As Tariff Turbulence Rattles the U.S., Canada’s Patience Looks Strategic

Donald Trump once promised that tariffs would make America richer — that they would function as a stream of revenue paid by foreign nations eager to access the American market. Instead, American consumers are confronting a different reality: higher prices for cars, higher grocery bills and rising costs across a wide range of everyday goods. Now, a Supreme Court ruling has added a constitutional dimension to the economic strain, clarifying that the authority Mr. Trump relied upon does not grant a president unilateral power to impose sweeping taxes in the form of tariffs.

Tariffs, the court underscored, are taxes. And under the Constitution, the power to levy taxes belongs to Congress.

For months, the White House framed tariffs as leverage — a tool to force trading partners into concessions while filling federal coffers. But economists across the ideological spectrum have long warned that tariffs are typically paid not by foreign governments but by domestic importers, who then pass those costs along to consumers. Recent inflation data appear to reflect those pressures. Industry reports indicate that the price of a full-size American vehicle has climbed by thousands of dollars over the past year. Grocery prices, particularly for goods dependent on imported inputs, have edged upward. Supply chains remain unsettled.

The economic debate is no longer abstract. It is visible at the checkout counter.

The Supreme Court’s decision does not merely complicate Mr. Trump’s trade agenda; it strikes at the legal foundation of a governing strategy built on executive escalation. By reaffirming that only Congress has the authority to “lay and collect taxes and duties,” the court introduced uncertainty into a tariff regime already facing market skepticism. Even if the administration pursues alternative legal justifications, the ruling signals that presidential tariff authority has limits.

While Washington grapples with the fallout, events north of the border are unfolding differently.

Canada, under Prime Minister Mark Carney, chose not to respond to tariff threats with rapid concessions or a rushed renegotiation of its trade architecture. Instead, Ottawa emphasized continuity within the existing trilateral framework — the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement, known as CUSMA — while accelerating efforts to diversify trade relationships abroad.

Dominic LeBlanc, Canada’s trade minister, recently noted that more than 90 percent of Canadian exports to the United States were unaffected by the reciprocal tariffs at issue in the Supreme Court case. The reason was structural: exemptions embedded in CUSMA, particularly those tied to rules of origin, insulated much of the cross-border trade from disruption.

That insulation was not accidental. It reflected a calculation that preserving the framework — however imperfect — was preferable to negotiating from a position of panic.

The contrast in approaches has grown sharper as some voices in Washington float the possibility of abandoning the trilateral agreement in favor of separate bilateral deals. Such a move would not merely reshape diplomatic relationships; it would disrupt supply chains that American manufacturers depend upon daily.

Automobiles assembled in Michigan routinely contain components that cross the Canadian border multiple times during production. Energy grids are integrated. Agricultural markets are deeply interwoven. CUSMA is not an act of charity toward Canada; it is an infrastructure system underpinning North American commerce.

If that system were dismantled, the shock would reverberate inside the United States as much as beyond it.

Mr. Carney’s strategy has centered on reducing vulnerability to political volatility in Washington. His government has deepened trade outreach to Europe and Asia, encouraged domestic investment in industrial capacity and signaled that Canada would not sacrifice structural sovereignty for short-term relief. The goal has been to prepare for instability rather than react to it.

Leadership differences are often clearest during periods of stress. Mr. Trump’s approach to trade has relied on sudden escalation, legal brinkmanship and the use of economic uncertainty as leverage. That strategy can yield concessions. But it also imposes costs — on markets, on businesses and on consumers who have little control over trade policy yet feel its effects most directly.

There is also a temporal dimension to tariff policy that complicates matters further. Even if courts later invalidate a measure, the economic disruption in the interim can linger. Companies adjust sourcing strategies. Investments are postponed. Prices rise. Legal appeals can stretch for months or years, during which uncertainty becomes its own economic force.

In that sense, the Supreme Court’s ruling is about more than constitutional interpretation. It is about the limits of governing through disruption.

As Americans confront higher prices and legal ambiguity surrounding executive trade authority, Canada finds itself within a framework that remains largely intact. CUSMA is up for review, and sector-specific tariffs on steel, aluminum and autos remain contentious. But the core structure endures.

The uncomfortable truth for Washington is that tariffs framed as painless revenue have proven costly. And when economic strain converges with legal constraint, confidence can erode quickly.

Trade policy is rarely headline-grabbing until it affects daily life. Now it has. The divergence between escalation and preparation — between shock and structure — is no longer theoretical. It is shaping prices, supply chains and political leverage across North America.

In the end, tariffs may be easy to announce. Managing their consequences is harder.