WASHINGTON — The potential tariffs President Donald Trump threatened against Canada and Mexico, currently placed on hold for a month, could have led to significant economic turmoil for North America. However, for many observers, the benefits gained by the U.S. from this temporary suspension appear minimal.
Throughout this period, Trump has maintained an aggressive stance toward the U.S.’s two largest trading partners, proposing a 25% tariff on Mexican imports and a 10% tariff on most Canadian goods, with a lesser 10% tax on Canadian energy products. This stance has sparked considerable political and economic controversy, while tariffs on Chinese imports went into effect on Tuesday.
By pausing the tariffs on Canada and Mexico, Trump has aimed to showcase his negotiation skills to his supporters and claim success in tackling issues such as illegal immigration and drug trafficking. Among the outcomes of this pause, Canada has agreed to appoint a new “fentanyl czar,” and Mexico committed to stationing 10,000 members of its National Guard along the U.S. border. Following the announcement of the pauses, the White House circulated a message featuring supportive remarks from 68 Republican lawmakers.
However, critical voices outside of the administration contend that the measures agreed upon were largely pre-existing or could have been achieved without the threats made by Trump. Even the financial markets appeared unfazed by the tariff debate with only a minor sell-off reported on Monday.
Canada had previously offered $1.3 billion Canadian dollars (roughly $900 million) for increased border security, which included drones, helicopters, additional border guards, and a collaborative task force. Following discussions with Trump, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau revealed that Canada had proposed creating a fentanyl czar and identifying Mexican drug cartels as terrorist organizations.
Newfoundland and Labrador Premier Andrew Furey commented on these developments, stating, “Canada did not bend the knee,” arguing that the volume of fentanyl flowing into the U.S. from Canada is so small that significant results may be hard to demonstrate.
From the Trump administration’s perspective, a key victory was President Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico’s agreement to deploy 10,000 members of the National Guard to the U.S. border. However, these troops are merely being redeployed from other parts of Mexico rather than being newly assigned to the area. Reports showed more than 100 National Guard members boarding a plane in Merida to head to Ciudad Juarez, with additional units expected to follow by both air and road.
Despite these actions, the effectiveness of the National Guard’s presence has been questioned, with concerns that ongoing violence in regions dominated by organized crime continues to facilitate the trafficking of drugs, people, and weapons. Josh Lipsky from the Atlantic Council noted that, substantively, the U.S. gained little from this agreement compared to what it already had in place, noting that the negative sentiment surrounding tariff threats could have been avoided.
Inu Manak, a trade policy fellow at the Council on Foreign Relations, remarked that Trump’s tariff threats were “certainly not necessary,” suggesting that the ambiguity in his objectives allows him to claim victory no matter the outcome. She pointed out that chaos appears to be a continuous theme in Trump’s approach.
Trump frequently generates tension and then seeks recognition for actions that may not resolve core issues. After recent wildfires in Los Angeles, for instance, he touted the release of water from California reservoirs, which does not actually serve Los Angeles. He also claimed credit for corporate investments in artificial intelligence that, in fact, took place before his term.
Demonstrating that he can prompt action from others seems to matter significantly to Trump. His recent tariff threats mirror previous actions, having achieved comparable outcomes with less long-lasting effects in the past. For example, in 2019, then-President Andrés Manuel López Obrador of Mexico reached an agreement with Trump in a similar context. López Obrador committed 15,000 National Guard members to curb migrant flows at the northern border while deploying an additional 6,500 at the southern border. Trump celebrated the agreement, stating that the tariffs were “indefinitely suspended,” but this latest arrangement now grants Mexico merely 30 more days before tariffs might be reinstated.
While the White House has not clarified which agreements are new regarding Canada and Mexico or what outcomes could arise from forthcoming discussions, trade advisor Peter Navarro expressed belief that the threats of tariffs would ultimately reduce U.S. fentanyl overdose deaths. He indicated that additional concessions might emerge from future talks, arguing that Trump’s unpredictable tactics bore positive results.
However, there’s a risk for Canada and Mexico that Trump could revert to imposing tariffs, which casts doubt on the reliability of his agreements. White House officials assert that the tariffs are aimed at combating illegal drugs, but Trump also emphasizes the necessity of addressing the trade imbalance with neighboring countries. This situation raises concerns about how other countries may perceive and respond to Trump’s approach moving forward.
Daniel Beland, a professor of political science at McGill University, remarked on the implications of Trump’s negotiation style by stating, “Would you threaten to burn down the house of your friendly neighbor to get some salt or sugar from them?” He emphasized that Trump’s bargaining method is damaging and diminishes trust. The recent developments are likely to linger in the minds of Canadians long after the incomplete resolution of tariff threats.
