On January 20, 2025, Donald Trump’s incoming Republican administration threatened to impose a 25 % tariff on all products from Canada and Mexico.
Mexico has made hints at retribution, while Canada says it will continue to work with the US on business issues. The tariffs would have a devastating impact on both the US and Canadian economies, both of which are greatly dependent on US business.
In fact, the two focused governments would be forced to impose tariffs that targeted American goods, leading to economic chaos in all three countries.
Do these tariffs been legal?
” Are these taxes legitimate”? is a straightforward inquiry. Simply put, no.
In a normally exponential, randomly capitalized post on his Truth Social system, Trump writes that he will implement” a 25 % Price on ALL merchandise coming into the United States, and its crazy Open Borders. This tariff will continue in effect until Fentanyl and all other improper immigrants stop this country’s invasion,”!
Under American pressure, Canada, Mexico, and the United States negotiated a clause in the North American Free Trade Agreement ( NAFTA ) replacement that states that it does n’t” ca n’t stop any of the three countries from taking any measures it think is necessary for the protection of its own essential security interests.”
However, it would be absurd to attempt to summon that provision on such an obvious justification. According to economist Paul Krugman, the US Department of Commerce’s regulations forbid the use of the tariffs to compel other nations into activity because they must be tied to a specific industry.
But, no. The tariffs would n’t be acceptable. However, the problem itself is totally irrelevant.
It assumes that the democratic norms and rule of law that have governed North American politicians for more than 80 times still apply. Five years ago, the issue may have made sense. Today, it’s the wrong question to ask.
Shattered marriage
Trump threatened tariffs in his first name to tarnish Mexico and Canada on business and immigration, including the absurd claim that Canadian aluminium imports represented a threat to national security. Up then, we may also think that Trumpism was an outlier.
For the time being, Canada was appropriate. Threatened with taxes, French officers responded in kind.
From this perspective, the lesson today for Canada seems clear: do n’t panic, do n’t be afraid to target vulnerable and politically important American industries and figure out what will make Trump happy.
In the long run, this strategy does work. However, it just makes sense in a particular circumstance. In 2016, it was possible to anticipate a flurry of Trumpism, a resumption of the Democrats ‘ influence, and a return to equilibrium.
The universe can no longer make that assumption. The Republican Party has institutionalized Trumpism. The two-party program in the US means that Republicans will ultimately regain control even if the Democrats win the presidency in 2028, which is presumptuous.
The rest of the world can now only hope for chronic, widespread volatility in the US. But it’s next to impossible to make good ideas on volatility. Canada’s position is that it can no longer depend on the standards and standards that have governed US-Canada relationships since the Second World War.
abusing the legal system
As I’ve written recently, the United States-Mexico-Canada business deal’s renewal section, embraced by both Democrats and Republicans, deprives Canada and Mexico of the defense from force that trade agreements often provide smaller countries.
Usually, this protection prevents the larger country from relying on Canada and Mexico’s market to compel smaller nations to adopt their desired policies.
However, the present agreement’s renewal clause prevents coercion, shifting North America from a treaty-based rule-of-law approach to economic relations to one centered more on natural power.
Trump’s humorous threats turbo-charge the issue of institutional coercion. A agreement that is arbitrary by one party is no agreement at all, even though the trade agreement may still be renegotiated as planned in 2026.
Another fundamental rule is likewise shattered by Trump’s commitment to keep the economies of Canada and Mexico prisoner in exchange for a offer on drug trafficking and immigration.
In a marriage as difficult as Canada’s with the United States, there will always be issues. Because of a tacit commitment between the two countries to not link unrelated issues, which prevent one party from intimidating or blackmailing the other, these have n’t previously paralyzed the relationship.
Canada was significantly protected from its larger cousin by that standard. In terms of trading with the US, Canada had some independence thanks to this norm along with conventional trade regulations.
Despite persistent issues like softwood lumber, it made it possible for the US and Canada to reach fair agreements that were backed by commitment to local laws and foreign agreements.
Some good options
The US has the authority to alter the state’s larger North American connection as necessary.
In the last 40 years, America has remade the globe. The first was its embrace of a globalization-focused free-trade unit in the late 1980s, resulting in NAFTA. Finally, post-9/11, it arbitrarily decided that border protection, rather than western financial connectivity, was its top priority.
In the event that the Americans, according to American military writer Jack Granatstein, “became unhappy with us” and “bring our business to a crashing end,” some critics and experts, who were concerned about what this new British focus on security would mean for Canada, asserted post-2001.
In the end, these doubts were overstated. When the Liberal government of the day decided against entering Iraq or joining its Ballistic Missile Defence system, two of Granatstein’s imagined dark lines, the US did not fall Canada’s economy.
In my research on the subject, which I later revised and updated to reflect my opinion of the world, Canada was protected by NAFTA, shared standards for the non-linkage of related issues, as well as the common respect for the rule of law.
Asset becomes a frailty
Those who argue in favor of peace may never believe that Canada would genuinely reintegrate with a neighboring democratic nation that is governed by shared values and the rule of law.
To sacrifice American autonomy in order to further connect with a nation that has rejected the rule of law. Heavy integration with the US, when our greatest asset, is presently Canada’s greatest risk.
Canada-US relationships experts know this connection is important to Canada’s wealth and survival. Because it has to, Canada may find a way to control this marriage.
However, it must do so when the question” Is it legal” is being posed? no longer makes sense. Instead, Canada must consider the following:” How can a liberal-democratic nation survive without the rule of law and a much more powerful country?”
The distinction between authoritarianism and politics is what distinguishes these two concerns. Canada is today positioned in this situation.
Blayne Haggart is associate professor of political knowledge, Brock University
The Conversation has republished this essay under a Creative Commons license. Read the original content.