How Can Canada Fight Smart Against the Trump Tariff Threat?
Donald Trump is once again rattling the tariff sabre, and Canada faces two distinct possibilities. Either these threats are negotiating tactics aimed at securing a more favorable trade deal, or they represent a fundamental shift that requires a reconsideration of Canada's economic strategy. While the fundamental logic of North American economic collaboration remains compelling—with integrated supply chains, complementary resource endowments, and deep cultural ties suggesting closer cooperation would benefit both nations—the political reality of Trump's protectionist stance may force Canada to chart a different course. Whether this is a temporary detour or a fork in the road remains uncertain. In any case, policymakers must prepare for two scenarios: Strike pragmatic deals where possible or dig in for the long haul with targeted countermeasures, all while fostering a more innovative, globally oriented economy that can withstand U.S. pressure.
With respect to Trump’s tariffs, he is either using them as leverage to secure an advantage in a potential premature renegotiation of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) to better serve U.S. interests, in which case Canadian negotiators will need to focus on the “art of the deal.” Or he truly is the “Tariff Man” he has claimed to be and intends to keep the tariffs regardless of Canada’s response, wherein Canada will need to pursue strategies to boost trade diversification and domestic productivity.
Regardless of the intended goal of these tariffs—a question that has stumped Canadians—they will be catastrophic for the Canadian economy. While many are focusing on how the U.S. economy and specific industries relying on Canadian-manufactured intermediate goods and natural resources will suffer as a result, the reality is that the U.S. will be less impacted by the tariffs (and potential retaliatory tariffs) than Canada will be. Not to mention, the U.S. has far more levers to pull to harm Canada if this devolves into an escalating tit-for-tat exchange trade war.
A 25 percent import tariff would decrease U.S. GDP by less than 1 percent. Meanwhile, these same tariffs would decrease Canada’s GDP by 3.8 percent, with dollar-for-dollar retaliation leading to a 5.6 percent decrease. To put this in perspective, a 5.6 percent decrease in GDP would result in roughly $4,300 less in economic activity per Canadian.
That is to say, Canada must be measured and calculated in its response to U.S. tariffs. Heated calls for retaliation—such as canceling U.S. patents, enacting export tariffs, and shutting off electricity to U.S. border states—may satisfy an emotional need for pushback and appeal to growing Canadian patriotic sentiment. But they overlook a fundamental reality: In a trade war between a $26 trillion economy and a $2 trillion one, pyrrhic victories are the best Canada can hope for. While many Canadians may currently feel a surge of national pride and would accept “any level of damage” to fight back against Trump’s annexation threats, the priority should be to address these tariffs in a way that minimizes the damage inflicted upon Canadians, rather than ignoring the pain.
So, the real question isn't whether to fight back—but how to fight smart.
If it becomes clear that Trump is using tariffs as an early negotiating chip to renegotiate CUSMA in favor of the United States, that would be good news. It would indicate that Trump and the U.S. have not abandoned free trade in North America. In this case, Canada will need to swallow its pride and seek to make concessions in exchange for the termination of tariffs, keeping the “art of the deal” in mind.
In the past, Trump has pointed to issues such as discriminatory regulation and taxation of U.S. tech companies, Canadian banking regulations, supply management, and softwood lumber stumpage fees as irritants to the United States. Canada’s inclusion on the USTR 301 Watch List for weak IP enforcement is an “own goal” that it could—and should—fix. Indeed, the Office of the United States Trade Representative lists a range of unfair trade practices it claims Canada engages in.
While tinkering with supply management or acquiescing in the seemingly perpetual fight over softwood lumber would be politically unpopular and damaging to certain industries in Canada, these concessions may be less harmful than an escalating trade war. Meanwhile, scrapping measures introduced by the federal government in the last few years like the digital services tax, the Online News Act, and the online streaming levy—or making minor adjustments to banking regulations to encourage foreign competition, such as easing thresholds for private shareholders—are relatively easy wins that could be accomplished with minimal impact on Canadians.
In other words, offering real concessions on these issues could help assuage Trump’s concerns. Many of these changes, such as reducing certain trade-distorting subsidies, could even save the federal government money.
