How will Trump’s tariffs affect Canada? We answer your questions about the U.S. election

Open this photo in gallery:

On Nov. 12, Globe correspondents Nathan VanderKlippe and Adrian Morrow, along with columnists Marsha Lederman and Konrad Yakabuski, answered reader questions about the 2024 U.S. election.

VanderKlippe and Morrow have been on the ground in the U.S. throughout the past few years, reporting on the people and places that would go on to decide the election, while Lederman and Yakabuski have worked to help readers make sense of the results.

Readers asked about how Trump‘s incoming tariffs could impact Canada, what went wrong for Democrats, JD Vance‘s role in the new administration and what we can expect from Trump’s second term. Here are some highlights from the Q&A.

Questions and answers have been edited for length and clarity

Trump’s big win

In what ways was the U.S. election different than in 2020? How did voter priorities change?

Adrian Morrow: For one, in 2020 Trump had to contend with voter anger over how badly the pandemic was managed in the U.S. compared to other wealthy countries. A lot of Democratic voters were also motivated by the murder of George Floyd. And Biden benefited from being able to run a cautious front-runner’s campaign that made the entire election a referendum on Trump. Trump certainly motivated a lot of voters, too (he got a lot more votes in 2020 than in 2016) but on balance, the circumstances favoured the Dems. It probably didn’t help the GOP that Trump disparaged mail-in voting at a time when that’s how most people wanted to vote.

In 2024, the Democrats had to defend against attacks on inflation and the border. They banked on abortion and Trump-as-threat-to-democracy being their motivating issues but these clearly didn’t work as well for them. So much about Trump was substantially the same through both campaigns (immigration has always been his signature issue) but the world around him was more favourable to his chances in 2024 than in 2020.

The lead interview in this story, from a Black church in Georgia last winter, sort of encapsulates the difference in issues. Here was a guy who voted Dem in 2020 because he felt Trump was messing up in the pandemic and causing too much chaos in the White House. But by this year, he was more concerned about the border and how much money the U.S. was spending on Ukraine. All Trump needed to win was a small layer of these voters in a handful of states to either change their support to him or to just stay home

Marsha Lederman: There were a couple of huge factors that were not in play in 2020: the cost-of-living crisis (as my colleague Nathan Vanderklippe put it in his excellent piece this weekend: “maybe it’s the inflation, stupid”).

The other huge factor is the war in Gaza. Muslims were largely the target of Trump’s previous odious edict known colloquially as the “Muslim travel ban,” but as we saw in Dearborn, Michigan, Muslim-Americans voted for Trump this time around. More to the point, they voted against Kamala Harris (and Joe Biden) because of their views and actions in the Israel/Gaza war.

Open this photo in gallery:

What went wrong for Democrats in this election? And what went so right for Trump?

Nathan VanderKlippe: In looking at some of the voter surveys, I was particularly struck by the ways household wealth correlated quite closely to support for Trump. The wealthiest households in the U.S. actually voted for Harris in greater numbers than they did for Biden four years ago. But as you go down the socio-economic ladder, more and more voters swung in Trump’s direction. In the lowest-income households, Harris underperformed Biden by six points. Trump picked up much of that.

I don’t think it’s a coincidence that, by some measures, lower-income households also experienced some of the worst hardships from the pandemic and inflation, which consumed much of the last four years.

For Democrats, a pretty fundamental question is how they arrived at a point where the Republican party has made itself the choice of disadvantaged Americans. Senator Bernie Sanders was particularly withering in his assessment on this.

Lederman: I’ve been thinking a lot about this, in particular as it relates to female voters. How on Earth could they vote for the guy with such repugnant views on (and actions against) women?

How? Because they’ve decided that’s less important than more pressing matters in their daily lives. I think what went wrong for Democrats was, in large part, the world as it is. Americans are living through an affordability crisis that began with the Democrats in power. It’s easy to hold them responsible – especially when the Republicans are broadcasting that message ad nauseam – and to believe the Republicans when they tell voters that they will “fix it.” No specifics needed! This was a desperate electorate desperate for change, and willing to take another chance on Trump – even if they find him unsavoury, even if they find his views on their own selves (women, Latinos) hard to take. Because the cost-of-living status quo is even harder to take.

How did Trump’s 2024 campaign differ from his previous two?

Konrad Yakabuski: In 2016 and 2024, Trump ran as the challenger. In 2020, he ran as the incumbent. So, it does seem that Trump does better on offence than defence. It is harder to tap into the grievances or frustrations of voters if you are defending your record. But Trump excels at attacking the establishment types, elites and globalists who he alleges do not care about working-class Americans. Most observers also agree that Trump’s 2024 campaign was the most “professional” he has ever run, thanks mostly to his campaign co-chair (and soon-to-be chief of staff) Susie Wiles. His team obviously did much more pre-election preparation than in 2016 or 2020. Their ability to get “low propensity” voters to the polls was key to his victory this year.

