Former President Donald Trump recently announced that on the first day of a potential second term, he would impose 25% tariffs on both Mexico and Canada in response to issues surrounding fentanyl and migration. However, this approach is riddled with economic, legal, and diplomatic flaws.
Violation of Existing Trade Agreements
One of the most glaring contradictions in Trump’s proposal is that the United States already has a free-trade agreement with Mexico and Canada: the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA). This deal, which was implemented and widely touted as a signature achievement of Trump’s first term, replaced NAFTA and strengthened trade relations between the three nations. Imposing new tariffs would directly violate the terms of the USMCA, undermining the agreement and potentially sparking retaliation or trade disputes.
Circumventing Congressional Authority
Tariffs are a matter that traditionally requires Congressional approval under U.S. law. Trump’s plan to bypass this requirement involves declaring Mexico and Canada as security threats to justify the tariffs through executive action. While this approach exploits legal loopholes, it would almost certainly face challenges in court. Congress has constitutionally enshrined authority over trade, and using national security as a pretext for tariffs risks further eroding trust in executive restraint.
The Reality on Migration and Fentanyl
Mexico’s Role in Migration and Drug Enforcement
- The Mexican government has already taken significant steps to curb both illegal migration and drug trafficking, often under pressure from the U.S. Over the past 18 months, illegal border crossings from Mexico into the U.S. have decreased by 75% due to tighter enforcement on both sides of the border.
- Blaming Mexico for fentanyl production also ignores that much of the demand for illegal drugs stems from the United States itself. Moreover, the precursors for fentanyl largely originate from China, complicating the narrative that Mexico is solely responsible.
Canada’s Reality
- Imposing tariffs on Canada is even more perplexing, as there is no significant immigration issue from Canada into the U.S. On the contrary, Canada has been dealing with illegal crossings from the U.S., particularly by asylum seekers seeking refuge.
- Additionally, deporting millions of immigrants from the U.S., as Trump has promised, is expected to increase pressure on Canada’s borders as displaced individuals seek alternative destinations. Canadian officials have already expressed concerns about a potential surge in illegal migration stemming from U.S. policies.
Economic Ramifications of Tariffs
Tariffs are essentially taxes on imports, which are often passed down to consumers. A 25% tariff on goods from Mexico and Canada would:
- Increase prices for U.S. consumers on everyday items, including food, vehicles, and electronics.
- Disrupt supply chains for key industries such as automobiles and agriculture, where cross-border trade plays a vital role.
- Hurt American exporters, as both Canada and Mexico are major buyers of U.S. goods and are likely to retaliate with their own tariffs.
Diplomatic Consequences
Tariffs against two of the U.S.’s closest allies and largest trading partners would strain diplomatic relations:
- Mexico and Canada have been strong collaborators on security and trade issues. Alienating them could weaken North American unity at a time when global economic competition, particularly with China, requires stronger regional alliances.
- The move risks creating a climate of mistrust, where future agreements with the U.S. are viewed as unreliable or subject to arbitrary reversals.
Conclusion
Trump’s proposed tariffs on Mexico and Canada are not only impractical but also damaging on multiple fronts. They would violate existing trade agreements, harm U.S. consumers and businesses, and strain diplomatic ties with two of America’s closest allies. Additionally, his justification for the tariffs—fentanyl and migration—does not align with current realities. While addressing issues like drug trafficking and immigration is important, these tariffs would likely do more harm than good, reflecting a misinformed and counterproductive approach to economic and foreign policy.