However, if it becomes apparent that Trump’s tariffs are permanent and cannot be negotiated away—whether aimed at economically subjugating Canada into becoming the 51st state, igniting a domestic “manufacturing renaissance,” or generating revenue for the U.S. government—Canada will need to implement retaliatory measures.
When determining how best to retaliate, the key principle should be to strategically select industries for tariffs that maximize political pressure on the Trump administration while minimizing long-term harm to Canadians. As the federal government has outlined, this means enacting surgically precise reciprocal tariffs on final goods from Republican and politically vulnerable states in the lead-up to the 2026 U.S. midterm elections, as well as on industries where Canadian consumers and businesses can easily find substitutes.
For example, Canada imports the majority of its oranges from the United States, particularly from Florida. However, the U.S. actually produces fewer oranges than Brazil, China, and Mexico—all countries with which Canada already has strong trade relations and from which it could source new suppliers for consumers.
Retaliation must also be implemented gradually. Canada holds fewer cards in this negotiation than the United States, so immediately resorting to extreme measures—such as cutting off electricity, restricting oil and gas exports, or imposing tariffs on potash—would be akin to taking the “nuclear option” from the start.
Some have used Trump’s tariffs as an opportunity to push for an economic nationalist and protectionist approach—one that would cause far greater long-term damage to Canada’s economy than to the United States. Measures like canceling patents or discouraging investment from foreign tech companies might satisfy the most jingoistic voices, but they would ultimately weaken Canada’s ability to trade and attract global investment. While it is reasonable to penalize U.S. firms operating in America, targeting those within Canada would only make goods more expensive for Canadian businesses and consumers—without applying meaningful political pressure on the Trump administration. In fact, if Canada were to enact tariffs on U.S. imports, companies like Amazon might end up expanding their Canadian operations in order to circumvent them.
In any case, the past month of “will they, won’t they” tariffs has shaken Canadians out of complacency. In The Politics of Innovation, Professor Mark Zachary Taylor notes that many of the world’s most innovative countries are driven by creative insecurity—thriving precisely because of external economic or military threats. For Canada, the prospect of tariffs and even annexation by a neighboring global superpower could serve as a similar catalyst.
Indeed, since the post-World War II period, Canada has come to utilize its proximity to the United States for security, stability, and access to an easy export market. Because of this dependence, Canada has shown relatively low levels of R&D spending (particularly in business R&D expenditures) and a lack of focus on boosting domestic productivity, despite its high levels of wealth and education. The perceived low costs of technological dependence on the U.S., combined with little government urgency around developing certain strategic technologies, have only reinforced this pattern. Complacency is comforting.
While Trump’s tariffs indubitably pose an unprecedented threat to Canada’s economic well-being, they should serve as a wake-up call for Canadians to prioritize innovation and productivity. Indeed, policymakers have shown renewed fervor in dismantling domestic trade barriers and leveraging procurement as a means to drive domestic innovation.
While these are excellent first steps, bold action is needed. Canada must seize this rare opportunity to develop the self-sustaining innovation ecosystem that has long remained just out of reach. This means reforming its R&D tax credit, pushing universities out of their comfort zones to align research with homegrown technological opportunities, and incentivizing capital expenditures on productive investments. Canada will also need to embrace the innovation principle in tech regulation rather than copying Europe’s regulation-heavy approach—which even the European Commission is now reconsidering. Additionally, Canada must drastically improve access to capital for companies with the potential to scale globally and develop a techno-economic strategy that outlines, in detail, how the government can help Canadian firms in key sectors succeed on the global stage.
Geographic realities and the mutual benefits of economic cooperation mean that Canada and the United States will likely remain close trade partners for the foreseeable future, even in the face of moderate tariffs. Ideally, Canada would see a return to a more collaborative economic relationship—whether because Trump shifts his ire elsewhere or faces sufficient political pressure to reconsider. However, this outcome depends largely on external circumstances beyond Canadians’ control.
Canada should resist the temptation of engaging in emotionally satisfying outrage and trade rattling. Instead, it should look inward and acknowledge the significant number of trade barriers and policies that target U.S. companies that it has erected—then make Trump an offer he cannot refuse by dismantling them. And even if Canada manages to dodge this bullet, it should seize the moment and enact bold reforms that foster a more innovative, productive, and globally competitive economy.
