Canada’s economic and security relationship with the United States is facing a rare double bind. President Donald Trump’s trade regime has moved from threats to collection, with U.S. Customs enforcing a 10% baseline levy on most imports beginning in early April.
Ottawa now confronts a Canada-specific increase to 35% that took effect on Aug. 1, raising costs across sectors that rely on cross-border supply chains and eroding negotiating leverage as talks over the trading relationship reopen.
The White House framed the tariffs as a national-security response under emergency powers and promised “reciprocal” rates for countries running large bilateral surpluses with the U.S.
That framework, laid out in an April 2 fact sheet, set the 10% floor and opened the door to higher country-by-country rates, which Washington later applied to Canada.
Whether those powers reach this far is now before the U.S. Supreme Court in a fast-tracked challenge that could redefine presidential authority over tariffs, and a ruling is due later this fall.
The U.S. remains the buyer for roughly three-quarters of Canadian exports, and the tariff ladder hits everything from lumber and agricultural goods to machinery and consumer products.
Canadian officials say they will defend workers and push for carve-outs, but near-term relief is limited while duties are collected at the border.
Prime Minister Mark Carney called the Aug. 1 order “disappointing,” even as his government weighs targeted support for exposed industries and calibrated retaliation that avoids inflaming a fragile recovery.
The pressure is not confined to trade; Trump has also pressed NATO allies to target defense outlays worth 5% of GDP, well above the alliance’s long-standing 2% benchmark.
The push has already reshaped debates in European capitals and in Ottawa, where meeting even a ramped-up path would crowd federal budgets as growth cools and borrowing costs remain elevated.
Trump put the 5% marker on the table in January; allies later endorsed language toward a long-run step-up, though timelines and definitions are still being hashed out.
The combined effect leaves Canada with fewer clean options than in past skirmishes. Blanket retaliation risks boomeranging onto domestic prices and undermining business investment just as firms face higher financing costs.
Accepting the tariff reality while negotiating exemptions for critical inputs would buy time but invites political backlash at home.
Moving faster on defense procurement could ease strains with Washington, yet the fiscal headroom to do so is narrowing as revenues soften and growth faces new headwinds from trade frictions.
More Read
The uncomfortable truth for policymakers is that none of these choices restore the status quo ante.
Markets are already adjusting, importers are re-pricing inventories and revisiting contracts, particularly in autos, building materials, and food processing.
Some manufacturers with U.S. footprints are weighing whether to shift more assembly south of the border to sidestep duties, a decision that would pinch Canadian employment and productivity over time.
The pass-through will be uneven but real to the consumers; even goods produced domestically often rely on U.S. parts and intermediate inputs now coming in at a higher landed cost.
Legal relief remains a swing factor, If the Supreme Court narrows the emergency powers underpinning the tariff regime, Washington may need Congress to codify parts of the plan or dial back the most aggressive elements.
That would not erase months of price and planning uncertainty, and it would not resolve structural fights over rules of origin, dairy, or softwood lumber that have flared across multiple administrations.
But a ruling that reins in unilateral tariff authority could reopen space for a negotiated fix and lower the temperature on both sides of the border.
Until then, Ottawa appears set to play defense, that means pressing for sectoral exemptions, coordinating with U.S. industry that dislikes across-the-board levies, and mapping a realistic, staged path on defense spending that demonstrates momentum without destabilizing the budget.
Investors should expect more headline risk and uneven earnings effects across Canadian exporters. The policy path that leads to fewer tariffs, steadier budgets, and a clearer investment outlook still runs through Washington.
For now, Canada’s choices are constrained by decisions made elsewhere.