VanderKlippe: It was a sharper campaign in a few ways. Trump benefited from better help, both from the cool-headed guidance of Wiles and from the resources of Elon Musk, who used X and his own immense wealth to help turn out voters in Trump’s favour.

It was a sharper, darker campaign, too, in the way Trump spoke. I reviewed a series of late-campaign Trump rallies from 2016 and from 2024, and was struck by some of the changes in his language.

Trump now accuses foreign countries of actively “stealing” jobs, rather than, as he did before, merely lamenting U.S. losses. He has taken to blaming illegal migrants for seizing employment from Black and Latino communities, a departure from less pointed critiques of what he once called bad policies.

He has also winked at violence in more overt ways. “I don’t mind” if someone were to shoot through reporters in an assassination attempt, he said shortly before election day.

But I was even more struck by just how little had changed. Trump’s diagnosis of American problems (immigration; foreign countries “taking advantage” of the U.S.) and his proposed solutions (drastic action on migrants; tariffs) remain essentially the same today as they did eight years ago. You could transpose entire portions of his 2016 speeches into his 2024 rallies without anyone noticing.

What this means for Canada

What is the best case scenario that Canada could expect with Trump in office?

VanderKlippe: For Ottawa, the priority will almost certainly be to carve out exemptions on tariffs and to make the case that manufacturing, energy and other industries are so integrated that it doesn’t make sense to treat Canada differently from the U.S.

But perhaps more than anything, Canadian leadership will likely want to be ignored, in hopes of maintaining the status quo. On that, they might take some reassurance from Project 2025, the vaunted Heritage Foundation document that sketches plans for a second Trump presidency. It’s nearly 900 pages long, and its main text mentions Canada, by my count, just 12 times.

How will tariffs impact the Canadian economy?

Morrow: The U.S. president has fairly wide latitude on trade policy: even though it’s assigned to Congress in the Constitution, a series of laws over the years have delegated decision-making power to the president. That said, almost any tariffs Trump enacts would be challenged in the courts and he would certainly be under pressure from at least some Republican members of Congress and various businesses and business groups. So there might be some restraint there.

But Trump seems to sincerely believe that tariffs are good economic policy (not just a negotiating tactic) so his motivation to impose them broadly will be strong. The effect would be sharp on Canada: $45-billion, according to the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, or about $1,100 per Canadian, in lost annual income. Of course, this would not be distributed equally. Some industries, like auto manufacturing, oil and gas, and mining would be disproportionately hit with layoffs and reduced hours. The U.S. would also face higher prices on consumer goods (inflation!), but likely the effects would be less severe than they would be for Canada because their internal market is so huge.

Open this photo in gallery:

How will Trudeau’s fraught relationship with Trump affect Canada’s ability to make beneficial deals with the U.S.?

Yakabuski: It is all but certain that Trump is keenly aware of Trudeau’s unpopularity in Canada. During Trump’s first term, Trudeau was still a U.S media star and that impressed Trump. Since then, Trump’s base has been exposed to relentless Trudeau-bashing on Fox News and the alt-right media. So, Trump knows that his voters do not like Trudeau and that is likely to impact to some degree their relationship. That said, Trump is transactional, and he is more interested in being able to claim gains in trade and foreign relations. So understanding that is the key to successful Canada-U.S. relations under Trump. Trudeau and Chrystia Freeland know that and have more experience dealing with Trump and his people than anyone else in Ottawa.

What impact would Trump have on immigration in Canada? Will we see more restrictions come in as a result of his policies?

VanderKlippe: We‘re already seeing some of this. See my colleagues’ reporting from today:

Immigration Minister Marc Miller says the federal government is ready to work with the United States as it implements president-elect Donald Trump’s promises to crack down on immigration, but he wants anyone hoping to come to Canada to do so legally.

But if Trump makes good on even half his promises for deportations, it’s reasonable to expect upheaval at the U.S.-Canada border. Many migrants who entered the U.S. illegally did so in hopes of finding a better economic future. Many also left in fear of conditions in their home countries. If you were a migrant desperate to avoid returning home and you knew there was a border to Canada that extends for thousands of kilometres without visible obstacles to crossing – what would you do?

How might Trump’s win influence talking points from Canada’s federal and provincial right wing?

