tariffs

China said on Monday that a two-month extension of its trade truce with the United States would give both sides more time to assess the implementation of their existing arrangements and discuss further steps to resolve economic and trade disputes.

China’s Commerce Ministry confirmed that the truce would remain in place through January 10, saying the extension would provide a “relatively stable and predictable policy environment” for businesses and allow the two countries to continue their talks.

The extension was among the main outcomes of a summit between Chinese President Xi Jinping and US President Donald Trump in Washington last week, their second meeting this year.

Background

The United States and China have spent years imposing tariffs and other trade restrictions on each other, with tensions extending beyond tariffs to technology, investment, supply chains and market access.

The latest extension follows an agreement by the two sides to establish a trade council that will oversee discussions on a range of economic issues.

One of its first tasks will be to discuss reciprocal tariff reductions covering about $30 billion worth of goods, with the aim of maintaining more stable economic and trade relations between the two countries.

China’s Commerce Ministry said the arrangement would also create better conditions for Chinese exporters seeking access to the US market.

The two sides will hold regular discussions on investment opportunities and barriers, policy transparency and predictability, and concerns raised by businesses.

Why it matters

The extension gives US and Chinese companies more time to operate under a relatively predictable trade environment while negotiators work through remaining disputes.

Agriculture is one of the main areas covered by the latest arrangements. A White House list showed that China plans to reduce tariffs on a range of US agricultural products, including corn, wheat, dairy products and meat, although soybeans were not included.

The proposed cuts appear linked to a US-stated Chinese commitment to purchase $17 billion worth of agricultural products. China has already resumed large-scale purchases of US soybeans under an agreement reached last year that called for annual purchases of 25 million metric tons.

The countries will also establish an agriculture working group under the new trade council, with its first meeting expected before the end of the year.

Energy trade is another part of the agreement. China will import 10 million metric tons of US coal annually in 2027 and 2028, according to the White House. That would account for about 2% of China’s annual coal imports. US liquefied natural gas and oil were not included in the list.

The arrangements extend beyond traditional trade. The two countries have agreed to establish a communication channel for artificial intelligence related incidents and hold another dialogue by the end of November.

China will also consider approving foreign financial institutions, including US backed firms, to operate and open branches in the country. Washington and Beijing will meanwhile continue discussions on increasing direct flights between the two countries.

What’s next

The immediate focus will be on implementing the agreements reached at the presidential summit.

The agriculture working group is expected to meet before the end of the year, while the AI dialogue is due to continue by the end of November. The two countries will also use the new trade council to discuss tariffs, investment, market access and regulatory concerns.

The extension runs until January 10, giving negotiators another two months to evaluate whether the existing arrangements are being implemented and determine what further agreements can be reached.

Whether the two sides can turn the temporary truce into longer-term trade arrangements will depend on progress across the different areas covered by their negotiations, including tariffs, agricultural purchases, investment and technology.

With information from Reuters,

Abbotsford, British Columbia – Every second day, 28,000 litres of raw milk leave Casey Pruim’s farm in Abbotsford in western Canada, entering a distribution system built on the assumption that the milk and the products made from it will have somewhere to go.

While most is consumed in Canada, some had been sold across the border to the United States.

Those sales have largely come to a standstill since US President Donald Trump’s 50 percent tariff on $20bn in Canadian goods, including dairy products, came into effect on August 22.

Pruim, who is also chair of the British Columbia Dairy Association representing about 400 dairy farmers across the province, told Al Jazeera that Canadian farmers do not individually decide which products are exported.

Instead, producers such as Pruim –  whose farm has 330 cows milked three times a day  –  sell into the provincial milk-marketing system, which distributes milk to processors according to demand, including for products exported to the US.

If a processor loses US demand, it may require less milk, with the impact then spread across the provincial pool.

Dylan Kruger, director of public affairs at BC Dairy, told Al Jazeera “there is still considerable uncertainty around the impact of the US tariffs”.

He said it was too early to know how the industry would be impacted or whether milk no longer sold to the US could be sold elsewhere, mitigating financial losses.

But the tariffs and wider trade tensions have already introduced uncertainty and instability for businesses.

“If the processor who’s exporting some of his product to the United States can no longer sell into that market because he’s now priced out of the market with a 50 percent tariff, that’s how it would impact the dairy farm,” Pruim said.

