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

A close up of a train passing by quickly.

The proposed merger between Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern could create America’s first coast-to-coast freight rail system.

Rail Merger Holds Promise for the Economy

Boosting domestic industry and manufacturing continues to be a key economic theme. A recently proposed merger between two major railroad companies could advance those goals—and it carries particular promise for underserved communities who are often on the front lines of America’s workforce.

The merger of Union Pacific and Norfolk Southern would create the nation’s first transcontinental freight rail system, a vision pursued since 1869, when the “golden spike” famously connected the east and west.

Keep ReadingShow less
Just the Facts: $100,000 Visa Executive Order

"Just the Facts" on the new $100,000 H-1B visa fee, its impact on tech firms, startups, and healthcare, plus legal challenges and alternatives for skilled workers.

Getty Images, Popartic

Just the Facts: $100,000 Visa Executive Order

The Fulcrum strives to approach news stories with an open mind and skepticism, striving to present our readers with a broad spectrum of viewpoints through diligent research and critical thinking. As best we can, we remove personal bias from our reporting and seek a variety of perspectives in both our news gathering and selection of opinion pieces. However, before our readers can analyze varying viewpoints, they must have the facts.

What Is the $100,000 Visa Fee?

This is a new one-time $100,000 application fee for employers seeking to sponsor foreign workers under the H-1B visa program. The visa is designed for highly skilled professionals in fields like tech, medicine, and engineering.

Keep ReadingShow less
Monetary vs. Fiscal Policy: Why Both Disrupt Free Markets—and Neither Is Inherently Conservative or Progressive

Dave Anderson shares how the Fed’s rate cuts reveal misconceptions about fiscal vs. monetary policy and government intervention in U.S. free markets.

Getty Images, Royalty-free

Monetary vs. Fiscal Policy: Why Both Disrupt Free Markets—and Neither Is Inherently Conservative or Progressive

The Federal Reserve Board's move on Wednesday, Sept. 17, to lower the federal funds interest rate by one-quarter of a point signals that it is a good time to discuss a major misconception that most voters have about public policy.

It is typically assumed that Democrats stand for government intervention into free markets to counteract the inherent bias towards those who are more economically well off. It is also assumed that Republicans, in contrast, reject the idea of government intervention in free markets because it violates rights to property and the natural order of free markets, which promotes the greatest total welfare.

Keep ReadingShow less
A close up of a nurse's hand resting on the shoulder of an older man who's hand rests on top.

September is World Alzheimer’s Awareness Month. Dr. Dona Kim Murphey explains how systemic failures, Medicare privatization, and racial disparities are deepening the dementia care crisis.

Getty Images, PeopleImages

Profits Over Patients: Re-Examining Systems As Culprit in Dementia Care (or Lack Thereof)

September is World Alzheimer's Awareness Month. Alzheimer's is the most common kind of dementia, a disorder characterized by the progressive loss of brain cells and, in its final stages, complete dependence—the inability to remember, speak, move, or even eat or swallow unassisted. Many end up in nursing homes. Seven million people are impacted by dementia in the United States today, a number that will more than double in the next 25 years.

But awareness is not just about understanding the magnitude of the problem or content expertise on the choices we make as individuals to mitigate the enormous present and future challenges of this disease. It is about a consciousness of the role of systems, namely insurance and government, that are seriously undermining our ability to care.

Keep ReadingShow less