LeBlanc heading to Washington after Carney says CUSMA 'broken' by U.S. tariffs
By The Canadian Press
March 05, 2026
Former ministry of finance special advisor Julian Karaguesian says Dominic LeBlanc may want to ‘scope out the parameters’ of a new trade deal.
OTTAWA — Canada-U.S. Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc is set to meet President Donald Trump’s trade czar in Washington on Friday, a day after the United States announced it was launching bilateral discussions with Mexico on the review of the continental trade p
act.
LeBlanc’s office said he will be meeting with United States Trade Representative Jamieson Greer to discuss the upcoming mandatory review of the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement on trade, known as CUSMA, as well as other bilateral concerns.
The continental trade pact has shielded Canada from the worst impacts of Trump’s tariffs but the president has repeatedly questioned whether CUSMA should be continued.
The Canada-U.S. relationship has been upended by Trump’s tariffs and threats of annexation. Prime Minister Mark Carney said during a media availability in Australia on Wednesday that CUSMA “effectively has been broken in the short term by U.S. actions.”
Carney said Canada is looking to this year’s trade pact review to “re-establish the trust” individuals, businesses and investors need to guide trade between the nations.
Trade talks between Canada and the United States stalled last October after Trump was angered by an Ontario-sponsored ad quoting former president Ronald Reagan criticizing tariffs.
Despite the freeze-out, LeBlanc and Greer have continued communications by phone.
Canada began domestic CUSMA consultations last year but Ottawa has not formally launched anything with the United States. Greer said last month Canadians have barriers that make it difficult to hold bilateral trade talks.
“They refuse to sell U.S. wine and spirits on their shelves,” Greer told Fox Business. “There are a variety of issues they have not addressed and aren’t addressing and this makes it a big challenge and an obstacle for starting real negotiations with them.”
Some have suggested that the contentious Canada-U.S. relationship could mean the United States and Mexico begin CUSMA negotiations with Canada on the sidelines.
Something similar happened during the original CUSMA negotiations to replace the North American Free Trade Agreement during Trump’s first term.
Robert Lighthizer, Trump’s trade representative at the time, recounted in his book that the United States and Mexico came to an agreement and “Canada was welcome to join if it wanted,” but Washington and Mexico City were “prepared to move forward bilaterally if it did not.”
Ultimately, an agreement was reached that was hailed a success in all three countries.
In a news release Thursday, Greer’s office announced that he and Mexican Secretary of Economy Marcelo Ebrard have instructed their negotiators to begin a “scoping discussion” on the trilateral trade pact.
The release said negotiators are expected to hold their first meeting the week of March 16, and to then meet regularly afterwards as part of the review.
LeBlanc’s meeting in the United States capital could lay the groundwork for Canada to be brought to the CUSMA negotiating table.
CUSMA’s review essentially sets up a three-way choice for the partner countries to make in July. They can renew the deal for another 16 years, withdraw from it or signal both non-renewal and non-withdrawal — which would trigger an annual review that could keep negotiations going for up to a decade.
This report by The Canadian Press was first published March 5, 2026.
The Canadian Press
By Reuters
March 09, 2026
From left to right: Canada's Prime Minister Mark Carney; Mexico's President Claudia Sheinbaum; U.S. President Donald Trump. (The Canadian Press / The Associated Press)
MEXICO CITY -- Mexican businesses are eager to maintain a trilateral trade agreement with the United States and Canada that is up for review this year, according to a report summarizing Mexico’s public consultation, released on Monday.
The consulted companies called the CUSMA treaty, which replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement in 2020, essential for investment certainty and protecting regional supply chains.
Mexico’s Economy Ministry released the 88-page report one week before the U.S. and Mexico are slated to hold bilateral discussions to kick off a three-way review of the USMCA.
With some 80% of Mexican exports going to the U.S., the treaty is critical to the Latin American country’s economy.
