Follow us on social

Whiplash: Trump says tariffs on Mexico, Canada delayed

Whiplash: Trump says tariffs on Mexico, Canada delayed

The levies and retaliatory measures have become a bit of a game of chicken with US's closest neighbors

Reporting | North America

In a whiplash series of moves, President Donald Trump imposed swinging tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China over the weekend, before announcing they were delayed, at least the ones on Mexico, on Monday morning.

President Claudia Sheinbaum of Mexico also announced the news this morning after a conversation with her American counterpart, explaining that rather than taking effect after midnight, the tariffs on Mexico would be delayed by a month.

The key move on the Mexican side appears to have been an agreement to move 10,000 additional Mexican troops to the border. “These soldiers will be specifically designated to stop the flow of fentanyl, and illegal migrants into our Country,” Trump said in his Truth Social post.

Meanwhile, Trump is due to speak with Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau later today, and China is reportedly preparing its own response to try to head off the tariffs. The whirlwind highlights the persistent uncertainty that governments and businesses will likely continue to face on the subject of tariffs. (Update: later in the afternoon, the 25% tariffs on Canada were also delayed for a 30-day period.)

On Saturday evening, President Trump had followed through on threats of major tariffs by invoking a national emergency resulting from the “extraordinary threat posed by illegal aliens and drugs, including deadly fentanyl.” The stated rationale behind the tariffs was largely based on non-trade issues such as migration and narcotics, and is consistent with his pattern of threatening reduced access to the U.S. market as a means to achieve other goals. He acknowledged that the measures might cause some pain, but insisted they would be "worth the price that must be paid."

The declaration imposed 25% tariffs on all imports from Canada and from Mexico, carving out a partial exemption of a 10% tariff on imports of crude oil from Canada. In addition, he also imposed additional tariffs of 10% on all imports from China. The tariffs take effect on Tuesday.

Prime Minister Justin Trudeau responded with details of Canada’s retaliatory tariffs.

A longer treatment in the full executive order on the “Northern Border” laid out the criteria for the tariffs to be removed in at least that instance (there is only one full executive order on Canada on the White House website, with the other countries just named in a subsequent fact sheet). The tariff decision could be rescinded if “the Secretary of Homeland Security …. indicate[s] that the Government of Canada has taken adequate steps to alleviate this public health crisis through cooperative enforcement actions.”

The tariffs on Mexico and Canada would affect the U.S.’s two most important trading partners, which together accounted for about 30% of all U.S. trade (1.475 trillion dollars of US exports and imports) for the first 11 months of 2024. They are also being imposed within a free-trade area that dates back more than three decades to NAFTA. That treaty was succeeded in July 2020 by a new version (USMCA) after the original was renegotiated during Trump’s first term.

As the President noted in his fact sheet, with trade accounting for only 24% of American GDP, the U.S. is a relatively closed economy compared to both Canada (67% of GDP) and Mexico (73% of GDP), implying his confidence that the tariffs would force concessions from both countries. At the same time, 30 years of integration have led to many industries becoming deeply intertwined, most prominently through a continental automobile sector with supply chains that span borders. This could mean that the negative effects of an extended battle on tariffs are not confined solely to the smaller economies to the north and south of the U.S.

Some estimates suggest that auto-parts in a single automobile can cross the border eight times, leading to the possibility of customs-related supply-chain interruptions and price increases that could add up to $3,000 dollars to the price of a new car. Similarly, the National Association of Homebuilders said that the moves could raise housing prices and lower supply because “more than 70% of the imports of two essential materials …softwood lumber and gypsum (used for drywall) come from Canada and Mexico, respectively.” The American Farm Bureau expressed its concerns about retaliatory tariffs and fertilizer price increases, as 80% of US potash imports come from Canada.

The measures follow through on Trump’s campaign promises, which he reiterated within hours of his inauguration. Between the intensity of his focus on immigration, drugs, and tariffs (which he has called the most beautiful word), the potential for at least some economic damage to the U.S., and the imprecise criteria for escalation or deescalation, it remains to be seen where or when these repeated games of chicken will end.

