JUST NOW: Canada WALKED AWAY — Now Americans Want Them BACK
CANADIAN TOURISM PULLBACK STILL HITS VERMONT AS U.S.–CANADA TRADE FIGHT FLARES AGAIN
Burlington businesses say the loss of Canadian visitors remains painful, even as 2026 data show a partial rebound from last year’s collapse
BURLINGTON, Vt. — Updated September 10, 2026
FACT-CHECK AT A GLANCE
• A September 3 CBC report from Burlington documented businesses saying the loss of Canadian visitors is still hurting restaurants, hotels, shops and Lake Champlain tourism operators.
• Vermont says roughly 750,000 Canadians visited in a typical pre-2025 year and spent nearly $150 million. Canadian visitor spending fell 47% in 2025, an estimated $75 million loss in direct spending.
• The latest Vermont data show some rebound: June 2026 Canadian credit-card spending was up 26% from June 2025 and year-to-date spending was up 5%. But 2025 was an unusually depressed comparison year.
• Nationally, Statistics Canada says Canadian residents made 25% fewer return trips from the United States in 2025 and spent C$3.3 billion less there. The viral “35% / $4.5 billion” formulation mixes a two-year car-travel comparison with a separate industry estimate.
• July 2026 travel from the U.S. rebounded 10.2% year over year, but Canadian car trips were still 28.9% below July 2024 and air trips 26.8% below July 2024.
• U.S. tariffs are collected from U.S. importers. Consumers and businesses can bear much of the cost through higher prices, but it is too absolute to say every tariff dollar is ultimately paid by consumers.
• The downturn cannot be attributed to one cause alone. Political tensions and tariffs are prominent factors, but exchange rates, travel costs, border concerns and safety perceptions also matter.
BURLINGTON, Vt. — The sharp retreat of Canadian travelers from the United States is still visible in northern Vermont, where businesses built around a long, easy relationship with Quebec say politics at the federal level has become a local economic problem. A September 3 CBC report from Burlington showed quieter restaurants, lighter traffic at tourist businesses and owners openly questioning whether marketing campaigns can overcome the renewed deterioration in U.S.–Canada relations.
The underlying story is real: Canadian travel to the United States fell steeply in 2025, Vermont was hit especially hard, and the decline has not been fully reversed. But the viral retelling attached to the report exaggerates some figures, treats estimates as hard losses and turns a complicated economic shift into a single-cause narrative. The strongest version of the story is not that a border town suddenly lost every Canadian visitor. It is that a historically dependable tourism market remains far below its earlier baseline while another round of trade conflict threatens a fragile recovery.
What the CBC Report Actually Showed
The CBC segment, reported by Alexander Silberman, focused on Burlington, less than an hour by car from the Canadian border and economically connected to nearby Montreal. It featured Homeport owner Mark Bouchette, Lake Champlain cruise operator Mike Shea and Jeff Lawson of the Lake Champlain Chamber of Commerce. Their comments described a tourism economy that still feels the disappearance of Canadian customers even as some visitors have started to return.
“For restaurants and hotels, it's devastating.”
Mark Bouchette, Homeport owner, in the September 3 CBC report
Shea said his Spirit of Ethan Allen cruise business saw almost no Canadians last year and only a modest improvement this summer. Lawson described the loss as especially painful because Burlington is geographically and culturally close to Montreal. Those observations are anecdotal, but they align with state-level data showing a major 2025 decline in Canadian spending.
Vermont’s Numbers: A Severe 2025 Drop, Followed by a Partial Rebound
Vermont’s own economic-development reporting provides the clearest baseline. Before 2025, about 750,000 Canadians visited the state in a typical year and spent nearly $150 million annually. In northern border counties, Canadians often accounted for 30% or more of tourism. In 2025, Canadian visitor spending fell 47%, which the state estimated as a loss of roughly $75 million in direct spending.
That makes the transcript’s claim that Canadian credit-card spending “plummeted by more than 40%” directionally correct for the 2025 collapse. But it needs a time label. Vermont’s latest Visa Destination Insights data show June 2026 spending from Canada was 26% above June 2025 and year-to-date spending through June was 5% higher than the same period in 2025. The state itself warns that this comparison is against an unusually weak year. A rebound from a collapsed base is not the same thing as a return to 2024 levels.