The pact, signed during U.S. President Donald Trump’s first term, requires Mexico, the U.S. and Canada to hold a joint review this year to extend the agreement.
If extended, the treaty will remain in place for another 16 years. If the countries don’t reach an agreement, it is subject to annual reviews, which many industries consider an effective death knell for the USMCA.
The report stresses that Mexican businesses broadly want to strengthen the pact rather than a wholesale renegotiation.
That, however, may be overly optimistic, given that Trump has publicly questioned the need for the treaty and threatened to pull out of it altogether.
(Reporting by Emily Green; Editing by Stephen Eisenhammer and Andrei Khalip)
MEXICO CITY -- Mexican businesses are eager to maintain a trilateral trade agreement with the United States and Canada that is up for review this year, according to a report summarizing Mexico’s public consultation, released on Monday.
The consulted companies called the CUSMA treaty, which replaced the North American Free Trade Agreement in 2020, essential for investment certainty and protecting regional supply chains.
Mexico’s Economy Ministry released the 88-page report one week before the U.S. and Mexico are slated to hold bilateral discussions to kick off a three-way review of the USMCA.
With some 80% of Mexican exports going to the U.S., the treaty is critical to the Latin American country’s economy.
The pact, signed during U.S. President Donald Trump’s first term, requires Mexico, the U.S. and Canada to hold a joint review this year to extend the agreement.
If extended, the treaty will remain in place for another 16 years. If the countries don’t reach an agreement, it is subject to annual reviews, which many industries consider an effective death knell for the USMCA.
The report stresses that Mexican businesses broadly want to strengthen the pact rather than a wholesale renegotiation.
That, however, may be overly optimistic, given that Trump has publicly questioned the need for the treaty and threatened to pull out of it altogether.
(Reporting by Emily Green; Editing by Stephen Eisenhammer and Andrei Khalip)
Half of Canadian small businesses see U.S. as unreliable partner one year into trade war: CFIB
ByAnam Khan
March 04, 2026
The Toronto skyline
THE CANADIAN PRESS/Chris Young
Half of Canadian small businesses no longer view the U.S. as a reliable trading partner one year into the trade war, according to a new study by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.
The study shows the strain is showing up directly in day-to-day business dealings.
“Small businesses have faced massive uncertainty since the trade battle began last year,” Dan Kelly, president of the CFIB said in a press release.
“Small business owners have been dealing with the whiplash of trying to keep up with sudden changes and threats, including many that don’t happen or are revised within hours. With the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) coming up for review in the months ahead, the stakes are even higher.”
About 75 per cent of small businesses say the tariff fight has strained their relationships with U.S. partners or clients, up from 49 per cent in March 2025. More than two-thirds (68 per cent) of Canadian small business owners also continue to report being negatively affected by U.S. tariffs.
Tariff pain is widespread, relief is limited
CFIB research also found tariffs hit firms unevenly, with 37 per cent of owners saying 2025 was a good year, while 35 per cent said it was a poor one.
“There’s reduced profits, reduced revenues. These are the major things, and all of this has implications on what funds they have available to reinvest in their business, or to pay employees,” said Marvin Cruz, CFIB’s senior director of research and one of the authors of the report.
“The entrepreneurial spirit is a bit dampened.”
Cruz said the pressure is pushing some owners toward tough decisions, including taking on more debt or even thinking about closing.
About 18 per cent of businesses that reported a poor year said they contemplated permanently closing because of tariffs, compared with two per cent among those reporting an average or good year.
Nearly a third, 31 per cent, of businesses that had a poor year said they took on increased debt, compared with 10 per cent for those reporting an average year and five per cent for those reporting a good year. Poor-performing businesses also reported higher levels of reduced hiring and paused investments.
Half of Canadian small businesses no longer view the U.S. as a reliable trading partner one year into the trade war, according to a new study by the Canadian Federation of Independent Business.
The study shows the strain is showing up directly in day-to-day business dealings.
