9621 Agnes Crossing, Lake Suzanneview, New Mexico Island 84604-9295.
Donald Trump’s new Republican administration has threatened to impose a 25 percent tariff on everything Canada and Mexico on the first day of his presidency, January 20, 2025.
Donald Trump’s new Republican administration has threatened to impose a 25 percent tariff on everything Canada and Mexico on the first day of his presidency, January 20, 2025. Canada says it will continue to work with the United States on trade issues, while Mexico has hinted it will retaliate.
The tariffs would have a devastating impact on the economies of Canada and Mexico, which rely heavily on trade with the United States for their economic well-being.
In effect, the governments of the two affected countries will be forced to respond by imposing retaliatory tariffs on American products, which will create economic carnage in all three countries.
“Are these tariffs legal?” this is a natural question. In short, no.
In a typically hyperbolic post on his Truth Social platform, randomly capitalized, Trump writes that he will impose “a 25% tariff on ALL products imported into the United States and its ridiculous open borders. “This tariff will remain in effect until drugs, especially fentanyl, and all illegal immigrants stop this invasion of our country!”
The new North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), which Canada, Mexico and the United States negotiated – under American pressure six years ago – contains a clause that stipulates that the agreement does not prevent any of the three countries from “implementing measures deemed necessary ” For… protecting its own essential security interests.”
But any attempt to apply this provision would be so obviously this is a ridiculous excuse. As economist Paul Krugman notes, U.S. Commerce Department regulations they do not allow this clause to be used to force other countries to act; Tariffs should be tied to the impact on a specific industry.
So no. Tariffs will not be legal. But the question itself is completely irrelevant.
North American relations are expected to remain based on the rule of law and democratic norms that have underpinned American politics for more than 80 years. Five years ago this question would have made sense. This is the wrong question.
In his first term, Trump repeatedly threatened tariffs (including the absurd claim that Canadian aluminum imports posed a national security threat) to intimidate Canada and Mexico on trade and immigration issues. Back then we could still imagine that Trumpism was an aberration.
Canada has acted adequately so far. Having threatened tariffs, Canadian officials responded in kind.
From this perspective, the current lesson for Canada seems clear: don’t panic, don’t be afraid to attack vulnerable and politically sensitive American industries, and figure out what makes Trump happy.
This approach may work in the short term, but it only makes sense in a specific context. In 2016, one might have hoped that Trumpism would be fleeting, that the Democrats would return to power and balance would be restored.
The world can no longer take this assumption for granted. Trumpism has been institutionalized in the Republican Party. Even if—assuming free and fair elections—Democrats retake the White House in 2028, America’s two-party system means Republicans will eventually regain power.
Chronic systemic instability in the United States is currently the best the rest of the world can hope for, but making clear plans for instability is nearly impossible.
Canada, for its part, can no longer rely on the rules and regulations that have underpinned the relationship between Canada and the United States since the Second World War.
As I wrote earlier, the renegotiation clause of the United States-Mexico-Canada Trade Agreement, passed by both Democrats and Republicans, strips Canada and Mexico of protection from coercion that trade agreements usually involve smaller countries. This protection traditionally means that the largest country cannot use access to its market (on which Canada and Mexico depend) to force smaller countries to adopt its preferred policies.
But the revision clause Current deal leaves enforcement on the agendamoving North America away from a rule of law and contractual approach to economic relations towards one more focused on pure force.
Trump’s bombastic threats exacerbate the problem of institutionalized coercion. The trade agreement could still be renegotiated as planned in 2026, but a contract broken at the request of one of the parties is not a contract at all.
Trump’s willingness to hold the economies of Canada and Mexico hostage in exchange for a drug and migration deal also destroys another fundamental norm.
In a relationship as complex as Canada’s with the United States, there will always be problems. But they have not previously paralyzed relations, thanks to a tacit commitment between both countries not to link unrelated issues, which ensures that one of the parties cannot pressure or blackmail the other.
This rule provided Canada with significant protection from its much larger neighbor. This rule, as well as formal trade rules, gave Canada a degree of autonomy in its dealings with the United States.
As the dominant power in the region, the United States can shape the broader relationship with North America as it sees fit.
This is the third American restructuring of the continent in 40 years. The first was the adoption of a globalization-oriented free trade model in the late 1990s, which led to the creation of NAFTA. Then, after 9/11, he unilaterally decided that border security, not continental economic integration, was his top priority.
After 2001, many experts and analysts, fearful of what this new American approach to security would mean for Canada, argued that Canada had no choice but to integrate more deeply with the United States in case the Americans, according to the military Canadian historian Jack Granatstein, became “dissatisfied with us” and “caused a sharp decline in our economy.”
In the end, these fears turned out to be exaggerated. The United States did not destroy Canada’s economy when the then Liberal government decided not to follow it into Iraq or join its missile defense system (two of Granatstein’s red lines).
How I explored this topic in my dissertation (which was later revised into my book) Copyfight: the global politics of digital copyright reform), Canada was protected by NAFTA and general rules about non-binding unrelated matters, as well as a general respect for the rule of law.
Those who advocate appeasement—that Canada should do what the United States wants to avoid retaliation—should not be fooled into thinking that Canada will integrate more deeply with another democratic country protected by shared norms and the rule of law.
Continuing to integrate with a country that has rejected the rule of law would be a surrender of Canadian sovereignty. Deep integration with the United States, once our greatest asset, has now become Canada’s greatest vulnerability.
Experts on Canada-U.S. relations know that this relationship is critical to Canada’s prosperity and survival. Canada will find a way to manage this relationship because it must.
But this must happen in a context in which The question “is this legal?” it doesn’t make sense anymore. Instead, Canada faces the question: “How can a liberal democratic nation survive next to a much more powerful country that has no respect for the rule of law?”
The difference between these two questions is the distance between democracy and authoritarianism. This is precisely the situation in which Canada now finds itself*.
*Fountain: The Conversation, Blaine Haggart, Assistant Professor of Political Science at Brock University. Via Reuters.
Source: Aristegui Noticias
As an experienced journalist and author, Mary has been reporting on the latest news and trends for over 5 years. With a passion for uncovering the stories behind the headlines, Mary has earned a reputation as a trusted voice in the world of journalism. Her writing style is insightful, engaging and thought-provoking, as she takes a deep dive into the most pressing issues of our time.