The National Picture: The Boycott Is Real, but the Viral Numbers Need Context
At the national level, Statistics Canada reports that Canadian residents made 25% fewer return trips from the United States in 2025 than in 2024. Travel spending in the United States declined by C$3.3 billion, from C$22.1 billion to C$18.8 billion. That is the most defensible official measure of the annual decline.
The frequently repeated claim that Canadian travel is “down 35%” and has cost the United States “$4.5 billion” combines different measurements. The 35% figure has been used for Canadian car travel in particular months compared with 2024, not for all Canadian travel nationwide. The $4.5 billion figure is an industry-style estimate derived by applying an estimated 22% visitation decline to roughly $20.5 billion in 2024 Canadian visitor spending. It is useful as a rough economic illustration, but it should not be presented as Statistics Canada’s measured loss.
More recent data also complicate a simple collapse narrative. In July 2026, Canadian-resident return trips from the United States rose 10.2% compared with July 2025, the fourth consecutive month of year-over-year growth. Yet Statistics Canada cautioned that this was largely a base-year effect: automobile trips were still 28.9% below July 2024, while air trips were 26.8% below that earlier benchmark. At the same time, U.S.-resident trips to Canada were up 6.5% from July 2025 — not a vague 6% to 12% range.
Why Canadians Are Staying Away
Political anger is clearly part of the story. Canadian surveys and interviews repeatedly cite U.S. tariffs, annexation rhetoric, border concerns and a broader feeling that the United States has become a less welcoming destination. The renewed trade fight gives travelers who were reconsidering the boycott another reason to stay home or choose other countries.
But a publishable account should resist claiming that every missing trip is a political protest. Statistics Canada and other travel research also point to a weaker Canadian dollar, higher airfare and hotel costs, and changing travel preferences. Some Canadians continue to visit family, attend events or travel for business even when they disagree with Washington. Others have made an explicit moral or political decision not to spend in the United States.
“We really don’t know that we can market our way through somebody’s moral decisions.”
Jeff Lawson, Lake Champlain Chamber of Commerce, in the CBC report
That quote captures the central problem for local tourism officials: a hotel discount can address price, but it cannot easily overcome a traveler’s objection to national policy.
Tariffs Are Taxes — but Who Bears the Cost Is More Complicated
The viral commentary says tariffs are taxes “ultimately paid by U.S. consumers.” The first half is straightforward: U.S. Customs and Border Protection collects import duties from the importer of record. The broader economic burden is less mechanical. Importers can absorb some costs, foreign producers can cut prices, businesses can change suppliers, and retailers can pass part or much of the cost to consumers. Congressional Research Service reviews have found that U.S. firms and consumers often bear a large share of tariff costs, but the exact incidence varies by product and market conditions.
That distinction matters because the tourism losses in Vermont are not a tariff collected at a border booth. They are an indirect response: Canadian households deciding not to book a hotel room, eat in a restaurant, shop on Church Street or buy a cruise ticket. Those decisions can impose costs on American businesses even though the businesses themselves did not set federal trade policy.
Vermont Is Caught in a Fight It Does Not Control
It is rhetorically tempting to say “Vermont did not vote for this trade war,” but that is not literally how policy works. States do not cast a separate vote on federal tariffs, and Vermonters do not all share one political view. The defensible point is narrower: many Vermont business owners and state tourism officials have publicly opposed the deterioration in relations with Canada because their local economy depends heavily on cross-border travel and trade.
That is why Burlington businesses have displayed Canadian flags, offered Canadian discounts and briefly embraced “Canada Street” messaging on Church Street. The outreach is an attempt to separate the local welcome from the national dispute. Whether Canadian travelers accept that distinction is ultimately their choice.
The Trade Fight Has Escalated Again Since the Report Aired
The September 3 CBC segment aired before another major escalation. Canada imposed retaliatory tariffs of 15%, 25% and 50% on C$27.6 billion of U.S. imports effective September 8, matching U.S. measures that Ottawa said had hit the same value of Canadian goods. Washington has since announced additional import restrictions on selected Canadian products scheduled to take effect later in September. Those moves make it harder for tourism officials to sell a narrative that the political temperature is cooling.
That does not mean the travel rebound will automatically reverse. July showed that some Canadians were already returning, helped in part by comparisons with a very weak 2025 and by World Cup travel. But the two-year comparison remains stark, and the latest trade measures create a fresh test for the fall and winter tourism seasons.