Pruim said if processor demand is squeezed, farmers would be forced to dump the milk. In the worst-case scenario, the herd has to be cut.

“Cows aren’t like a tap; you can’t just turn them on or off,” he said.

His warning captures dairy’s particular vulnerability in a tariff war: Milk is highly perishable, collected on a tight schedule and dependent on processors whose demand can change much faster than farmers can adjust production.

“These tariffs are completely unwarranted,” David Wiens, president of the Dairy Farmers of Canada, told Canada’s CBC News, adding that they would affect “the supply chain, not only in Canada but in the US as well”.

Supply-management system

Dairy trade between Canada and the US has largely operated under a free trade agreement between the US, Mexico and Canada, known as CUSMA in Canada.

Canada manages the supply of dairy, poultry and eggs through a national agricultural policy known as supply management. The system uses production quotas and import controls, including tariffs, to provide farmers with more stable and predictable prices while maintaining domestic supply.

Critics describe the system as protectionist and as a government-backed cartel.

Washington argues that Canada’s supply-management system restricts US dairy exports. Trump posted on Truth Social that “Canada had been ripping off the United States of America for years” and accused it of imposing “ridiculously high tariffs” that made life impossible for US farmers.

Canadian producers reject that argument, saying the existing trade agreement already gives US imports substantial tariff-free access that is not fully utilised.

Canada’s dairy trade deficit with the US has grown significantly since CUSMA came into force on July 1, 2020, according to the Dairy Processors Association of Canada.

In 2020, Canada exported 241.3 million Canadian dollars ($173m) in dairy products to the US and imported 647.4 million Canadian dollars ($462.7m) worth of dairy and dairy products. In 2025, Canadian dairy exports had risen to 308.7 million Canadian dollars ($220.7m) while dairy imports from the US had more than doubled to 1.355 billion Canadian dollars ($968.5m), accounting for 13.8 percent of total value of US dairy exports, according to the association.

Bryan Yu, chief economist at Central 1 credit union, said the immediate shock of losing a major market could be difficult for Canadian producers to absorb because replacement buyers cannot be found quickly.

“There is going to be pain in the near term for a lot of our producers,” Yu told Al Jazeera.

“You really can’t quickly adjust to a 50 percent tariff, because it’s uncharted waters for a lot of industries … and ultimately it shuts [Canadian producers] out, because a lot of them don’t have the margins that they can play with,” he said.

Yu said Canadian consumers might absorb some of the additional supply while exporters search for new markets and higher-value products, but neither adjustment is instantaneous.

“There are global markets as well, especially when you talk about chilled, chilled beef, chilled products and really it’s a question of whether … other types of markets that could be available.”

Canada has also imposed retaliatory tariffs, which came into effect on September 8 and cover $20bn worth of US products.

Dairy products are among the targeted goods. The list includes a 50 percent tariff on milk, cream and whey products and a 25 percent tariff on many cheeses imported from the US.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney has framed Ottawa’s response as both retaliation and an attempt to build greater economic resilience.

Announcing the collapse of the latest negotiations, he said Canada would match Washington’s new tariffs “dollar for dollar” to protect workers, farmers, families and businesses.

But retaliatory measures carry risks of their own.

“Canada’s new retaliatory tariffs will help some industries but hurt most and weaken economic growth across the country by raising costs for producers and consumers,” Oxford Economics said in a report.

For now, geography remains important for perishable goods like dairy products that once moved quickly across the US border and cannot be redirected overnight to a distant market without new buyers, logistics and regulatory approvals.

Ottawa’s Trade Commissioner Service is advising affected companies to check their CUSMA compliance, explore available relief and contact trade commissioners about potential new markets.

Yu predicted that the US and Canada could reach a tariff deal in the following months but said the interim period could bring “higher prices, weaker economic activity and deeper mistrust”.

For Pruim, the uncertainty is as destabilising as the tariff threat itself.

“I think, like [for] any Canadian, it’s disappointing to have these trade talks collapse again and just the uncertainty around it.”

New Delhi says it has ‘made clear’ its determination to ‘protect its trade and economic interests’.

India has warned the United States that new measures to levy tariffs over the purchase of Russian oil could impact ⁠bilateral ties, hours after the US Congress approved a bill that would give President Donald Trump new abilities to punish buyers of Russian oil.

The US House of Representatives on Wednesday passed a sweeping sanctions and tariff bill intended to increase economic pressure on Russia over its invasion of ⁠Ukraine.

