King Charles’s reaction as Harry and Meghan announce shock return to Britain
TRUMP PAUSES 50% CANADA TARIFFS AFTER LAST-MINUTE BREAKTHROUGH — BUT THE DEAL ISN'T DONE AND KEYSTONE XL ISN'T BACK YET
President Donald Trump gave Canada a three-day reprieve from a new round of 50 percent tariffs after late-night negotiations produced what he called a deal — but the most important details are still being negotiated, and the tariffs are scheduled to return if the agreement is not finalized.
The threatened duties had been set to take effect at 12:01 a.m. Eastern time on August 19 on roughly $20 billion in Canadian goods.
Instead, Trump postponed them until 12:01 a.m. Saturday, August 22.
His announcement was characteristically emphatic.
Canada and the United States, he said, had a 'DEAL,' subject to the finalization of documents.
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney used more cautious language. He said the two countries had made 'substantial progress' but still had important work to do.
That distinction matters.
There is a framework. There is a deadline. There is not yet a fully finalized trade agreement.
And as negotiators work toward the new Saturday deadline, the episode has become an unusually clear test of Trump's preferred use of tariffs as bargaining leverage.
The administration's message to Canada was simple: change policies Washington considers discriminatory toward American commerce, or face a new 50 percent tariff on covered Canadian exports.
The legal tool behind that threat was not the emergency-powers statute that powered some of Trump's earlier tariff actions.
It was Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 — an obscure provision that had never previously been used by a president to impose tariffs.
Section 338 allows the president, under specified circumstances, to impose additional duties of up to 50 percent when a foreign country discriminates against U.S. commerce or treats American goods less favorably than comparable goods from another country.
On July 20, Trump issued three proclamations invoking that authority against Canada over alcoholic beverages, dairy products and motor vehicles.
The resulting tariffs were designed to hit a range of Canadian products, including goods such as wine, hockey equipment and cement. Energy, potash, products already subject to certain Section 232 tariffs and several other categories were excluded.
The White House argued that the measures were necessary because Canada had singled out U.S. products for unequal treatment.
There is real evidence behind some of those complaints.
But the timeline is more complicated than the claim that Washington simply tolerated Canadian discrimination for years until Trump finally acted.
Take alcohol.
Beginning in March 2025, Canadian provinces and territories removed U.S. alcoholic beverages from government-controlled purchasing, distribution or retail systems. Ontario's LCBO stopped buying American products, removed them from stores and catalogs, and similar actions followed elsewhere.
U.S. alcohol exports to Canada then collapsed.
But those restrictions were themselves retaliation for tariffs imposed by the Trump administration in 2025.
They were not Biden-era policies that the previous administration quietly accepted.
The same problem applies to the claim about Canadian auto tariffs.
Canada imposed 25 percent duties on certain U.S.-made vehicles beginning in April 2025 after the United States imposed tariffs on the Canadian auto sector.
Those Canadian duties remain a major source of tension, but they are retaliatory measures from the current Trump-era trade conflict — not a grievance that existed unchanged throughout the Biden presidency.
Dairy is different.
The United States has been fighting Canada over dairy market access for years, including under President Joe Biden.
Canada uses tariff-rate quotas, or TRQs, to control access to portions of its dairy market. The United States has repeatedly argued that the way Canada allocates those quotas restricts the ability of American farmers, exporters, retailers and food-service operators to fully use the market access promised under the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement.
The Biden administration did not simply ignore that dispute.
In 2021 it advanced the first USMCA dispute panel over Canada's dairy quota system. In January 2022, the United States won a significant ruling finding that Canada's reservation of much of its dairy quota for Canadian processors violated USMCA commitments.
The Biden administration then challenged Canada's revised policies again in 2022 and 2023. A later panel rejected most of those additional U.S. claims, although one panelist sided with Washington on a key eligibility issue.
So the dairy dispute is real. The claim that Biden simply 'accepted' it is not.
That history does not diminish what is unusual about Trump's current strategy.
Instead of relying only on USMCA dispute procedures, negotiations or narrower trade remedies, the administration reached for Section 338 and attached a 50 percent tariff deadline to the dispute.
The threat was unusually direct.
And it produced movement.
Trump announced the three-day pause only shortly before the tariffs were scheduled to begin.
Since then, Canadian and U.S. negotiators have been meeting intensively in Washington.
Canada's trade minister, Dominic LeBlanc, said Thursday that the two sides were 'very close' to an agreement while cautioning that more work remained.
U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer has said the prospective agreement would improve market access and include provisions dealing with economic security and digital trade.
Other details being discussed are potentially significant.
Reuters has reported that the proposed agreement could reduce the top-line U.S. tariff on Canadian-built cars and trucks from 25 percent to 15 percent and cut tariffs on Canadian steel and aluminum from 50 percent to 25 percent, with quota limits potentially applying to metals.
