By John Q. Hosedrinker 
Facing 25% U.S. tariffs on steel and aluminum, Canada now confronts the potential for 50-100% tariffs on Canadian-made cars, a move President Trump justified by claiming Canada “stole” the auto industry. This follows the removal of auto tariffs under the Auto Pact (1965) and NAFTA (1994), replaced by CUSMA in 2018. Trump’s action aims to bolster the U.S. steel and aluminum sectors, while Canadian officials are working to mitigate the damaging effects of these tariffs. The deeply integrated automotive sectors of both countries are at risk.
Read the original article here
Trump’s threat to slap tariffs of up to 100% on Canadian-made cars is a move that reeks of impulsive decision-making and a fundamental misunderstanding of the interconnected nature of the North American automotive industry. The sheer audacity of this threat, aimed at vehicles often built with parts shuttling back and forth across the US-Canada border multiple times during assembly, is astounding.
This isn’t just about slapping a tax on a finished product; it’s about targeting a complex supply chain where components cross the border repeatedly. Imagine the cost increase for a car that traverses the border six times, each crossing subject to a 100% tariff. The final price could easily balloon by several hundred percent, making everyday vehicles unaffordable for many American families.
The potential impact extends far beyond just the sticker price of a new car. It will increase the cost of repairs, parts, and everything related to the automotive sector. This tariff isn’t a targeted blow to Canada; it’s a self-inflicted wound on the American consumer, impacting the affordability of vehicles that are fundamentally intertwined with both American and Canadian economies.
This economic attack on Canada, described by many as economic warfare, goes far beyond a simple trade dispute. It’s about power, control, and a reckless disregard for the consequences. It represents an attempt to use economic leverage to gain some kind of geopolitical advantage—to the obvious detriment of both economies.
The sheer stupidity of the move is remarkable. Those arguing that Canada doesn’t produce cars miss the point entirely; the real issue is the intricate cross-border production process. The threat affects the American consumer, who will ultimately bear the brunt of these inflated prices. It seems the logic, if one can even call it that, is to financially cripple Canada to force it into some sort of subservience. This short-sighted approach will only serve to damage the US’s standing in the global market and fracture vital trade relationships.
Many are wondering why this is happening, and the answer seems to be a combination of ego, political posturing, and perhaps even mental instability. The reactions range from disbelief and anger to a weary acceptance of the absurdity of the situation. It feels as though a toddler is playing with the world economy, throwing tantrums and expecting everyone else to clean up the mess.
The automotive sector, a linchpin of both American and Canadian economies, is being subjected to this arbitrary act of economic aggression with no clear benefit to anyone but the perpetrator’s inflated ego. This is not about making America great again; it’s about making America’s economy less competitive, more unstable and less resilient to external pressure.
There are whispers that perhaps this move is a thinly veiled attempt to boost domestic car manufacturers by making imports more expensive, but even that seems short-sighted and flawed. The interconnected nature of the supply chain makes such calculations meaningless and only serves to create chaos and inefficiency in the market.
The overall response suggests a sense of helplessness, a recognition of the damage already done, and a quiet determination to resist this kind of bullying. Canadians seem to be calmly assessing the situation, planning their countermoves, and finding new trade partners, while others urge a coordinated approach to push back against this senseless display of economic aggression. The hope is that, somehow, sanity will prevail, but the path forward remains uncertain in the face of such an unpredictable and erratic force.
The situation highlights a fundamental flaw in the system: the unchecked power of a single individual to inflict such wide-ranging economic damage. This isn’t about simple tariffs; it’s about jeopardizing years of established trade relations and potentially destabilising both economies for short-term political gain or simply to appease the ego of one man. The long-term consequences are devastating and only time will tell the full extent of this self-inflicted wound.