The bill targets Russia’s energy and defence sectors, President Vladimir Putin and other senior officials, as well as Moscow’s so-called shadow fleet of tankers used to circumvent Western sanctions.

It also authorises President Donald Trump to impose stiff tariffs of up to 100 percent on countries, including India, to reduce their dependence on Russian oil and gas, and⁠ extend sanctions on Iran.

The bill has been sent to Trump to sign into law.

India’s foreign ministry said on Thursday that it “remains firmly committed to ensuring energy security for its 1.4 billion people”.

The Indian foreign ministry said that it had noted the bill’s passage, adding that New Delhi had raised the issue with various US interlocutors in recent months, and had “very clearly articulated” the potential implications for the bilateral relationship and the international energy market.

“The Indian side has also made clear its determination to take all necessary measures to protect its trade and economic interests,” it said in a statement.

The government would work closely with trade and industry bodies to deal with the legislation’s implications, it added.

India, the world’s third-biggest oil importer, is among the biggest buyers of Russian oil, which is seen as helping Moscow replenish its budget since it launched its full-scale invasion of Ukraine in February 2022 and was hit with ⁠sweeping Western sanctions.

New Delhi has repeatedly sought to resist pressure to reduce its oil trade with Russia, saying its large population and economy need secure, affordable and reliable energy supplies.

WASHINGTON — A trade war between the United States and Canada entered a new phase Tuesday as Ottawa’s retaliatory tariffs on American goods took effect, escalating a dispute that has steadily strained relations between the allies.

Canada’s tariffs, which came into force just after midnight, cover roughly $20 billion in U.S. goods and impose duties of as much as 50% on products, from steel and aluminum to farm equipment, clothing and electronics. The list also reaches into the everyday commerce that binds the two economies, including cheese, seafood and cosmetics.

It was the latest sign that relations between the two neighbors have reached their lowest point in decades, after Trump dismissed Canada as the 51st American state, moved to rename Lake Ontario and mocked its armed forces.

Ottawa’s latest measures are a response to tariffs imposed by President Trump last month on Canadian exports. The two governments had appeared close to a trade deal just a month ago. But talks broke down in dramatic fashion, leaving both sides aggrieved and accusing the other of negotiating in bad faith.

In a post Tuesday, Trump said Canada “has been ripping us off for years” and threatened to respond by removing access for Canadian businesses to key American markets.

“What many do not realize is that the Canadian Government, including Canadian Provinces, have banned American Small Businesses and Companies from selling into their Government Procurement Markets,” Trump wrote. “This is the case even though Canada gets broad access into the massive American Government Procurement Market, including those of our States.

“That is not reciprocity, it is a Canadian Trade Scam. From now on, NO RECIPROCITY — NO ACCESS!” he continued. “I am hereby directing the [General Services Administration], working with the [U.S. Trade Representative], to take all necessary steps to REMOVE Canadian-origin products from GSA’s Multiple Award Schedules unless Canada restores full and fair reciprocity for American Farmers and Companies.”

Canada’s prime minister, Mark Carney, has characterized the confrontation as more than a dispute over tariffs, arguing that demands by a bullying Trump administration threaten Canada’s economic independence.

In a video released Tuesday, Carney argued that in the past, the United States has tried to use tariffs to “break us,” only to have Canada’s economy grow stronger and more diversified. He urged Canadians to buy Canadian and break economic dependency from the United States.

“This won’t be easy, and I won’t pretend otherwise,” Carney said. “But Canadians have faced difficult stretches before, and what has carried us through has never ever been any one measure. It’s always been Canadians looking out for each other.”

Trump, meanwhile, has pressed Canada to make concessions on trade and has warned of further tariffs, including potentially higher duties on Canadian automobiles. He also threatened to ban the sale of aircraft from Canada’s Bombardier unless its products are manufactured in the United States.

“If they want our Market, they must build here, and stop treating America like a ‘piggybank,’” Trump wrote on Truth Social on Monday. “BUY AMERICAN. FLY ON AMERICAN AIRLINERS. ENJOY AMERICAN LIQUOR AND BEVERAGES. SAIL ON LAKE AMERICA. AMERICA FIRST!”

Earlier Monday, Trump posted an image showing Mexico, Canada, Central America, Greenland and Caribbean nations with the colors of the American flag. He also posted a caricature of him and Carney playing hockey in which Trump tells him: “Get up, Governor.”

