By John Q. Hosedrinker 
President Trump threatened Canada with a 50% tariff on any aircraft sold in the U.S. in retaliation for Canada’s refusal to certify jets from Gulfstream Aerospace. This follows prior threats of tariffs on Canadian goods due to a planned trade deal with China. Trump’s actions were prompted by comments from Prime Minister Mark Carney and also included the decertification of Bombardier Global Express business jets. These actions could be a major blow to the Canadian aerospace industry, which relies heavily on the U.S. market.
Read the original article here
Trump threatens Canada with a 50% tariff on aircraft sold in the U.S., expanding a trade war that seems to have no end. It’s becoming the predictable pattern: another day, another tariff threat. And frankly, the world, or at least a significant part of it, is moving on. The sentiment is a mixture of embarrassment for Americans and exasperation at the repetition. It feels like the only play the US has left.
Trump’s move targets Canadian aircraft, including those from Bombardier, a major player in the regional aviation market. The implied consequence is that the US would decertify all Canadian aircraft. There’s a certain irony in imagining the CEOs, celebrities, and wealthy individuals who rely on private jets potentially being grounded. Considering the significant number of Bombardier jets in the US, this threat has real-world implications, not just symbolic ones.
The underlying reason seems to be Canada’s refusal to certify jets from Gulfstream Aerospace, based in Savannah, Georgia. Apparently, the Canadian regulatory process for aircraft certification takes longer than the US’s FAA or the European EASA. The issue isn’t about safety or technical issues but a simple bureaucratic process. This is the heart of it, a threat based on a procedural disagreement. Trump, in response, has chosen to throw a tantrum and to attempt to use tariffs to punish Canada.
The specifics of the tariff itself raise questions. Will American consumers have to bear the brunt of the cost? It seems likely. Who will actually pay the tariff? It’s often the consumer, the very people Trump claims to protect.
The article then questions the legal authority behind the threat. There is no official executive order or even details on how the decertification of aircraft would work. This isn’t exactly a well-thought-out plan. It’s a knee-jerk reaction, a spontaneous outburst from a leader.
The timing and context are also suspicious. Trump’s actions seem to align with the interests of General Dynamics, Gulfstream’s parent company, which reportedly contributed handsomely to Trump’s campaign and other Republican causes. The whole situation feels like it’s being manipulated to benefit a select few.
The narrative also points out the broader implications for international trade and the US’s reputation. The constant threats and shifting demands make the US an unreliable trading partner. Who would want to make a long-term deal with someone who changes their mind every other month? It undermines economic stability and erodes trust.
The tone shifts to a weary acceptance of the pattern. The headlines are predictable, and the reactions feel rehearsed. It’s “Trump threatens [insert country] with [insert amount]% tariffs on [insert random item] due to [insert cry baby reason].” It’s the same story, repackaged. The article notes the obvious counterpoint of Boeing also receiving large subsidies. This isn’t a level playing field.
The article questions how this whole situation is considered a national emergency. Perhaps, it’s just more evidence of corruption and a pattern of favoring those who contribute to political campaigns. There’s a sense that these actions are becoming the norm, and the US is losing allies.
The reaction includes a suggestion that the F-35 orders might be cancelled and how the new tariffs might make European fighter jets much more attractive to countries that want to buy them. The sentiment is one of fatigue and a growing sense of detachment from the US’s actions. No one really cares anymore.
The final remarks speak to the erosion of trust in the US, where money isn’t always the primary driver for decisions. Other countries prioritize humanity, compassion, and cooperation more than the relentless pursuit of profit. It’s a critique of a system that values financial gain above all else. The call to action is to stand against this perversion of humanity.