Conclusion: The Empty Tables Are Real — the Simplified Story Is Not
The strongest evidence supports the central image in the original commentary: Vermont businesses are feeling the consequences when Canadian travelers choose not to come. The state really did lose roughly half of Canadian visitor spending in 2025, and national U.S.-bound travel from Canada remains far below 2024 levels even after a partial 2026 rebound.
What the evidence does not support is collapsing every number into a single slogan. Vermont did not literally lose 750,000 visitors in one stroke; the $150 million figure is a typical annual contribution, not a measured loss; the $4.5 billion national figure is an estimate rather than the official Statistics Canada spending decline; and tariffs are paid first by importers, with the final economic burden distributed through markets.
The more durable conclusion is also the more consequential one: a trade and political dispute between Washington and Ottawa is producing measurable spillovers in American communities that rely on Canadian customers. Burlington can advertise discounts and wave Canadian flags, but it cannot independently repair the bilateral relationship. For businesses near the border, the most expensive thing may still be the trip a Canadian family decides not to take.
🚨Iran LAUNCHES BIGGEST STRIKES YET…
IRAN’S MISSILE BARRAGE DAMAGES U.S. WARPLANES IN JORDAN AFTER AMERICA DESTROYS FIVE OIL TANKERS
Tehran answered U.S. strikes in the Strait of Hormuz with ballistic missiles aimed at a key American air hub. Jordan says most incoming missiles were intercepted — but reports indicate an A-10 and multiple F-15s were still hit, turning a maritime clash into a direct test of U.S. air defenses.
WASHINGTON / AMMAN — Updated September 10, 2026
The U.S.–Iran war has just produced one of its most dangerous escalations in weeks — and this time, American aircraft were caught in the blast zone.
After U.S. forces destroyed five Iranian crude-oil tankers on September 8, Iran fired ballistic missiles toward Muwaffaq Salti Air Base in Jordan, a major hub used by American forces. Jordan says its air defenses engaged 20 incoming ballistic missiles and destroyed 18. The other two fell in unpopulated areas, and Jordan reported no casualties.
Yet the barrage was not entirely stopped. People familiar with the damage told CBS News, and Air & Space Forces Magazine later confirmed, that one A-10 Thunderbolt II suffered severe damage to a wing while roughly eight F-15E Strike Eagles sustained lighter damage. The F-15s were considered serviceable or returned to service. No U.S. fatalities were reported.
That combination is what makes the episode so consequential: the defenses worked against most of the incoming threat, but enough got through to damage high-value American aircraft. In a war increasingly defined by missiles, tankers, chokepoints and shrinking margins for error, even a limited penetration can carry strategic weight far beyond the runway it hits.
The Strike That Punched Through
Muwaffaq Salti is not an obscure outpost. The base, near Al-Azraq in eastern Jordan, has become a key node for U.S. air operations in the region. Jordan is one of Washington’s closest Arab security partners, and thousands of U.S. service members are stationed across multiple facilities in the kingdom.
Iran’s Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps said the attack was retaliation for the U.S. tanker strikes and claimed it had hit aircraft shelters, maintenance areas and locations associated with F-15, F-16 and F-35 operations. Those sweeping claims went far beyond what independent reporting has established. There was no confirmed evidence that F-35s were destroyed, nor that Iran wiped out large numbers of American aircraft.
But the confirmed damage is serious enough on its own. An A-10 — the famously rugged close-air-support jet known as the Warthog — was reported to have suffered major wing damage. Around eight F-15s were reported to have sustained lighter damage and were returned to service or judged serviceable. For a base protected by layered air defenses, even that limited damage is a reminder that no shield is absolute.
Thirty-Plus Patriots — And a Growing Question About the Defensive Cost
CBS reporter Jennifer Jacobs, citing sources familiar with the response, reported that American forces in Jordan launched more than 30 Patriot missiles during the defense of the base. That number has not been detailed in a public CENTCOM after-action statement, but it immediately raised a question that military planners have wrestled with throughout the conflict: how much does it cost to stop repeated waves of relatively cheaper offensive missiles?
Videos circulating online appeared to show multiple interceptors in the sky, followed by later impacts. The original transcript accompanying those videos claimed U.S. defenses had effectively run out of interceptors by later waves. Publicly available evidence does not establish that conclusion. Jordan’s official account says 18 of 20 ballistic missiles were intercepted, while U.S. reporting confirms that some incoming weapons or their effects were nevertheless sufficient to damage aircraft.
