Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Top Stories

Just the Facts: Trump’s 35% Canadian Tariff and Canada’s Response

With August 1 looming, Trump and Carney double down on steel, sovereignty, and electoral strategy.

News

Just the Facts: Trump’s 35% Canadian Tariff and Canada’s Response

With just days remaining before President Trump’s self-imposed deadline to strike a new trade deal with Canada, no agreement appears imminent.

Getty Images, Andriy Onufriyenko

With just days remaining before President Trump’s self-imposed deadline to strike a new trade deal with Canada, no agreement appears imminent. What began as a tense negotiation has metastasized into a full-blown economic standoff, marked by dueling tariffs, political bravado, and waning diplomatic grace.

On July 16, Prime Minister Mark Carney unveiled a sweeping steel tariff package designed to insulate Canada’s domestic industry from global volatility. His remarks were blunt:


“Canada is no longer content to be a passive participant in global steel dynamics. We’re forging a new path—and doing so with steel in our spine.”

This escalation in rhetoric and action marks a turning point. Two countries once bound by mutual interest and proximity are now behaving more like adversaries than allies.

Canada’s Tariff Measures Include:

  • A 25% tariff on steel “melted and poured” in China.
  • Tariff rate quotas (TRQs) capping duty-free access to 50% of 2024 levels for non–FTA countries.
  • A $1 billion CAD innovation fund to modernize domestic steel production.
  • Procurement reforms prioritizing Canadian-origin steel for public infrastructure.

The Trump administration has responded with a blanket 35% tariff on Canadian goods beginning August 1. This is an increase from the previous 25%. While USMCA-compliant products remain exempt, the tariff targets key sectors such as autos, steel, and aluminum. Trump justified the move by accusing Canada of insufficient action on fentanyl trafficking and persistent trade barriers.

Though the final outcome remains unsettled, both countries are already feeling the impact.

  • Tourism and cross-border commerce have slowed dramatically—traffic into New York from Canada is down 21% year-over-year, impacting local economies across the region.
  • In Canada, patriotic campaigns urging consumers to “buy Canadian” have surged in response to rising prices and deteriorating trade relations.

The tariff landscape has shifted dramatically since Trump took office. Prior to 2025, Canada’s tariffs on U.S. goods were largely consistent with WTO and NAFTA norms, focused on select sectors like agriculture, dairy, and poultry under its supply management system. Specifically, prior to January, U.S. tariffs on Canadian goods were:

  • Steel & Aluminum: In 2018, 25% on steel and 10% on aluminum under Section 232 (national security grounds).
  • Softwood Lumber: Longstanding duties tied to recurring disputes.
  • Dairy Restrictions: Applied through NAFTA provisions rather than formal tariffs.

And Canadian tariffs on U.S. goods were primarily:

  • Dairy: Tariffs ranging from 200–300% on milk, cheese, and butter.
  • Poultry & Eggs: High tariffs on chicken, turkey, and egg imports.
  • Grain Products: Modest tariffs, though protective in principle.

These measures were designed not to antagonize, but to preserve domestic stability through managed trade frameworks.

Whether the stability can be maintained as both Trump and Carney maneuver for economic and electoral purposes remains unclear.

Trump’s tariffs serve as a showcase of strength for his base, redirecting attention from domestic challenges while asserting leverage abroad, and Carney, by contrast, blends progressive economic vision with strategic restraint. His assertive yet measured response is designed to defend Canadian interests while preserving diplomatic optionality.

What’s playing out isn’t just a trade dispute. It’s a collision of ideologies, temperaments, and national identities.

The tariff question is quickly becoming a test of the broader North American compact that has stood for decades, touching on not just economics but the fabric of political, military, and corporate interdependence that defines the region.

David Nevins is co-publisher of The Fulcrum and co-founder and board chairman of the Bridge Alliance Education Fund.

