In December 2023, then-former United States President Donald Trump stirred up controversy on his Truth Social platform by referring to Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau as the “governor” of the “great state of Canada”, a remark that hinted at his long-standing feelings about Canada’s proximity to the U.S.
From this offhand remark, a diplomatic conflict emerged. On February 1st, 2025, President Trump launched a trade war against Canada, imposing a 25% tariff on nearly all goods crossing the U.S.-Canada border. Trump’s tariffs deviated from established North American trade policies and have strained U.S.-Canada relations. The two countries have had a strong economic partnership, underpinned by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA), now the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (UMSCA). A flagrant, full-scale trade war, with tariffs and export duties harming key industrial sectors, would mark a dramatic departure from the previous status quo.. Trump’s administration pointed to the flow of fentanyl and illegal immigrants into the U.S. to justify the tariffs, claiming that Canada and Mexico must take greater responsibility for these issues. The tariffs were placed under a thirty-day delay effective February 4th.
One of McGill University’s Political Science professors, Mark Brawley, appeared on CBC News on January 8, 2025 and on the Dan MacDonald Showon January 10, 2025 to share his insights on President Trump’s comments and the future of U.S.-Canada relations. The Bull & Bear wanted to follow up with our own interview to get a deeper understanding of his views.
In this article, we will explore Professor Brawley’s thoughts on the implications of Trump’s rhetoric, particularly his claims about Canada being America’s “51st state” and threats of a 25% tariff on Canadian imports. We also delve into Canada’s strategic options and the broader consequences of these developments for bilateral relations.
Trump’s Negotiation Style and Annexation Rhetoric
The Bull & Bear began by asking Professor Brawley how Trump’s negotiation style shapes his rhetoric about Canada as an ‘opponent’ rather than a ‘counterpart’ and what this reveals about his broader strategy.
“This is a point that I think other people have been making,” Brawley noted. “I’ve seen David Frum and some other Canadian experts on American politics say similar things: that Donald Trump does not approach most decisions as situations where you’re looking for a win-win. This is why in the wake of his business activities he doesn’t leave a repeat customer; he leaves a slew of lawsuits and disgruntled customers.”
Brawley explained that Trump’s negotiation approach is rooted in a “simplistic view” of trade as a zero-sum game: “He looks to win, which means getting more out of it than the other side.” This approach is counter-productive to fostering mutual growth opportunities. In conventional trade theory, countries benefit by specialising in the production of goods and services where they capitalise on a comparative advantage: where they can produce something at a lower opportunity cost than other countries. This facilitates trade relations with others who have different strengths, and ultimately ensures that both countries can enjoy a broader range of goods and services than if they were to produce everything domestically. Professor Brawley articulated this for The Bull & Bear: “when we think about trade, economically speaking, the opportunities are about being able to buy and sell goods we can’t, so that there’s more for everyone to consume – that is the 101 of trade.” However, Trump’s rhetoric often paints trade as “imbalances” and claims that “the U.S. is subsidising Canada,” a perspective Brawley described as “a weird way to see things and discuss an economic transaction.”
This approach is more reflective of Trump’s posturing as a ‘businessman,’ choosing to disengage from a norms-based approach to partnership which prioritises democratic alignment. By adopting an economic advantage point (from his perspective), this ignores traditional democracy-based coalitions in the Global North. The discrepancy between the imposition of 25% tariffs on Canadian and Mexican goods (with some exceptions) and 10% tariffs on all Chinese goods signals this departure from convention.
Addressing Trump’s remarks about annexation, Brawley thinks some of these more “outlandish claims” are intentionally instigative “so he can turn away from those as a negotiation technique.” He highlights the hypocrisy of this rhetoric, observing how the President “is promoting annexation at a time when he and the Republican Party are describing the American system as trash. Inviting people to join and using Fox News is contrary to the Republican rhetoric.”
Canada’s Diplomatic Responses
Brawley commended the Canadian federal government’s current response to Trump’s rhetoric: “The federal government’s been doing the right thing by basically saying ‘it’s not annexation talk, it’s just talk,’” essentially refusing to recognise his threats as legitimate. He explained how this is also a fine line to walk: “you have to respond to it in a certain way, but you also have to then be preparing for real negotiations that are going to come with tariffs.”
Brawley highlighted the challenge of responding to Trump’s unpredictability: “People don’t know what Trump is going to actually do, so even preparing for that isn’t as obvious.” He also emphasised the importance of the Canadian federal government’s communication to the American people that “there will be retaliatory tariffs, which is not the path they want to go down. So, what should be done more generally is lay out to Americans what the cost of a trade war with Canada would mean on their side.”
Strategic Use of Retaliatory Tariffs
The Bull & Bear asked Professor Brawley about his suggestion that Canada could strategically target specific U.S. congressional districts with reciprocal tariffs. He outlined two possible approaches to retaliatory tariffs: “You can go to particular constituencies as a way to target politicians in the American political system – that’s kind of the more obvious, logical way. You can also do things that hit the American people more broadly.”