That is a more complicated picture than either side’s propaganda suggests. Tehran can point to visible damage. Washington and Amman can point to a high interception rate and the absence of fatalities. Both facts can be true at the same time — and together they show why another round could become more dangerous.
Five Iranian Tankers Became the Immediate Trigger
The barrage followed a blunt American move at sea. U.S. Central Command said its forces destroyed five Iranian crude-oil carriers on September 8 after the IRGC twice targeted a U.S. Navy warship with ballistic missiles over the preceding two days. CENTCOM said the American vessel evaded the attacks and no U.S. personnel were harmed.
The five tankers identified by CENTCOM were the Kaviz, Charminar, Horizon 1, Riesco and Derya. Four were struck in the Gulf of Oman and the Derya near Kharg Island. CENTCOM said crews were directed to abandon the vessels before they were hit and rendered inoperable.
Secretary of State Marco Rubio made the U.S. message explicit. ‘For every time they do that or try to do that, they’re going to lose tankers,’ he told reporters while traveling in Colombia. The statement amounted to a warning that Washington was prepared to impose a direct economic cost every time Iran tried to hit American naval forces.
“For every time they do that or try to do that, they’re going to lose tankers.”
— Secretary of State Marco Rubio
The Strait of Hormuz Is Becoming the War’s Pressure Valve
What began as another exchange of military fire is now colliding with the world economy. Iran said it attacked 10 ships near the Strait of Hormuz after the U.S. tanker strikes, including two American vessels — claims the United States has disputed where its own warships are concerned. Separate maritime incidents left at least one seafarer dead and another missing, according to reporting from the region.
The renewed fighting shattered a period of relative calm and pushed Brent crude above $100 a barrel. That number matters well beyond trading screens. The Strait of Hormuz is one of the world’s most critical energy chokepoints, and every missile launch, tanker strike or threat of a new exclusion zone adds a risk premium that can move from the Gulf to American gasoline prices with startling speed.
For U.S. voters, that turns a distant military confrontation into a kitchen-table issue. A prolonged cycle of tanker strikes and missile retaliation could raise transportation and energy costs at the same moment Washington is entering the final stretch before the midterm elections.
Jordan Is No Longer Just Watching the War
Jordan’s role is becoming increasingly uncomfortable. The kingdom has long relied on its security partnership with the United States, but that partnership also makes Jordanian territory a target when Tehran chooses to strike American forces without attacking the continental United States.
The Jordan Armed Forces said the latest missiles came directly from Iranian territory and that its air-defense systems destroyed 18 of 20. Specialized teams were sent to secure debris sites, and the military urged citizens not to approach unidentified fragments. No casualties were reported by Jordan.
That official account sharply contrasts with some of the most dramatic videos and claims spreading online. It also underscores the political dilemma facing Amman: Jordan must defend its airspace and its American partnership while trying to prevent the country from becoming a permanent front line in a U.S.–Iran war.
The Most Alarming Part May Be What Comes Next
Neither side is describing the latest exchange as the end of the confrontation. Iran has portrayed its missile attacks as punishment for U.S. strikes and has threatened further action. Washington has signaled that attacks or attempted attacks on American naval forces will continue to bring retaliation against Iranian economic and military-linked assets.
That creates a dangerous feedback loop. Iran fires at U.S. ships. The U.S. destroys tankers. Iran answers with ballistic missiles at a base hosting U.S. aircraft. Air defenses shoot down most of the barrage, but several American jets are still damaged. Each side then uses the previous strike to justify the next one.
The result is a conflict in which a single missile that gets through, a misidentified target at sea, or a strike that causes mass casualties could change the political calculation overnight. So far, the latest Jordan attack produced damaged aircraft but no reported American deaths. The next exchange may not be as contained.
Bottom Line
Iran’s missile barrage did not produce the mass destruction claimed in some online accounts. It did something strategically significant anyway: it penetrated enough of a heavily defended environment to damage American combat aircraft at a key regional base.
At the same time, the United States has shown it is willing to hit Iran where the pressure is economic as well as military, destroying five tankers after attempted attacks on a Navy warship. The two sides are now striking at each other’s ability to operate — in the air, at sea and through the energy lifelines that finance and sustain the fight.
That is the real shock of this episode. The war is no longer escalating along a single front. It is connecting air bases in Jordan, warships in regional waters, Iranian tankers near the Gulf of Oman and oil prices felt by consumers thousands of miles away. And every new retaliation is making the next one harder to contain.