“Small businesses have faced massive uncertainty since the trade battle began last year,” Dan Kelly, president of the CFIB said in a press release.
“Small business owners have been dealing with the whiplash of trying to keep up with sudden changes and threats, including many that don’t happen or are revised within hours. With the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) coming up for review in the months ahead, the stakes are even higher.”
About 75 per cent of small businesses say the tariff fight has strained their relationships with U.S. partners or clients, up from 49 per cent in March 2025. More than two-thirds (68 per cent) of Canadian small business owners also continue to report being negatively affected by U.S. tariffs.
Tariff pain is widespread, relief is limited
CFIB research also found tariffs hit firms unevenly, with 37 per cent of owners saying 2025 was a good year, while 35 per cent said it was a poor one.
“There’s reduced profits, reduced revenues. These are the major things, and all of this has implications on what funds they have available to reinvest in their business, or to pay employees,” said Marvin Cruz, CFIB’s senior director of research and one of the authors of the report.
“The entrepreneurial spirit is a bit dampened.”
Cruz said the pressure is pushing some owners toward tough decisions, including taking on more debt or even thinking about closing.
About 18 per cent of businesses that reported a poor year said they contemplated permanently closing because of tariffs, compared with two per cent among those reporting an average or good year.
Nearly a third, 31 per cent, of businesses that had a poor year said they took on increased debt, compared with 10 per cent for those reporting an average year and five per cent for those reporting a good year. Poor-performing businesses also reported higher levels of reduced hiring and paused investments.
Federal relief failing to support SMEs
While a recent U.S. Supreme Court decision on tariff rates is expected to provide some relief, CFIB said it will not change the situation for most Canadian exports, since many goods are already covered under CUSMA. The group said the ruling should still help the 27 per cent of businesses hurt by tariffs on non-CUSMA compliant goods.
At the same time, CFIB said steel and aluminum tariffs imposed by both countries remain a major challenge, with 44 per cent of small businesses reporting they have been affected.
Limited uptake in federal tariff response initiative
CFIB also pointed to limited uptake of Ottawa’s Regional Tariff Response Initiative (RTRI), stating that less than one per cent of small businesses have applied and 77 per cent are entirely unaware the program exists.
“We keep hearing the same things from small business owners: they’re too small to qualify, they didn’t know about the program, or that the required paperwork isn’t worth the time and resources,” said Corinne Pohlmann, CFIB executive vice-president of advocacy.
CFIB said restrictive eligibility rules are a key barrier. In British Columbia, businesses must employ at least 10 full-time workers to qualify, while in Quebec, eligibility is now closed and applications are limited to manufacturing firms with annual revenues of $2 million or more.
The organization said it has sent a letter to Prime Minister Mark Carney, Finance Minister Champagne, and Canada’s Regional Development Agencies questioning the program’s design and effectiveness.
CFIB is calling on Ottawa to:Provide broad tax relief, including a reduction in the small business tax rate from nine per cent to six per cent.
Create a rebate program for tariff-impacted SMEs and ensure rebates and refunds are not treated as taxable income
Stay focused on maintaining the CUSMA agreement to reduce uncertainty and protect cross-border supply chains.
Methodology
Final results for the Your Voice- February 2026 survey. The online survey was conducted between February 5-24, n= 1,379. For comparison purposes, a probability sample with the same number of respondents would have a margin of error of at most +/- 2.60 per cent, 19 times out of 20.
Final results for the Your Voice – December survey. The online survey was conducted between December 4-31, 2025, n= 1,663. For comparison purposes, a probability sample with the same number of respondents would have a margin of error of at most +/- 2.40 per cent, 19 times out of 20.
Anam Khan
Journalist, BNNBloomberg.ca
More than 20 U.S. states sue over new global tariffs Trump imposed after his stinging U.S. Supreme Court loss
ByThe Associated Press
March 05, 2026
Section 122, which has never been invoked, allows the president to impose tariffs of up to 15 per cent. They are limited to five months unless extended by Congress.
