By Kenneth Tiven
American citizens, Canadians and observers across the political spectrum are struggling to understand why US President Donald Trump has chosen to wage a trade war against Canada, America’s long-time ally with whom it shares an undefended 8,000-kilometre border.
Dominance, defiance and disruption appear to be Trump’s primal instincts. The adult remains remarkably similar to the youthful real-estate speculator he was in New York City six decades ago: move fast, trust your instincts, and if things go wrong, deny responsibility, shift the blame, or simply move on.
At 80, Trump’s political style remains that of the privileged and combative businessman who has long relied on instinct over institutional restraint. His presidency has been marked by decisions whose consequences increasingly extend far beyond America’s borders. The latest is his confrontation with Canada.
The fallout from the badly planned US confrontation with Iran has added to global energy and economic uncertainty. Against this backdrop, Trump has opened another front with Canada, ostensibly over trade, but with consequences that go far beyond tariffs. The dispute threatens to damage the economies and public sentiment of both countries while distracting attention from mounting domestic political pressures ahead of the US mid-term elections.
History may well judge this period by a simple question: how did a century of harmony across one of the world’s longest undefended borders deteriorate so rapidly?
Canadian soldiers have fought alongside Americans in wars for more than a century. Their sports teams compete in the same professional leagues. Families, businesses and communities operate across the border as though it barely exists. Canada has traditionally been the largest source of international visitors to the United States, although that flow fell sharply in 2025 and may continue to decline.
Trump and his ideological advisers appear to have badly underestimated the response from Ottawa. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney, a former governor of both the Bank of Canada and the Bank of England, approaches the confrontation from a very different intellectual and professional tradition. He reads spreadsheets, understands markets and has spent much of his career assessing risk, investment and economic reality.
Carney’s response to Trump’s proposed 50 per cent tariffs was unequivocal: “We have been attacked.” His choice of words resonated with Canadians, invoking the spirit of their national anthem:
“The True North strong and free!
From far and wide,
O Canada, we stand on guard for thee.”
Carney recognised that the tariff threat was not merely a commercial demand. It was accompanied by rhetoric that questioned Canada’s status as a sovereign nation. Trump had already been remarkably tactless in suggesting that Canada should become the 51st US state.
That proposition was especially jarring given more than half a century of North American economic cooperation. The United States, Canada and Mexico have built an extraordinarily integrated trading relationship, including through the agreement negotiated during Trump’s first presidency.
Carney was blunt in describing Washington’s last-minute demands as “unfair, uneconomic” and as calling into question the reliability of any agreement. US trade representatives denied some of the reported demands concerning Canada’s relations with other countries and the use of the French language, but a printed list of American demands subsequently surfaced.
Trump’s assertion that Canada “wanted the benefits of being a state, without being one” struck many Canadians as both insulting and absurd. One political commentator described the negotiations as a “master class in ignorance and incompetence”.
The asymmetry between the two countries is striking, but not in the way Trump’s rhetoric suggests. Canada covers approximately 9.98 million square kilometres—slightly larger than the United States in total area—but has a population of roughly 40 million, comparable to that of California.
Canadians have found their own shorthand for the national mood: “elbows up.” In ice hockey, the phrase suggests toughness, resilience and a willingness to stand one’s ground. It has become an apt metaphor for Canada’s response to Washington.
Carney’s background makes the symbolism particularly appropriate. As a university athlete, he played goaltender—a position demanding courage, anticipation and the ability to absorb pressure.
“Last spring, I warned that America is trying to break us so that they can own us,” Carney reminded Canadians. “And I promised: ‘That will never, ever happen.’”
He has responded by looking beyond Washington, promising intensified discussions with the European Union to build a deeper economic and security partnership.
“Canada has what the world wants,” Carney said, arguing that his country can build “unparalleled access” because it is trusted and reliable.
His message is pragmatic rather than ideological: America has changed, and Canada cannot simply assume that the old relationship will return.
