US.’”
Homan is not a Trudeau fan. “Find a better man,” he said in February. “He’s terrible."
Trump’s chosen deputy chief of staff, Stephen Miller, meanwhile, has called Canada “increasingly authoritarian and despotic” and referred to the PM as “far-left Trudeau.”
The Canadians are bracing for the impact of Trump, beefing up surveillance aimed at preventing crossings in the other direction. The likely result is a more heavily policed frontier, which could slow the trade that both sides rely on.
Graphic Truth: Trump tariffs could cook Canada
It’s not yet clear how he will follow through with that threat – mainstream economists have warned of its inflationary effects – but the president-elect and top advisers, including his former trade chiefRobert Lighthizer, are working hard on it as Trump prepares to take office in January.
What effect would a blanket tariff have on Canada, whose economy is tightly integrated with the US? Brace yourself. A recent report by the Canadian Chamber of Commerce estimated that a permanent 10% US tariff on Canada would cause US imports to fall by 10%, and knock as much as 5% off of Canada’s GDP.
Here’s a look at just how dependent Canada’s economy is on the US, and the key export categories.
Trudeau’s former right-hand man thinks Trump 2.0 ‘will be harder’
When Donald Trump shocked the world by getting himself elected in 2016, Gerald Butts was the principal secretary to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau. He was also a key member of the Canadian team that managed the tumultuous but ultimately successful negotiation of the USMCA, sitting across the table from Trump, Peter Navarro, Steve Bannon, and Robert Lighthizer. He is now vice chairman and a senior advisor at Eurasia Group, which is the parent company of GZERO Media.
This interview has been edited for length and clarity.
You were in the Office of the Prime Minister the last time Trump was elected. How is this different?
Butts: On the positive side, it’s not as much of a shock. The most salient fact of the first Trump presidency was that it happened. So everybody had to have a plan for it happening again. That’s the upside. The downside is you’re going to be dealing with a much more emboldened Trump who’s got a broader electoral mandate and whose ambitions on the economy are much more comprehensive than they were the first go-round. He campaigned in 2016 basically saying to the Great Lakes blue-collar worker that he was going to bring their jobs back from Mexico, the jobs that the Clintons sold to Mexico. And this time he’s got a much more ambitious agenda. It’s rebalancing global trade and a mass deportation plan that will make labor more expensive in the United States.
If you add those two things together, along with probably increased defense spending on an already large deficit, it’s hard to see how those things don’t cause inflation.
It seems odd that inflation is what eroded Biden’s brand, but Trump’s two key promises are both inflationary.
They don’t see it that way, of course. I think that that’s the conventional economic view. And I do think that what will inevitably be an inflated defense budget beyond the PBO’s 3% estimate is also going to be part of this, part of the inflationary pressure that Trump brings to bear.
As policymakers have learned over the past couple of years, because most of them had never had to deal with it before, inflation is a government killer. It’s the grim reaper for incumbents, and it’s mowed down governments of all political stripes all over the world.
Speaking of which, the Trudeau government generally gets good marks for handling Trump the first time, which you had something to do with. A lot of people are worried that it’s going to be a little harder this time, in part because of the relationship between the president and the prime minister. Do you think that that’s important?
Its importance is overblown. I think you’re right that it will be harder. I think that has more to do with the relative political standing of the government and the time of the mandate. If you’re dealing with Trump at the end of your first year, when you’re in the 40s in the polls, with almost a 50% approval rating, that’s one thing, because those two things add up to political capital that you have to invest.
If you’re dealing with it in year 10, when you don’t enjoy those polling numbers, that means you have less political capital to invest. And by definition, Trump is a problem that requires political capital to solve.
They have a very difficult task ahead of them, don’t they?
They really do. I never like to tell my former colleagues how to do their job, because the truth is, when you don’t have all the information they have, it’s hard to make judicious calls. Only they know how prepared they are to deal with undocumented people showing up at a Canadian border point. I don’t know that. Unless you do, it’s hard to say how you would deal with that issue either in the public or in bilateral negotiations with the Trump administration.
I do think that’s potentially the biggest problem they’re going to have to deal with because I wouldn’t say the cross-partisan consensus on immigration in Canada is gone, but it has been weakened by recent events.
On trade, what’s the best guess on whether Trump is going to exempt Canada from a new tariff policy?
I think if the best predictor of future behavior is past behavior, then he will only grant exemptions in return for something. The question is, what can the government offer that he wants that will get that exemption? And I have no idea.
Cross-border trade is high frequency and very large. We’d feel the impact of tariffs sooner, and they’d cover more of our economy than any country except maybe Mexico.
Traditionally in Canada, all governments are afraid — because of the strength of our dairy lobby — to do much about the supply-managed dairy industry. (Canada’s politically powerful dairy farmers have long exerted political pressure to protect their industry from American imports.) In this situation, do you think that that’s the kind of thing the politicians may have to think about in a new way?
That’s definitely possible. I mean, my view is if you’re going to take that kind of risk, get some bigger economic reward for it. We’ve been simultaneously having this conversation yet again about Canadian productivity. And one of the big problems with Canadian productivity is that our firms and sectors like digital services face no competition. So the companies are big, bloated bureaucracies that deliver some of the most expensive services in the world. I’d be tempted to use the crisis presented by the Trump administration to fix some things about the structure of the Canadian economy that badly need fixing.
On the energy transition, all of these big bets on battery plants in the United States are legislated tax credits that Trump cannot get rid of, but the whole managed auto manufacturing sector is losing an enthusiastic ally for EVs in Biden. What does that do to the enormous subsidies Trudeau and Champagne have put on the table for EV manufacturers?
I think that may be literally a trillion-dollar question. That’s going to be a super-challenging file to manage with Trump. It’s coming at a time where the global industry is electrifying, and that process is being led by the Chinese. The Americans think the proper response to that is to create large tariffs that will keep the Chinese out of the American market because they’re kind of running the 1970s playbook. I think the response from the Chinese is going to be: “We don’t need to be in the American market. China is twice the size of the United States auto market, and we’ll take the rest of the world while you guys double down on inferior technology that the rest of the world is turning away from.”
It’s a very complicated situation. They’re already losing out to Chinese and Korean producers, and this could just accelerate that process.
So I’d be very worried if I were working on this part of industrial policy in North America because the companies have a weaker hand to deal with than the government seems to think they do.
And for Canada, there’s an extra challenge in that the Canadian economy is so integrated with the American economy that it may not be possible to set a different course.
That’s right. It may be that the American automotive market, like the American economy itself, is so large that subnational economies like California and New York — which together are larger than Canada — can keep going the way they’ve been going, and the Canadian industry basically follows them. But I think that’s challenging. It’s super challenging for a small but important producer like Canada, especially on the parts side.
Let’s close with a little optimism. What do you see as an upside of this election for Canada?
I think it’s the persistent structural problems in the Canadian economy that are not going to be solved in the absence of a crisis. Maybe Trump is the crisis that the Canadian economy needs to solve those problems.