Lederman: My fear is that some parties on this side of the border will feel empowered/enabled/inspired by Trump’s win and the anti-trans talking points that got him there. We might not have noticed it here, but the anti-trans stance was central in Trump’s campaign, with a barrage of fearmongering TV ads highlighting that issue. This played to their base, but also, as this illuminating Wall Street Journal essay pointed out, to more middle-of-the-road voters who are tired of the culture wars. “Loving acceptance of trans people was transformed into speech control, and a consumer pool for Big Pharma’s hormone treatments. Empowerment of educators became disregard for the well-being of kids. Opposition to racism morphed into elaborate and profitable shaming rituals.” (Ann Bauer’s words, not mine.)

So, brace yourselves.

Yakabuski: The Trump campaign seized on the transgender rights issue, which had traction especially with voters who might not have otherwise engaged in politics. It is true that some conservative Canadian politicians have championed parental rights in decision-making regarding transgender children and teens. In the case of Alberta’s Danielle Smith, it’s more about keeping the far-right wing of her own party on board with her leadership, not about winning an election. And you could argue that ex-New Brunswick premier Blaine Higgs paid a high political price for politicizing this issue. He lost his own seat in last month’s provincial election. Hopefully, Pierre Poilievre took note.

Looking ahead

What unique role will JD Vance play in this administration, and what do you expect from him?

Morrow: The fact that Vance got Trump to pick him despite having previously compared the Donald to Hitler, among other unflattering comments, suggests the soon-to-be-veep is good at managing his new boss. The thing about Vance is that he actually does agree with Trump about some fundamentals, particularly on economic nationalism and the benefits of trade protectionism. So I would expect him to wield real influence in the same way that a handful of people who fully backed Trump’s agenda – think Stephen Miller and Robert Lighthizer – managed to stay on his good side throughout his first term. As you suggest: Vance’s biggest downside is the risk of upstaging his boss, particularly by making another “cat ladies”-type comment.

VanderKlippe: Navigating personalities and political priorities has always been a struggle for those in Mr. Trump’s orbit.

We’ve seen Mr. Vance occupy a lot of the limelight in defending and advancing Mr. Trump’s agenda. To date, we haven’t seen major signs of discord between the two. Indeed, the campaign seemed to show JD Vance managing this quite deftly. But whether he can continue to do so in the White House will be a key question, particularly given the history of many others trying and failing during Mr. Trump’s first term.

It’s not hard to envision an administration where Mr. Vance takes a pretty strong background role on the policy areas where he seems to have the greatest interest – in particular, in fashioning a new kind of American protectionism – while Mr. Trump takes the spotlight.

It’s also not hard to envision a future falling out.

Open this photo in gallery:

Yakabuski: I think it’s safe to say that Vance could be as central to Trump’s second term as Joe Biden was to Barack Obama’s first term. That is, very important. We’re already seeing that in the formation of Trump’s cabinet. While it’s true that Trump does not like to share the limelight, he may make an exception for Vance, who is by all accounts the MAGA heir apparent. Vance was instrumental in helping Trump win the Blue Wall states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin. He had credibility among Trump’s working-class base and is, in many ways, a much more articulate and coherent purveyor of Trumpism.

What’s at stake for women’s reproductive care with Trump’s victory?

Lederman: A lot. I’m trying not to fear-monger, but with Trump in the White House, there is no chance of a federal constitutional restoration of reproductive rights. He has made it very clear that he’s leaving that to the states, and we have already seen the restrictions put in place by many states since the fall of Roe v. Wade – 21 states. That translates to huge swaths of American women living in states with abortion bans – many with no exceptions, even for rape or incest. There are cities in Texas now looking to bring in travel bans – so a woman who was pregnant would not even be allowed to travel to another city to receive care. This is freaking terrifying.

Also, I don’t believe him. How can you believe anything this guy says? Project 2025 dictates Handmaid’s Tale-level societal changes, and that is apparently Trump’s blueprint.

I do take heart in the fact that voters in seven states (out of 10) passed abortion rights measures, including Missouri, where a full ban has been in place. It will also become much more broadly legal again in Arizona. Trump, paradoxically, won both those states (as well as Nevada and Montana, which also voted in favour of abortion rights last week).

But I have to stress that this is not just about abortion, but about reproductive care, as the questioner notes. If medical professionals continue to be afraid of the legal implications of helping a woman who is miscarrying, as we have already seen happening in the U.S. since the fall of Roe, that will continue to be a travesty.

And if you want to never sleep again, have a read through these 900 pages of Project 2025.

Yakabuski: Probably not much. There is little likelihood that Trump would support a national abortion ban. He repeatedly said during the campaign that the issue is for states to decide. Swing state senators and House members are unlikely to push for either a ban or legislative restoration of Roe v. Wade. There are just not the votes in Congress for either. Reproductive rights turned out to be far less important in mobilizing Democratic voters in swing states this year, since most of these states (except for Georgia) have among the most liberal abortion laws in the country.