By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Trump announced that the United States and Canada would not be restarting trade talks following an apology from Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney. The apology was made in response to an Ontario political advertisement featuring former President Ronald Reagan criticizing tariffs. Trump considered the advertisement to be inaccurate, and had previously paused negotiations and increased tariffs on Canada due to the ad. The advertisement used a quote from Reagan, a known supporter of free trade, to warn against tariffs.
Read the original article here
Trump says US, Canada will not restart trade talks, and it’s quite a statement to unpack, isn’t it? It feels like we’re watching a rerun of a play, a well-worn script of broken promises and unpredictable pronouncements. The immediate reaction is one of, perhaps, weary resignation. If he says “no talks,” well, history suggests the opposite might be true. Or maybe not. Dealing with such volatility is a challenge, to say the least.
This whole situation feels incredibly messy, with a clear undertone of, let’s just say, tension. The underlying currents involve economic maneuvering, with whispers of “economic annexation” and concerns about Canadian industries potentially falling under American ownership. The idea of hundred-millionaires shuffling their money around, eyeing Canadian assets, adds another layer of complexity to an already delicate situation. It’s hard to ignore the feeling that this is partly a reaction to potential economic instability, fueled by Trump’s own policies, like tariffs.
It’s also interesting to consider the timing. With Canada’s focus on other trade agreements, particularly in Asia and Mexico, the implication is that they are preparing for a future that doesn’t necessarily depend on a positive relationship with the US. Then we hear, the Canadian PM is busy, with a budget and an upcoming trip to China. It’s a calculated move.
The sentiment that the Trump administration never genuinely wanted a good trade deal is pretty telling, and it’s hard to ignore the sense that the US might try to claim a hollow victory, settling for a fraction of the original agreement and calling it a win. And, frankly, there’s a certain “good riddance” attitude. Why waste time negotiating a deal that might be ripped up at a whim?
The implications are far-reaching. Canada has alternative trading partners, and the US appears to be losing its preferential position. There’s a strong desire to focus on countries that value partnership and reliable relationships. The economic disruption caused by Trump’s policies can’t be easily erased. The frustration at the unpredictability, and the inability of businesses to forecast in such an environment is understandable.
Furthermore, it all seems to stem from Trump’s petulance. It seems he’s taking his frustrations out on Canada. The sentiment is that it isn’t necessarily about the content of any specific ad or historical reference, but rather Canada’s reluctance to be bullied. The sense is that Canada is not playing the game of being pushed around.
The emphasis on building up Canada’s own economic strengths, diversifying trade relationships, and focusing on innovation is a clear path forward. Investing in scientific and technological research, fostering domestic talent, and developing renewable energy technologies are all crucial steps in building a resilient, independent economy. In the meantime, the US is rapidly becoming Canada’s enemy. If only that were true – we could move on and focus on countries that were interested in being partners and create a relationship.