Read More

Government by Deadline: Why Shutdowns Are Killing Congressional Power

Speaker of the House Mike Johnson (R-LA) arrives for a news conference following a House GOP Conference Meeting at the U.S. Capitol on September 16, 2025 in Washington, DC. House Republican leadership faces a long week as they try to rally House Republicans behind a stopgap funding bill to avert a shutdown, while also navigating growing pressure to boost security for lawmakers in the wake of Charlie Kirk's killing.

Getty Images, Kent Nishimura

Government by Deadline: Why Shutdowns Are Killing Congressional Power

Every autumn brings its rituals: football, spectacular fall colors, and in Washington, the countdown to a government shutdown. Once a rare emergency, these funding standoffs have become as routine as pumpkin‑flavored beverages.

September 30 marks when federal funding will expire, a recurring cliff since the 1970s. Each year it looms larger, shaping the rhythm of Congress’s work. Lawmakers are again scrambling—not to solve problems, but merely to keep the lights on.

Keep ReadingShow less
The Jobs Report Is a Warning, Not a Blip

August’s jobs report showed just 22,000 jobs added, unemployment at 4.3%, and gold hitting record highs — signaling deeper economic troubles ahead.

Getty Images, J Studios

The Jobs Report Is a Warning, Not a Blip

The latest U.S. jobs report was more than just a miss—it was a warning. Employers added only 22,000 jobs in August, well below expectations of 75,000, and unemployment climbed to 4.3 percent, its highest level in nearly four years. June’s figures were quietly revised down to a net loss of 13,000 jobs, the first outright contraction since the pandemic’s peak. Markets reacted sharply: the dollar slid to six-week lows, while gold surged past $3,600 an ounce, setting a record for the 31st time this year.

For years, U.S. policymakers and presidents of both parties have promised resilience. Donald Trump has claimed his second term would deliver a “blue-collar boom.” But the August numbers suggest something deeper than a cooling labor market. They point to a structural weakness in an economy where job creation is slowing even as corporate profits remain strong, automation accelerates, and wage growth stagnates.

Keep ReadingShow less
President Donald Trump standing next to a chart in the Oval Office.

U.S. President Donald Trump discusses economic data with Stephen Moore (L), Senior Visiting Fellow in Economics at The Heritage Foundation, in the Oval Office on August 07, 2025 in Washington, DC.

Getty Images, Win McNamee

Investor-in-Chief: Trump’s Business Deals, Loyalty Scorecards, and the Rise of Neo-Socialist Capitalism

For over 100 years, the Republican Party has stood for free-market capitalism and keeping the government’s heavy hand out of the economy. Government intervention in the economy, well, that’s what leaders did in the Soviet Union and communist China, not in the land of Uncle Sam.

And then Donald Trump seized the reins of the Republican Party. Trump has dispensed with numerous federal customs and rules, so it’s not too surprising that he is now turning his administration into the most business-interventionist government ever in American history. Contrary to Adam Smith’s “invisible hand” in the economy, suddenly, the signs of the White House’s “visible hand” are everywhere.

Keep ReadingShow less
A person sits in their kitchen, holding and looking at receipts in one hand, with a calculator in their other hand.

Rising debt, stagnant wages, and soaring costs leave families living paycheck to paycheck in 2025.

Getty Images, Grace Cary

Running on Empty: America’s Fragile Middle Class

The Vanishing Middle Class

In the late 1970s, my mom worked as a nurse and became the family's breadwinner after my dad developed serious heart disease. His doctors told him to avoid stress, even driving, for fear it would be fatal. Yet on her single income, we managed what was then considered a solidly middle-class life. Stability was assumed, even if one parent couldn’t work.

That assumption has vanished. Today, surveys show that roughly half to two-thirds of Americans live paycheck to paycheck (People’s Policy Project). A stricter Bank of America analysis finds that about one in four households spends nearly all their income on essentials (Axios). Whether the number is one-in-two or one-in-four, millions of Americans are financially on the edge.

Keep ReadingShow less