Both sides stand to lose in a trade war poised to hurt businesses large and small across the world’s longest international border.

A prolonged economic conflict poses long-term risks for Canada, which faces price hikes and investment losses from the United States, by far its largest trading partner.

But Americans may also confront higher costs at a time when inflation is already a stubborn problem for the Trump administration. And the trade war may be felt most in northern border states set to hold midterm elections that could swing control of the U.S. Senate, becoming yet another political challenge for embattled Republican lawmakers.

In Maine, Republican Sen. Susan Collins, who is seeking reelection, has called Trump’s tariffs “a mistake.” In Michigan, Democratic Senate nominee Abdul El-Sayed released a video Tuesday highlighting everyday goods that have risen more than 30% over the last year, including Tide Pods, toilet paper and Tim Hortons coffee, as the trade conflict and war in Iran drive up costs.

American alcohol has also been the target of boycotts imposed by several Canadian provinces since March 2025 in response to earlier tariffs on Canadian goods by Trump.

The boycotts since then have erased roughly $360 million in revenue for the U.S. wine industry, according to a Wine Institute report, which represents California wineries. Canada makes up more than 35% of the export market for U.S. wine, more than the EU, U.K. and China markets combined.

For some California winemakers, the impact was even greater. One Sonoma winery referenced in the report said Canada made up about 85% of its international sales. Multiple wineries have had to lay off employees because of hits to their business.

“It’s had a tremendous negative impact,” said Julie Berge, vice president of communications at the Wine Institute.

Wine is not the only California business that has taken a hit — tourism has also seen a sharp decline in arrivals from Canada. In 2025, visitors from the country dropped by 20%.

Canada also targeted the agriculture, electronics and transportation equipment industries with its tariffs announced Tuesday, all of which have a presence in California.

Soon after the World Cup brought positive international attention and tourists to the United States, Trump escalated trade tensions with Canada.

“You went from this really high, exciting moment for the U.S. in terms of international attention, to the next week, it’s negative again,” Deborah Friedland, a hospitality consultant at financial services firm Eisner Advisory Group, told the Associated Press. “It’s one step forward and two steps back.”

Times staff writers Wilner and Ceballos reported from Washington and Duneja from Los Angeles.

Trade tensions soar as Canada matches US tariffs ‘dollar-for-dollar’, impacting 700 products and multiple industries.

Canada’s retaliatory tariffs on imports from the United States have taken effect, escalating the trade dispute between the two countries.

Tariffs ranging from 15 percent to 50 percent will apply to nearly $20bn worth of US imports from 12:01am ET (04:01 GMT) on Tuesday, matching US-imposed levies on Canadian goods including machinery, textiles and consumer products.

The new retaliatory tariffs apply to products including steel, household appliances, agricultural equipment and dairy.

“Canada will match Washington’s new tariffs dollar for dollar in order to protect Canadian workers, farmers, families, and businesses,” Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney told reporters in late August.

US President Donald Trump announced 50 percent tariffs against Canada in July, citing “discriminatory treatment” of US products. The announcement prompted the countries to enter trade talks in August, but a final deal failed to materialise before a deadline imposed by Trump.

“Canada wants the benefits of being a State, without being one!!!” Trump posted on Truth Social in response to Canada’s announcement in August.

The Canadian government said in a statement that the counter-tariffs will impact more than 700 products, adding that it would launch a $5.42bn support package for affected small and medium-sized businesses and workers.

On the eve of Ottawa imposing its tariffs, Trump threatened to block Canada-based aircraft manufacturer Bombardier from selling its planes in the US unless it began manufacturing them in the country.

The dispute has also extended beyond tariffs, with Trump signing an order last month renaming Lake Ontario “Lake America” for US federal use.

The retaliatory tariffs could place a financial burden on US automakers as Canada is the largest buyer of US-manufactured cars.

Americans could soon see increased prices on 550 consumer goods from Canada. According to a report from the Kiel Institute for the World Economy, US importers and consumers absorb 96 percent of the tariff burden.

The United States takes its turn chairing the G20 finance track this week under distinctly awkward conditions.

ADVERTISEMENT

ADVERTISEMENT

US Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent and Federal Reserve Chair Kevin Warsh are hosting counterparts in the North Carolina mountains, following a deputies meeting held over the weekend, with the formal agenda covering economic growth, global imbalances, sovereign debt restructuring, banking regulation and energy security.