“We have recognised from the beginning that America has changed,” Carney said. “We will not return to our old relationship.”
Canada has also announced retaliatory tariffs against US goods, beginning September 8. What began as an American attempt to exert economic pressure is, therefore, becoming a two-way escalation, with potentially damaging consequences for consumers and businesses on both sides of the border.
Canada’s image abroad gives Ottawa an additional reservoir of goodwill. Polls have frequently placed Canada among the world’s most favourably viewed countries, alongside Switzerland. Such rankings are necessarily anecdotal, but they reflect a widespread perception of Canadians as friendly, welcoming, respectful and polite. It is precisely this reputation that makes the sudden hardening of Canadian public opinion towards the United States so significant.
The deeper problem may lie within Washington itself.
Never before, critics argue, has a US administration placed so many inexperienced people in positions of such importance. Under Trump, political loyalty and ideological alignment have often appeared to count for more than conventional qualifications or institutional experience. Friends, relatives and political allies have assumed roles in diplomacy and global negotiations, raising questions about whether expertise has been displaced by personal loyalty.
The intelligence agencies, too, have come under scrutiny over the influence of ideological appointees and the erosion of the traditional expectation of politically neutral analysis.
Even the conservative The Wall Street Journal editorial board has taken aim at the Canadian policy. It accused Trump of manufacturing an array of pretexts—from fentanyl trafficking to trade deficits—to justify tariffs and described the confrontation as a trade war that makes little economic or political sense.
The larger danger is the concentration of presidential power.
The experience of Trump’s second term has renewed questions about the idea of a highly centralised or “unitary” presidency, in which enormous authority is concentrated in one individual. For a democracy, critics argue, that concentration can become dangerous when institutional checks weaken and Congress is unwilling to challenge the president.
Trump’s approach to trade also threatens the post-World War II international order that the United States itself helped construct. His willingness to undermine or discard agreements negotiated by his own administration, his attacks on allies such as South Korea and his contrasting rhetoric towards authoritarian leaders reinforce concerns that Washington is moving away from traditional alliances and towards a world defined by competing spheres of influence.
Tariffs, ultimately, are taxes on imports. American importers pay them first, and at least part of the cost can eventually be passed on to consumers already facing high prices. If the United States and Canada respond to one another with successive rounds of tariffs, the economic consequences could become considerably more serious.
America’s allies are watching closely. If Washington can suddenly turn on Canada, one of its closest friends and most integrated economic partners, other countries have every reason to wonder whether American commitments can still be relied upon.
And American voters will have their say.
The mid-term elections will provide a measure of how much this foreign and economic policy matters domestically. Polling has not been encouraging for Republican congressional candidates. The Economist, reviewing YouGov polling, has reported that Trump’s approval is positive in only a handful of states, including West Virginia, Idaho and Wyoming—an indication that confidence may be weakening even among parts of the MAGA coalition.
Other controversies are adding to the political pressure. The Washington Post has challenged Trump’s argument that the proposed White House ballroom is primarily about security, noting that the White House already has a secure facility capable of withstanding a nuclear blast and accommodating dozens of people for extended periods.
Meanwhile, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent has announced “Operation Economic Outcast,” an initiative intended to pressure other countries into joining Washington’s campaign to squeeze Iran economically. Bessent has warned that the United States does not have “infinite patience”.
China, a major purchaser of Iranian oil when supplies are available, has responded bluntly, calling the American campaign illegal.
The pattern is becoming difficult to miss. Washington is simultaneously confronting allies, pressuring trading partners and attempting to force adversaries into submission. The strategy may satisfy an instinct for dominance, but it risks producing something quite different: a world less willing to trust American power.
Canada, meanwhile, has raised its elbows. And it is no longer looking backward.
—The writer has worked in senior positions at The Washington Post,
NBC, ABC and CNN and also consults for several Indian channels
The post Elbows Up: Canada Pushes Back Against Trump’s Trade War appeared first on India Legal.