Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

Follow Us:
Top Stories

The Facts on U.S.–Canada Tariffs Nearly One Year Into Trump’s Plan

What’s changed, who’s paying more, and how U.S.–Canada trade has shifted under a year of escalating tariffs.

News

Cargo containers piled on each other.

As Trump escalates tariffs and threatens a 100% levy on Canadian imports, the U.S.–Canada trade relationship enters its most volatile phase in decades.

Getty Images, Andriy Onufriyenko

The escalating, personal, and vitriolic rhetoric between President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Mark Carney signals profound shifts in the close friendship and alliance between the two neighboring countries. At the center of this is the U.S.–Canada trade relationship in which enormous economic stakes are involved. This trade link is not merely a bilateral concern but a critical pillar of global supply chain security and, by extension, the broader North American economic order. Eleven months ago, in March 2025, I wrote a Fulcrum story highlighting Canadian tariffs, but as we move into early 2026, the dynamics have intensified, and the implications are more significant than ever.

This update extends the analysis to early 2026.


The Landscape Since the 2025 Fulcrum Reporting

When the original column ran, the tariff fight was already escalating. By March 2025, the U.S.–Canada trade volume stood at approximately $700 billion annually, with a 25% tariff on U.S. steel and aluminum, and a 25% tariff on foreign-made automobiles imposed by Trump. Canada retaliated with its own 25% tariffs on a wide range of U.S. goods, from orange juice to appliances, and signaled plans to expand them dramatically. This backdrop sets the stage for tracking the year-over-year escalation.

Since then, the conflict has unfolded in two primary directions: the United States has escalated its measures, driven by electoral pressures and bolstered by concerns over maintaining economic supremacy. Meanwhile, Canada has de-escalated its actions, largely due to its supply-chain dependencies and the need to mitigate economic disruptions. The changes underscore the strategic divergence between the two countries.

U.S. Tariffs on Canada as of Early 2026

Steel and Aluminum (25%) — Still the Core Flashpoint

Currently, Canadian steel is subject to a complex multi-layered system, but imports of raw and semi-processed steel products are currently subject to a 50% tariff with some exemptions under the (CUSMA/USMCA) still provided.

The bottom line is that the Trump administration has tightened enforcement and closed exemptions, making the tariffs more binding than they were a year ago.

The bottom line is that the Trump administration has tightened enforcement and closed exemptions, making the tariffs more binding than they were a year ago.

Automobiles (25%) — A Continuing Pressure Point

The United States continues to impose a 25% tariff on Canadian automobiles. This measure remains one of the most politically contentious aspects of the dispute, due to the highly integrated North American automotive supply chain.

The New Threat: A 100% Blanket Tariff

In January 2026, President Trump announced the possibility of a 100% tariff on all Canadian imports should Canada finalize a trade agreement with China. Such a tariff would effectively serve as a tax on United States consumers and businesses. Analysts estimate the following impacts:

  • The U.S. imported roughly $400 billion in Canadian goods in 2025.
  • A 100% tariff could raise inflation by 1.5–2% almost immediately.
  • Energy and auto prices would rise sharply, given Canada’s role as a top supplier of crude oil, natural gas, and auto parts.

This development represents the most significant escalation since the dispute began. To understand its magnitude, consider the 1990s softwood lumber dispute, a major trade clash that significantly impacted both countries' economies. However, the current situation poses a more serious threat due to its potential for a 100% blanket tariff on all Canadian imports, which could severely disrupt trade dynamics and economic stability between the U.S. and Canada. This truly unprecedented scenario underscores the increased stakes of the ongoing conflict.

Canada’s Tariffs on the U.S. as of Early 2026

Currently, Canada maintains significant retaliatory tariffs against the U.S.

Tariffs Still in Place

  • Steel: 25%, and effective December 2025, a separate tariff on derivative steel products went into effect, impacting roughly $223 billion of U.S. steel imports.
  • Aluminum: 25%
  • Automobiles: 25% on non‑CUSMA‑compliant vehicles and on non‑Canadian/non‑Mexican content in CUSMA‑compliant vehicles.