Asheville was chosen deliberately.

The city was devastated by Hurricane Helene in September 2024, a storm that killed more than 250 people and caused close to $80 billion (€69bn) in damage from Florida to the Carolinas, and Bessent has cited its rebuilding as a fitting backdrop for talks about economic growth.

“We want the rest of the world to come along with our growth agenda, whether it’s deregulation, the energy independence […]” he said, adding that “the world has this mountain of debt, and we do have to grow our way out of it,” confirming public debt will feature prominently in the discussions.

The setting may prove easier than the substance.

Trade friction between the US and Canada escalated after negotiations broke down, hostilities with Iran have resumed through economic rather than military means, and Warsh arrives days after a hawkish first Jackson Hole address that sharply raised the odds of a US rate rise this month.

Both meetings serve as groundwork for the leaders’ summit at Trump National Doral in Miami on 14 and 15 December, and come weeks before Xi Jinping is expected in Washington on 24 September.

Bessent’s push on Iran

The US Treasury Secretary intends to use bilateral meetings to build support for squeezing Tehran, and stated that Washington will sanction another bank this week, though he declined to name it.

“This is going to be financial violence if we have to,” Bessent told AP.

“We are showing people that we know who you are, you know who you are, and this has got to stop,” he added.

The campaign’s opening move came on Friday, when the US Treasury proposed a rule that would cut the Emirati branches of Banque Misr, Egypt’s second-largest lender, off from the American financial system.

By stopping short of full sanctions, the US administration appeared to signal reluctance to punish major trading partners that still deal with Iran, notably China and India.

On Beijing specifically, Bessent said “all options are on the table” over its continued oil purchases, while dismissing suggestions of hesitancy as “a completely false narrative that the media picked up on.”

The meetings are also being held under unusual media restrictions, after the US Treasury barred certain reporters from the New York Times, Wall Street Journal and Bloomberg from covering them.

The New York Times called the move “not just another disturbing effort by the administration to undermine independent journalism, but a blatant attempt to evade public scrutiny.”

The department has not explained its decision, though Bessent told the AP that “it has nothing to do with point of view.”

Who speaks for Europe at the G20

The EU is represented by Ireland’s Tánaiste and Finance Minister Simon Harris, who holds the role by virtue of Ireland’s EU presidency since 1 July, alongside ECB President Christine Lagarde and Economy Commissioner Valdis Dombrovskis.

Harris said he was looking forward to “the first Ministerial meeting of the G20 Finance Ministers and Central Bank Governors since Ireland assumed the Presidency of the EU,” describing the forum as a place where the largest economies “can exchange views and work towards international economic and financial stability.”

The Irish minister’s stated priority reflects the conflict shaping much of the agenda at this G20 meeting.

Among the EU’s concerns, Harris listed “energy security and ensuring we have secure and resilient energy supplies at a time of severe volatility caused by the conflict in the Middle East.”

He will also hold bilateral meetings with counterparts from G20 member states as Ireland has also been invited as a guest for the December leaders’ summit in Miami.

Additional sources • AP

WASHINGTON — In firing up a trade war with Canada, President Trump turned to a 96-year-old statute so obscure that many trade lawyers didn’t even know it was still on the books.

Trump invoked Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 on Aug. 24 to slap a 50% tax on $20 billion worth of Canadian imports. The move prompted dollar-for-dollar retaliation from Ottawa and strained already-tense relations between the neighbors and longtime allies.

The president’s Section 338 tariff authority has never been used, let alone tested in court. “This law is literally a blank canvas because it’s never been litigated,’’ said Ryan Majerus, a partner at law firm King & Spalding and a former U.S. trade official.

So it’s unclear whether Trump’s latest Canada tariffs could survive a legal challenge, and some lawyers argue that the Depression-era law has been rendered obsolete by more recent trade laws.

Trump raises Section 338 from the dead

To sanction Canada allegedly for discriminating against U.S. dairy, auto and alcoholic beverage exports this summer, the Trump administration reached back to the Great Depression.

The 1930 tariff legislation is known as the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act after its congressional sponsors. With the U.S. and world economies in collapse, Congress raised tariffs on hundreds of imports in an attempt to protect American farmers and manufacturers.

The tariffs are notorious among economists and historians for shutting down world commerce and making the Great Depression worse. (Trump, who proudly calls himself “Tariff Man,” has a different view, arguing that the Smoot-Hawley levies simply came too late to rescue the American economy.)