Meanwhile, the intersection of economics and expanded definitions of national security also leaves open the possibility that a failure of economic tools to address concerns over immigration and narcotics leads in the direction of military interventionism in Mexico.


Top photo credit: Canada PM Justin Trudeau (European Parliament/Creative Commons); President Trump (Gage Skidmore/Creative Commons) and Mexico President Claudia Sheinbaum (Secretaría de Cultura Ciudad de México/Creative Commons)
Reporting | North America
Iran nuclear
Top image credit: Inspired by maps via shutterstock.com

How the US could use Iran's uranium enrichment to its own advantage

Middle East

Since mid-April, Iran and the United States held numerous rounds of nuclear negotiations that have made measured progress — until Washington abruptly stated that Iran had no right to enrich uranium. Moreover, 200 members of the U.S. Congress sent president Trump a letter opposing any deal that would allow Iran to retain uranium enrichment capability.

Iran’s Supreme Leader Ayatollah Khamenei called U.S. demands “excessive and outrageous” and “nonsense.” Since the beginning of the Iranian nuclear crisis in 2003, Tehran has drawn a clear red line: the peaceful right to enrich uranium under the Nuclear Non-Proliferation Treaty (NPT) is non-negotiable.

keep readingShow less
american military missiles
Top photo credit: Fogcatcher/Shutterstock

5 ways the military industrial complex is a killer

Latest 3

Congress is on track to finish work on the fiscal year 2025 Pentagon budget this week, and odds are that it will add $150 billion to its funding for the next few years beyond what the department even asked for. Meanwhile, President Trump has announced a goal of over $1 trillion for the Pentagon for fiscal year 2026.

With these immense sums flying out the door, it’s a good time to take a critical look at the Pentagon budget, from the rationales given to justify near record levels of spending to the impact of that spending in the real world. Here are five things you should know about the Pentagon budget and the military-industrial complex that keeps the churn going.

keep readingShow less
Sudan
Top image credit: A Sudanese army soldier stands next to a destroyed combat vehicle as Sudan's army retakes ground and some displaced residents return to ravaged capital in the state of Khartoum Sudan March 26, 2025. REUTERS/El Tayeb Siddig

Will Sudan attack the UAE?

Africa

Recent weeks events have dramatically cast the Sudanese civil war back into the international spotlight, drawing renewed scrutiny to the role of external actors, particularly the United Arab Emirates.

This shift has been driven by Sudan's accusations at the International Court of Justice (ICJ) against the UAE concerning violations of the Genocide Convention, alongside drone strikes on Port Sudan that Khartoum vociferously attributes to direct Emirati participation. Concurrently, Secretary of State Marco Rubio publicly reaffirmed the UAE's deep entanglement in the conflict at a Senate hearing last week.

From Washington, another significant and sudden development also surfaced last week: the imposition of U.S. sanctions on the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF) for alleged chemical weapons use. This dramatic accusation was met by an immediate denial from Sudan's Ministry of Foreign Affairs, which vehemently dismissed the claims as "unfounded" and criticized the U.S. for bypassing the proper international mechanisms, specifically the Organisation for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, despite Sudan's active membership on its Executive Council.

Despite the gravity of such an accusation, corroboration for the use of chemical agents in Sudan’s war remains conspicuously absent from public debate or reporting, save for a January 2025 New York Times article citing unnamed U.S. officials. That report itself contained a curious disclaimer: "Officials briefed on the intelligence said the information did not come from the United Arab Emirates, an American ally that is also a staunch supporter of the R.S.F."

keep readingShow less

LATEST

QIOSK

Newsletter

Subscribe now to our weekly round-up and don't miss a beat with your favorite RS contributors and reporters, as well as staff analysis, opinion, and news promoting a positive, non-partisan vision of U.S. foreign policy.