These sectors remain the primary areas in which Canada has maintained its tariff measures.

Tariffs Removed Since Your April 2025 Update

In 2025, the Canadian government fully eliminated approximately $44 billion in retaliatory tariffs on a wide range of U.S. consumer and industrial goods. The most significant removal occurred on September 1, 2025, when Canada repealed its general counter-tariffs to stabilize trade relations and lower costs for Canadian businesses.

This represents a major rollback compared to the broad retaliatory list you reported last year.

Economic Impact: What’s Changed Since Last Year’s Analysis

Impact on the United States

The tariffs have led to higher prices for imported goods, though it is difficult to precisely quantify their direct impact. It is estimated that because parts cross the border multiple times, the Canadian retaliatory tariff on U.S. vehicles and components has contributed to price increases of $4,000 to $10,000 for some North American-assembled models.

Additionally, job growth has slowed in sectors dependent on Canadian inputs. This uncertainty has become a significant drag on investment decisions, although data on its extent is not yet available.

Impact on Canada

Canada’s partial rollback of tariffs indicates the economic challenges associated with sustaining broad retaliatory measures. However, the steel, aluminum, and automotive sectors remain highly vulnerable to changes in the United States policy. Canadian officials caution that a 100% U.S. tariff would have “severe and immediate” consequences for both economies.

Auto Industry Impact: Updated Numbers:

The North American auto sector remains one of the most tariff‑sensitive industries. In March, it was reported that steel and aluminum tariffs could add $1,500 to the cost of a U.S.-manufactured car. This estimate remains accurate and may increase depending on the outcome of ongoing negotiations.

While both economies are incurring high costs, the burden is not distributed evenly. Canada remains more structurally exposed, with approximately 20% of its GDP reliant on exports to the United States. Economists estimate that the 2025–26 tariff cycle has already reduced Canadian GDP by 1.5–2%, and Canadian households are absorbing an estimated $1,700–$2,000 in higher annual costs. GM and other manufacturers cite tariffs as a key risk factor in their 2026 forecasts. As a central point of the 2026 financial guidance, General Motors’ 2026 outlook includes $3–$4 billion in expected tariff costs, which the company presents directly to investors as part of its forward‑looking risk environment. Smaller manufacturers remain the most vulnerable, with limited ability to absorb cost increases.

Cross‑Border Travel: Updated Context

Although the original report referenced 2024 travel data, the 2025–26 tariff tensions have not yet resulted in measurable declines in tourism. Economists caution that a 100% tariff scenario, accompanied by higher fuel and goods prices, could reduce discretionary travel between the two countries.

Where Things Stand Now

Nearly a year after Trump’s first 2025 tariff announcement, the picture is clearer:

  • The U.S. has escalated, with the threat of a 100% tariff now overshadowing all other measures.
  • Canada has partially de-escalated, lifting most retaliatory tariffs except in strategic sectors.
  • Steel, aluminum, and automobiles remain the central battleground, just as they were when your original Fulcrum piece ran. In that analysis, it was highlighted that these sectors would experience significant stress due to tariff changes, with a forecast predicting a potential 2% decrease in cross-border trade volume. Today, it's evident that the reality has diverged slightly, with cross-border trade suffering an even more pronounced impact than initially expected. Revisiting that 2025 data point underscores the persistent challenges these industries face and the complexities of the evolving trade relationship.
  • Economic impacts are deepening, especially for industries dependent on cross‑border supply chains.
  • Political tensions are rising, with bipartisan U.S. Senate pushback and Canadian leaders warning of long‑term damage.

Although public rhetoric is intense, a closer examination reveals the potential for a long-lasting, dramatic shift in the U.S.-Canada relationship on all aspects of what has historically been an extremely close bond. The U.S.–Canada trade relationship is entering its most volatile phase in decades, and decisions made in the coming months will have long-term implications for both countries. As we navigate this uncertain terrain, one might ask: What vision of North American cooperation can survive this era of tariffs?


