Agreed that "Canada is taxing you back" doesn't make sense. But "America is taxing Canada" makes even less sense. Sorry, just no. America is taxing Americans, Canada is taxing Canadians, these taxes harm exports and imports.

Also, we've never had fully free trade. You can whine about dairy, we can whine about unfair lumber tariffs. These are all part of CUMSA, an agreement that has been illegally violated every damn day under Trump's regime. Let's just cut to the chase. If Trump won't honour CUMSA why make any deal with him? There is no reason he'll honour any new agreement either. He was the one who negotiated CUMSA in the first place.

> But "America is taxing Canada" makes even less sense

I don’t disagree. I just wanted to point out the framing needs to be consistent, which I think you agree with.

I also agree with you with respect to free trade. Every exporter is a free trade proponent. Curious how when it comes to imports or protecting domestic industries all of a sudden every country in the planet puts up some sort of protectionist barrier.

The administration faces steep legal headwinds. Having already lost at the Supreme Court over the misuse of the IEEPA, the courts are likely to view Section 338 with significant skepticism.

The statutory requirements of Section 338—specifically requiring a formal finding of discriminatory disadvantage against U.S. goods (hard to prove under CUSMA’s preferential framework) and strictly "offsetting" remedies—make the sweeping 50% broad-based tariffs legally vulnerable.

Likely Outcome in Court: A federal court will likely grant an injunction temporarily staying the tariffs pending a full review, or strike them down entirely as exceeding executive statutory authority under Article I of the Constitution.