Canada, meanwhile, has been discussing changes involving retaliatory auto tariffs, dairy quota treatment and the return of U.S. alcohol to provincial stores.
Those terms are still being negotiated.
Until a final agreement is reached, they should not be described as completed concessions.
The provincial alcohol issue illustrates why.
Ottawa does not directly control many of the stores involved. Canadian provinces regulate alcohol distribution, which means Prime Minister Carney needs provincial cooperation to fully resolve one of Washington's major complaints.
Ontario Premier Doug Ford has already opened the door.
Ford said he would be 'more than happy' to return American alcohol to Ontario shelves if Canada secures what he considers a fair deal protecting sectors such as steel, autos, forestry, agriculture and manufacturing.
Other premiers remain more skeptical, and polling suggests many Canadians want Carney to avoid further concessions.
That political resistance is one reason the final agreement cannot be treated as a foregone conclusion.
Then there is the part of Trump's announcement that attracted the most attention.
'The great Keystone XL Pipeline ... may be awoken from the grave!' Trump wrote.
The phrase immediately revived one of the most politically charged energy projects of the last two decades.
Keystone XL was designed to carry roughly 830,000 barrels per day of Canadian crude from Alberta into the United States, eventually feeding Gulf Coast refineries.
Barack Obama's administration rejected the project. Trump revived it during his first term. Joe Biden revoked a key cross-border permit on his first day in office in January 2021.
TC Energy formally terminated the project later that year.
But Trump's post does not mean the original Keystone XL project has actually been restarted.
The corporate and regulatory landscape has changed substantially since 2021.
TC Energy later spun off its oil-pipeline business into South Bow. South Bow has said it moved on from the original Keystone XL project and is now developing a different proposal called Prairie Connector with Bridger Pipeline.
That project would use some pipe originally intended for Keystone XL, follow a different route and carry an estimated 550,000 barrels per day from Alberta toward Wyoming.
South Bow has said it expects to decide in 2027 whether to proceed and wants confidence that any U.S. presidential permit would survive future administrations.
Reuters has also reported that Carney previously raised the idea of reviving Keystone XL as a possible area of U.S.-Canada cooperation.
So Keystone is part of the political conversation. It is not yet a confirmed term of the current trade agreement.
The jobs argument surrounding the old project also deserves precision.
Keystone XL would have created thousands of temporary construction jobs. A U.S. State Department analysis during the Obama administration estimated roughly 5,000 to 6,000 direct construction jobs over about two years.
But the same federal analysis concluded the project would not have had a significant effect on long-term U.S. employment.
That does not make the project economically meaningless. It does mean sweeping claims that its cancellation permanently destroyed enormous numbers of lasting jobs go beyond the government's own historical estimate.
The environmental comparison is similarly contested.
Supporters have long argued that pipelines can move crude more efficiently and with lower operating emissions than rail or truck alternatives. Opponents focused on spill risk, Indigenous and land concerns, and the broader climate consequences of expanding oil-sands production.
Those arguments did not disappear because Trump mentioned Keystone in a trade post.
What has changed is the leverage structure around the U.S.-Canada negotiations.
The 50 percent Section 338 tariffs are no longer an abstract threat.
Trump formally proclaimed them. They were scheduled to begin Wednesday. He then suspended their start for three days after negotiations accelerated.
If no further agreement or postponement is announced, the tariffs are scheduled to take effect at 12:01 a.m. Eastern on Saturday.
That gives both governments a real deadline — and both governments a reason to compromise.
For Trump, the episode supports the argument that a credible tariff threat can force trading partners back to the table.
For Canada, the calculation is more complicated.
Roughly 70 percent of Canadian exports go to the United States, making Canada especially exposed to a sharp escalation in tariffs. At the same time, Carney faces pressure at home not to concede too much to Washington after 18 months of trade conflict.
And for American businesses, the strategy is not cost-free.
Importers, retailers and manufacturers facing the threatened duties have warned that prolonged uncertainty and higher tariffs can increase costs, disrupt supply chains and threaten jobs on both sides of the border.
That is the tradeoff at the center of Trump's approach.
Tariffs can create leverage precisely because they create economic pain.
Whether that pain produces a durable agreement or simply another temporary truce is what the next few hours will determine.
Several facts are already clear.
Trump used Section 338 in a way no previous president had used it to impose tariffs.
The administration threatened 50 percent duties on roughly $20 billion of Canadian goods.
The deadline was pushed back three days after intensive negotiations.
Canada and the United States say they are close to an agreement, but the documents are not yet finalized.
And Keystone XL has returned to the conversation — not to operation.
That last distinction may be the most important one.
A tariff threat has already changed the negotiating environment.
But the real test of the strategy is not whether Canada came back to the table.
May you like
It is what is actually written into the final deal — if there is one — when the clock reaches midnight.
