Skip to content
Search

Latest Stories

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

A new layer of political escalation emerged this week when the U.S. House of Representatives voted to terminate the national emergency that President Trump used to justify the tariffs on Canada. Although the vote is largely symbolic and does not lift the tariffs since the measure lacks the support needed to overcome a presidential veto, it is a significant and rare bipartisan challenge to the administration’s trade strategy.

The fact that several Republicans broke ranks underscores the economic strain and potential political implications of the tariff fight. What began as a bilateral dispute has evolved into a domestic confrontation over executive power, trade policy, and the long‑term stability of North American economic integration.

Apart from the House vote 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

A montage of dollars and yuans
assorted banknotes
Photo by Eric Prouzet on Unsplash

America’s Political Whiplash Is the World’s Problem

The rest of the world is beginning to hedge against the United States.

The New York Times recently reported that global investors are balking at U.S. bonds and that foreign governments are pulling their gold out of American vaults. This month the Dutch central bank moved much of its North American gold out of the United States. In March the Bank of France took 129 tons out of the Federal Reserve Bank of New York. Norway’s sovereign wealth fund, the largest in the world, plans to cut its holdings of Treasuries. Last year Christine Lagarde, president of the European Central Bank, said erratic policymaking in the United States was setting the stage for a “global euro moment.”

Keep ReadingShow less
Social Security card, treasury check and $100 bills

A Social Security inspector general found $1 billion in improper SSI payments tied to earnings alerts left unresolved for two years. Here’s what went wrong.

JJ Gouin/Getty Images

$1 Billion, 733 Days: Inside Social Security’s Improper-Payment Backlog

Social Security's inspector general opened its books this week and found a number that should stop any controller cold: roughly $1 billion in improper Supplemental Security Income payments, made to 333,800 recipients, sitting on top of a backlog the agency has known about for years. The cause was not a hacker, not a sophisticated fraud ring, and not a policy loophole. It was an earnings alert nobody closed out.

Here is how the mechanism actually works, and why it matters more than the headline figure. When a recipient's reported earnings change, the Social Security Administration's system generates an alert flagging that the payment amount may need adjustment. An employee is supposed to resolve that alert, verify the wage documentation, and correct the payment before the gap compounds. The inspector general's office pulled a sample of 100 such cases. Only 20 had been resolved. Sixty-three had gone untouched entirely, left pending for an average of 733 days, just over two years. Seventeen more were marked "cleared" without the wage documentation ever being fully verified, meaning the case was closed on paper while the underlying question remained open.

Keep ReadingShow less
Land of the Free, Home of the Capitalism Didn’t Fail America. America Failed to Moderate Capitalism
Monopoly's mr. monopoly in a graffiti collage
Photo by Artur Ament on Unsplash

Land of the Free, Home of the Capitalism Didn’t Fail America. America Failed to Moderate Capitalism

The signs are everywhere. For many Americans, buying power has improved only modestly despite decades of economic growth. Corporate profits are at an all-time high. We have reached a level of wealth inequality last seen almost a hundred years ago. By many measures, our capitalist economy seems to have failed to deliver broadly shared prosperity.

However, the failure isn’t with the free market as an economic approach. Instead, it’s our failure to regulate and moderate the free market, or more accurately, that we have spent 40 years undermining or removing the regulations of the New Deal that made our economy work for more Americans.

Keep ReadingShow less
Woman putting savings in a white piggy bank.

America’s economy now rewards asset ownership over wages. A policy proposal: a $35,000 Birthright Account for every child, and how it could be funded.

Guido Mieth/Getty Images

The American Dream Needs a New Economic Operating System

It is, by now, not an exaggeration to state that the traditional American Dream—work hard, buy a house, raise a family, and retire securely—is failing. It was built for a labor-based economy in which steadily rising wages allowed ordinary families to accumulate wealth. But America has become an asset-based economy, and ownership of those assets is extraordinarily concentrated.

Since the 1980s, the returns from capital have far outpaced the returns from labor. Inflation-adjusted wages for ordinary workers have risen only modestly, while the real value of equities has multiplied many times over. Housing, education, healthcare and childcare costs have soared, employment has become less secure, and defined-benefit pensions have largely disappeared. Even two-income households with respectable jobs often struggle to buy a home, build savings and accumulate enough for retirement.

Keep ReadingShow less