In addition to raising tariffs themselves, lawmakers in 1930 gave the president new power to impose them himself: Section 338 authorizes presidential tariffs of up to 50% on imports from countries that have discriminated against U.S. businesses.

Before Trump, no president had actually used the statute.

“Until Trump’s second term, few trade lawyers were aware that Section 338 remained on the books or understood what it did,” legal scholars Peter Harrell and Jennifer Hillman of Georgetown University wrote this month in the libertarian magazine Reason.

Harrell and Hillman cite State Department records to show that the U.S. considered using Section 338 in trade disputes — against Spain in 1932 and against newly communist China in 1949 — but never did. After the Depression, U.S. policy focused more on using negotiations — rather than sanctions — to open foreign markets.

So Section 338 sat moldering in the law books.

Other laws take hold

As the years went by, the United States passed new trade laws. Some of them ceded to the president tariff power, which the Constitution originally granted to Congress. But the new laws also limited the president’s authority to certain circumstances — including dealing with national security threats and foreign currency crises — and required the government to carry out investigations and meet other procedural requirements beforehand.

“There is a very strong argument that [Section 338] was superseded,” said Sara Albrecht, chief executive of the Liberty Justice Center, a libertarian advocacy group that represented businesses that successfully challenged the earlier Trump tariffs with the Supreme Court.

If Congress wanted the president to retain Section 338 power, Albrecht asks, why did lawmakers pass the Trade Expansion Act of 1962, which allowed for national security tariffs? And the Trade Act of 1974, which gives the president power to go after other countries’ unfair trade practices?

Battling over Canada’s dairy market

Legal experts see other weaknesses in the Section 338 tariffs.

Harrell and Hillman, for instance, write in Reason that Section 338 authorizes only tariffs that “offset” the harm that a foreign country’s trade practices do to American companies. But in targeting Canada, they note, the Trump administration made no attempt to calculate the dollar amount of damage arising from discrimination against U.S. farmers, automakers and marketers of alcoholic beverages. And the U.S. went after Canadian imports unconnected to those trouble spots, including hockey sticks and cement.

Harrell and Hillman also say that Canada’s protection of its dairy market does not single out U.S. farmers for discrimination; the rules apply to many other Canadian trading partners as well.

Moreover, the United States agreed to the Canadian system — in which Canada imposes stiff tariffs on dairy imports that exceed a quota — in a North America trade pact Trump himself negotiated with Canada and Mexico in his first term. Harrell and Hillman write that it is “incongruous, to say the least, for the United States to denounce as discriminatory the very terms it agreed to.”

But John Veroneau, former general counsel for the U.S. Trade Representative, said the Section 338 tariffs are straightforward: They are justified when another country discriminates against U.S. imports by taxing them more than it taxes imports from other countries.

And in a “perverse irony,” Veroneau said, Canada did just that when it responded to tariffs Trump imposed on Canadian products last year with its own retaliatory tariffs on U.S. imports. “Courts will rightly feel obliged in the face of any challenge [to decide]: Are the statutory requirements met or are they not met, however ludicrous the broader context might be,” said Veroneau, adjunct professor at the University of Maine School of Law.

Plaintiffs are so far hard to find

Trump’s other tools to impose his protectionist agenda already have floundered in court. The Supreme Court in February threw out his boldest gambit: invoking a 1977 national security law to hit almost every country on Earth last year with double-digit tariffs.

When Trump tried to replace the revenue lost to the Supreme Court defeat with a new set of tariffs, a specialized trade court in New York rejected those too — though the government was allowed to continue collecting the import taxes while the case works its way through the court system.

No one has filed a lawsuit challenging the Section 338 tariffs. The Liberty Justice Center has been looking for businesses willing to sue the government over the levies.

“I haven’t had a lot of response from plaintiffs,” Albrecht said. “Anytime you want to sue the government, it’s a hard proposition.” The Section 338 tariffs on Canada are also far smaller — just 5% of Canadian imports — than Trump’s 2025 worldwide tariffs, meaning that fewer companies have to pay them and can claim to have been injured by them.

There’s also a chance, Albrecht said, that the two countries will resume the talks they broke off Aug. 21 and reach a compromise to end a standoff neither country wants. “I’m hopeful that somebody blinks, that they come to some agreement and it all goes away,” she said.