The lawsuit is led by attorneys general from Oregon, Arizona, California and New York.
“The focus right now should be on paying people back, not doubling down on illegal tariffs,” said Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield. The suit comes a day after a judge ruled t hat companies who paid tariffs under Trump’s old framework should get refunds.
The new suit argues that Trump can’t pivot to Section 122 because it was intended to be used only in specific, limited circumstances -- not for sweeping import taxes. It also contends the tariffs will drive up costs for states, businesses and consumers.
Many of those states also successfully sued over Trump’s tariffs imposed under a different law: the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
ByThe Associated Press
March 05, 2026
Cars drive by a Mercedes-Benz dealership on the Bedford Automile in Bedford, Ohio, Friday, Feb. 20, 2026. (AP Photo/Sue Ogrocki)
WASHINGTON — Some two dozen states challenged U.S. President Donald Trump’s new global tariffs on Thursday, filing a lawsuit over import taxes he imposed after a stinging loss at the Supreme Court.
The Democratic attorneys general and governors in the lawsuit argue that Trump is overstepping his power with planned 15 per cent tariffs on much of the world.
Trump has said the tariffs are essential to reduce America’s longstanding trade deficits. He imposed duties under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 after the Supreme Court struck down tariffs he imposed last year under an emergency powers law.
WASHINGTON — Some two dozen states challenged U.S. President Donald Trump’s new global tariffs on Thursday, filing a lawsuit over import taxes he imposed after a stinging loss at the Supreme Court.
The Democratic attorneys general and governors in the lawsuit argue that Trump is overstepping his power with planned 15 per cent tariffs on much of the world.
Trump has said the tariffs are essential to reduce America’s longstanding trade deficits. He imposed duties under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974 after the Supreme Court struck down tariffs he imposed last year under an emergency powers law.
Section 122, which has never been invoked, allows the president to impose tariffs of up to 15 per cent. They are limited to five months unless extended by Congress.
The lawsuit is led by attorneys general from Oregon, Arizona, California and New York.
“The focus right now should be on paying people back, not doubling down on illegal tariffs,” said Oregon Attorney General Dan Rayfield. The suit comes a day after a judge ruled t hat companies who paid tariffs under Trump’s old framework should get refunds.
The new suit argues that Trump can’t pivot to Section 122 because it was intended to be used only in specific, limited circumstances -- not for sweeping import taxes. It also contends the tariffs will drive up costs for states, businesses and consumers.
Many of those states also successfully sued over Trump’s tariffs imposed under a different law: the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA).
A FedEx cargo plane is shown on the tarmac at Fort Lauderdale-Hollywood International Airport, Tuesday, April 20, 2021, in Fort Lauderdale, Fla. (AP Photo/Wilfredo Lee, File)
Four days after the Supreme Court struck down his sweeping IEEPA tariffs Feb. 20, Trump invoked Section 122 to slap 10 per cent tariffs on foreign goods. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant told CNBC on Wednesday that the administration would raise the levies to the 15 per cent limit this week.
The Democratic states and other critics say the president can’t use Section 122 as a replacement for the defunct tariffs to combat the trade deficit.
The Section 122 provision is aimed at what it calls “fundamental international payments problems.” At issue is whether that wording covers trade deficits, the gap between what the U.S. sells other countries and what it buys from them.
Section 122 arose from the financial crises that emerged in the 1960s and 1970s when the U.S. dollar was tied to gold. Other countries were dumping dollars in exchange for gold at a set rate, risking a collapse of the U.S. currency and chaos in financial markets. But the dollar is no longer linked to gold, so critics say Section 122 is obsolete.
Awkwardly for Trump, his own Justice Department argued in a court filing last year that the president needed to invoke the emergency powers act because Section 122 did “not have any obvious application” in fighting trade deficits, which it called “conceptually distinct” from balance-of-payment issues.
