Weekend Trade Warrior

Trump averts a crisis of his own making... for now.

Politically and economically speaking, last weekend was a hot mess.

On Friday, as Donald Trump’s sweeping 25% tariffs on Canada and Mexico were set to go into effect, the president was asked if there was anything our targeted trade partners could do to prevent their imposition.

“No, nothing,” he answered, stunning many observers.

National Review’s Noah Rothman aptly described what happened next:

But what happened to all that stuff about tariffs merely being a “negotiating tool,” he was asked? Trump appeared perplexed, as though he had never encountered such alien logic. “No, it’s not,” he noted. “It’s a pure economic.” Between the introduction of fentanyl into America from China by way of Canada and Mexico and, of course, “big deficits,” the degree to which Americans “subsidize” their trading partners, and, of course, the revenue they’ll generate, tariffs speak for themselves. “Is there a concession you’re looking for, sir?” Trump’s interlocutor asked one more time. “No. We’re not looking for a concession,” the president explained.

Commentary’s Seth Mandel summed up the absurdity of the situation (and Trump’s policy) well:

He just likes tariffs. He thinks they're good. This particular tariff plan might be disastrous enough to teach a hot-stove lesson on public opinion and prices, it might not. But that's it.

There's no complex economic debate happening on the inside. He just likes tariffs.

In other words, Trump’s latest trade war — quickly dubbed the “dumbest trade war in history” by the Wall Street Journal editorial board — was without any economically literate purpose. It was simply a case of Trump doing something he thought was cool, in hopes of making him look tough and fearsome on the world stage.

The measure would not only come at the expense of our North American allies, but also, as Trump surprisingly suggested (possibly for the first time) a couple days later, the United States.

“WILL THERE BE SOME PAIN?” Trump asked on social media. “YES, MAYBE (AND MAYBE NOT!).”

That “pain” would have come in the form of even higher prices for U.S. consumers, just three months after Trump was elected (in large part) to bring those prices down. It also would have raised taxes for U.S. importers. These inevitable outcomes have been widely recognized by economists, and demonstrated in actual data, going back to Trump’s previous trade war.

Having abandoned his stated rationale for imposing tariffs this time, Trump spent the rest of his weekend online, casting domestic critics of his policy as being “controlled by China”, the only of our adversaries that Trump tariffed (notably at a much smaller rate). He also mocked our allied trade partners for the predicament he put them in — especially Canada.

Trump portrayed Canada as worthless to the United States, claiming we “subsidize” our neighbors to the north with “billions of dollars,” adding that “we don’t need anything they have.” He then repeated his call for Canada to surrender their national sovereignty and become our 51st state, pointing out that doing so would exempt them from U.S. tariffs.

“There is no justification whatsoever for this treatment,” Canadian Conservative Party leader Pierre Poilievre responded, calling Canada “the United States’ closest neighbour, greatest ally and best friend.” Poilievre called for unity with his nation’s Liberal Party to retaliate economically against the U.S.

In an attempt to salvage Trump’s prior talking points, Vice President JD Vance joined in on the tit for tat. “Spare me the sob story about how Canada is our ‘best friend,’” he tweeted, claiming that the country has seen a “massive increase in fentanyl trafficking across its border” into the United States. “I’m sick of being taken advantage of.”

Vance’s claim was patently false. A grand total of 43 pounds of fentanyl was seized last year along our northern border, which is incidentally less than a quarter of my own body weight.

With Mexico and Canada both vowing retaliatory tariffs, Dow futures tanking, and GOP leaders privately (and in some cases publicly) begging Trump to knock off the foolishness, someone apparently got through to the president that devastating the U.S. economy just for kicks wasn’t a particularly smart political move. By Monday morning, Trump was looking for a face-saving out.

Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum superficially granted him one in a phone call, reiterating the same promise to improve border security that she had given him back in November. Sheinbaum pledged to send 10,000 Mexican troops to the border, a repeat-move of what she had done under President Biden (and Trump himself a few years before that).

Despite getting nothing new, Trump declared victory, announcing a one month “pause” on his tariffs — a pause that will hopefully become permanent without much fanfare.

Taking Mexico’s lead, Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau “recommitted” to a border plan he announced back in December, earning his country the same one-month “grace period.” Trudeau did offer a little something extra this time around, announcing the appointment of a “Fentanyl Czar”, who will hopefully reduce fentanyl exports across their southern border to no more than an eighth of my body weight.

In other words, Mexico and Canada gave up virtually nothing. Trump caved, but got a PR win with people who don’t know any better. That’s certainly a much better outcome than a totally pointless and completely avoidable economic crisis, but wouldn’t it be nice if we just knocked off this nonsense?

With all that’s going on in the world, now is not the time to be undermining U.S. alliances. It’s a shame we can’t trust the leader of the free world not to use willy-nilly trade policy for mutually assured destruction on that front, but there’s a good case a U.S. president shouldn’t have that kind of authority in the first place.

According to the U.S. Constitution, Congress has tariff-making power, not the president. It’s unfortunately been handed over to the executive branch through subsequent laws, including for broad emergency declarations that Trump is clearly abusing when he defines his tariffs as unconditional, and applies them as “a pure economic.”

It’s time for Congress to repeal these abuse-prone laws, and return tariff power to the legislative branch to be used more sparingly. I don’t expect that to happen, of course, since legislators have grown entirely too comfortable delegating their authority to the executive branch, but it’s the right thing to do.

A single individual should not be able to kneecap the financial durability of millions of Americans, and pervert tried and true trade relationships, just because he can.