Brawley noted that, despite the challenges of implementing targeted tariffs, the approach has historically been effective – compelling U.S. lawmakers to push back against economic measures that negatively impact American constituencies. For example, during the first Trump administration’s 2018 imposition of tariffs on Canadian aluminum and steel, Canada retaliated, announcing surtaxes on U.S. imports. This selective targeting of goods was linked to key swing states ahead of the 2020 presidential election, impacting Michigan, a top exporter of paint dyes and aluminum waste to Canada, Wisconsin’s refrigerator and bicycle industries, and Pennsylvania’s aluminum powder and bar exports, pressuring Congress to reconsider the tariff imposition.
Brawley also suggested a potential counter-strategy for Canada via export duties: “if the U.S. initiates tariffs on Canadian goods and exempts things like lithium and crude oil, it makes sense for Canada to put tariffs on those exports.” By strategically using export duties, Canada could put pressure on the U.S. to reconsider its tariffs, while also demonstrating that it’s prepared to defend its economic interests.
This strategy requires precise coordination and a deep understanding of the U.S. political landscape. Further, it could harm provincial economies. Alberta, for example, has a vested interest in maintaining strong trade relations with the U.S. given the province’s economic reliance on oil, gas, and agricultural exports. Therefore, Brawley notes, one “can understand why Danielle Smith [Premier of Alberta] and Alberta don’t want to lose exports and jobs.” In order to prevent a scenario where retaliatory tariffs threaten jobs and economic security in the province, Brawley added, “[Smith] should also be laying out to everyone while she’s at the festivities of [Trump’s] inauguration, talking to people there, saying ‘a trade war means bad things for you guys’.” By engaging directly with U.S. politicians and industry leaders, she could emphasise that protectionist policies may not only hurt Canadian exporters but also disrupt supply chains and cost American jobs.
On February 12, 2025, all thirteen of Canada’s premiers visited the White House to discuss the potential ramifications of a trade war. Given the level of integration between the countries’ steel and aluminium sectors, direct and effective communication seems to have caught U.S. lawmakers’ attention according to Canada’s Finance Minister Dominic Leblanc.
However uncertainty is part of the challenge of a trade war; each side has a range of tools at their disposal and the situation can shift rapidly. Tariffs are an example of one such tool, but realistically they are just one within a broader arsenal that includes currency manipulation and regulatory barriers.
Impact of Tariffs on Key Sectors
The threatened 25% tariff on Canadian goods would have significant ramifications for industries heavily reliant on exports to the U.S. Canada’s automobile industry, a major part of Ontario’s economy. Companies such as General Motors and Ford operate manufacturing plants in Canada and rely on tariff-free access to the U.S. market to remain competitive. A tariff on Canadian-made vehicles could increase costs for U.S. consumers, slowing sales and potentially leading to job cuts in Canadian plants. Canada’s steel sector would be similarly impacted. Companies such as Stelco and ArcelorMittal Dofasco in Ontario produce large quantities of steel for the U.S.’s construction and automotive manufacturing industries. Tariffs would force these American industries to find alternative suppliers or absorb higher costs, which could drive up supply-side prices across various American industries. These tariff-induced costs would eventually result in job cuts across both Canadian and American sectors, and instigate social conflict or political pressure for lawmakers in regions where the steel industry plays a critical role, such as in Michigan and Ohio.
Leveraging Canada’s ‘Critical’ Energy and Defense Role
On the question of leveraging Canada’s role as a critical supplier of resources to the U.S.’s defense and energy sectors, Brawley was skeptical of relying solely on the ‘force of partnership argument’ and anti-China posture that Innovation Minister François-Philippe Champagne recently emphasised in an interview with CBC. In the interview, Champagne suggested that Canada’s ties with the U.S. as its largest buyer, NATO ally, and G7 partner would be enough to dissuade Trump from imposing tariffs. This reasoning suggests that because Canada is a beneficial partner, the U.S. would be unlikely to impose tariffs on Canadian goods such as lithium or crude oil to avoid harming both nations’ interests. However, Professor Brawley questioned the effectiveness of this argument, pointing to the unpredictability of Trump’s approach to trade. “The only thing about that that makes me not believe that’s what’s going to happen is that in the first Trump administration, the legislation of the American government on Trump’s first round of tariffs on lithium and steel [stated] that Canada should be treated differently.” He added, “Trump didn’t play by those rules, and the only people who can hold him to the rules would be Congress – and that’s not going to happen this time either.” While the “force of partnership” argument and “friendsuring” carried weight during the Biden administration, Professor Brawley’s projections foreshadow a departure from the status quo under Trump.
Professor Brawley’s insights reveal upcoming complexities for Canadian politicians navigating U.S.-Canada relations under President Trump’s unconventional leadership. The Canadian government’s potential approach of targeting congressional districts demonstrates Canada’s dual and diplomatic focus on countering Trump’s erratic rhetoric while preparing for tangible economic consequences. By comparing these tactics to historical precedents, Brawley underscores the importance of nuanced and well-coordinated strategies between provinces in safeguarding national interests. From annexation rhetoric to trade threats, Canada will have to adapt to more aggressive neighbouring relations. Ultimately, Brawley concluded, “[Trump] is not a normal politician by any means – not that that’s a good thing in the way all this is playing out, because he doesn’t follow the norms, and the norms are sometimes the most important things keeping everything together.”