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


Read More

Why Global Investors Are Abandoning the Dollar
1 U.S.A dollar banknotes
Photo by Alexander Grey on Unsplash

Why Global Investors Are Abandoning the Dollar

In the middle of the twentieth century, the American architect of the postwar order, Dean Acheson, famously observed that Great Britain had lost an empire but had not yet found a role. The United States is not facing a comparable eclipse. It remains the world’s dominant military power and the central node of global finance. Yet a quieter, more incremental shift is underway - one that reflects not a sudden collapse, but a strategic recalibration. Global investors are not abandoning the dollar en masse; they are hedging against a growing perception that American stewardship of the international system has become fundamentally less predictable.

That unease has surfaced most visibly in the gold market. In the opening weeks of 2026, the yellow metal has performed less like a commodity and more like a verdict, surging past $5,500 an ounce. This month, we reached a milestone that would have been unthinkable a decade ago: for the first time in thirty years, global central bank gold reserves have overtaken combined holdings of U.S. Treasuries. According to World Gold Council data, central banks now hold nearly $4 trillion in gold, nudging past their $3.9 trillion stake in American debt.

Keep Reading Show less
Crumpled dollar bills, two coins, a wallet, book, glasses, and home phone on a table.

A new economic study shows tariffs are paid overwhelmingly by American consumers, exposing trade policy as a hidden domestic tax.

Getty Images, David Harrigan

The Tariff Receipt Americans Can No Longer Afford

For years, the American public has been told that tariffs are a sophisticated form of tribute, a way to extract wealth from foreign adversaries while shielding the domestic worker. It is a seductive narrative, painted in the bold strokes of nationalistic pride. But as a rigorous new study from the Kiel Institute for the World Economy confirms, the reality is far less heroic. The bill for these trade barriers is not being mailed to Beijing, New Delhi, or Brussels. It is being delivered, with startling efficiency, to the kitchen tables of the American family.

The findings are as clear as they are sobering. After analyzing more than 25 million shipment records totaling nearly 4 trillion dollars, researchers found that American importers and consumers have shouldered 96 percent of the cost of recent tariffs. Foreign exporters, by contrast, have felt a mere 4 percent of the sting. Despite the robust rhetoric emanating from the White House, the data suggests that tariffs function not as a foreign levy but as a domestic consumption tax. The government may have collected 200 billion dollars in customs revenue in 2025, but that money was extracted almost entirely from the pockets of the people it was ostensibly meant to protect.

Keep Reading Show less
Trump’s globalist era is going to make everyone poorer

US President Donald Trump delivers a special address during the World Economic Forum (WEF) annual meeting in Davos on Jan. 21, 2026.

(Fabrice Coffrini/AFP via Getty Images/TNS)

Trump’s globalist era is going to make everyone poorer

I’m not sure what to call the new era we seem to be entering. But I am sure it will make people poorer.

Let’s start with some basics. Imagine you inherit a thriving department store chain. Rather than listen to experts on consumer trends, supply-chain logistics, human resources, etc., you instead opt to go with your gut. Rather than follow market research or anything like that, you prefer to just hire your friends and do business with vendors who flatter you or sell stuff you think is cool. Under such a “system,” you might make some good business decisions, but odds are very strong that you’ll more often make bad ones. The rep from the Pet Rock supplier who gives you a “World’s Greatest Businessman” award gets his products in the store window.

Keep Reading Show less
An illustration of someone's hand manipulating data.

The Federal Reserve’s independence is central to U.S. economic stability. Political pressure on the Fed threatens credibility, markets, and long-term growth.

Getty Images, Andrii Dodonov

Hands Off the Fed

The Fed Is the Economy’s Thermostat

The Federal Reserve functions as the thermostat of the U.S. economy, insulated from short-term political and electoral pressure. When inflation heats up, it turns the dial down. When growth falters, it eases conditions. The goal is not to keep politicians comfortable in the moment, but to maintain stability over time.

Think of Jerome Powell as the technician in charge of that thermostat. He and the other board members are responsible for reading the economy’s temperature and adjusting based on economic data, not on the demands of political actors in the room.

Keep Reading Show less