Four days after the Supreme Court struck down his sweeping IEEPA tariffs Feb. 20, Trump invoked Section 122 to slap 10 per cent tariffs on foreign goods. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessant told CNBC on Wednesday that the administration would raise the levies to the 15 per cent limit this week.
The Democratic states and other critics say the president can’t use Section 122 as a replacement for the defunct tariffs to combat the trade deficit.
The Section 122 provision is aimed at what it calls “fundamental international payments problems.” At issue is whether that wording covers trade deficits, the gap between what the U.S. sells other countries and what it buys from them.
Section 122 arose from the financial crises that emerged in the 1960s and 1970s when the U.S. dollar was tied to gold. Other countries were dumping dollars in exchange for gold at a set rate, risking a collapse of the U.S. currency and chaos in financial markets. But the dollar is no longer linked to gold, so critics say Section 122 is obsolete.
Awkwardly for Trump, his own Justice Department argued in a court filing last year that the president needed to invoke the emergency powers act because Section 122 did “not have any obvious application” in fighting trade deficits, which it called “conceptually distinct” from balance-of-payment issues.
Trump slams U.S. Supreme Court's 'very unfortunate ruling' on tariffs
Still, some legal analysts say the Trump administration has a stronger case this time.
“The legal reality is that courts will likely provide President Trump substantially more deference regarding Section 122 than they did to his previous tariffs under IEEPA,” Peter Harrell, visiting scholar at Georgetown University’s Institute of International Economic Law, wrote in a commentary Wednesday.
The specialized Court of International Trade in New York, which will hear the states’ lawsuit, wrote last year in its own decision striking down the emergency-powers tariffs that Trump didn’t need them because Section 122 was available to combat trade deficits.
Trump does have other legal authorities he can use to impose tariffs, and some have already survived court tests. Duties that Trump imposed on Chinese imports during his first term under Section 301 of the same 1974 trade act are still in place.
Also joining the lawsuit are the attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania.
Lindsay Whitehurst And Paul Wiseman, The Associated Press
Still, some legal analysts say the Trump administration has a stronger case this time.
“The legal reality is that courts will likely provide President Trump substantially more deference regarding Section 122 than they did to his previous tariffs under IEEPA,” Peter Harrell, visiting scholar at Georgetown University’s Institute of International Economic Law, wrote in a commentary Wednesday.
The specialized Court of International Trade in New York, which will hear the states’ lawsuit, wrote last year in its own decision striking down the emergency-powers tariffs that Trump didn’t need them because Section 122 was available to combat trade deficits.
Trump does have other legal authorities he can use to impose tariffs, and some have already survived court tests. Duties that Trump imposed on Chinese imports during his first term under Section 301 of the same 1974 trade act are still in place.
Also joining the lawsuit are the attorneys general of Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Illinois, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, Michigan, Minnesota, Nevada, New Jersey, New Mexico, North Carolina, Rhode Island, Vermont, Virginia, Washington, Wisconsin, and the governors of Kentucky and Pennsylvania.
Lindsay Whitehurst And Paul Wiseman, The Associated Press
Judge orders refunds after U.S. Supreme Court strikes down Trump’s tariffs
By The Canadian Press
March 05, 2026
.jpg)
By The Canadian Press
March 05, 2026
U.S. President Donald Trump speaks during an event to announce new tariffs in the Rose Garden at the White House, April 2, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Mark Schiefelbein, File)
WASHINGTON -- A judge with the U.S. Court of International Trade on Wednesday ordered refunds for companies that paid tariffs that were later struck down by the United States Supreme Court.
In a 6-3 ruling last month, America’s top court concluded it was not legal for U.S. President Donald Trump to use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, better known as IEEPA, for his sweeping and erratic “Liberation Day” tariffs and fentanyl-related duties on Canada, Mexico and China.
The conservative-led court found that the U.S. Constitution “very clearly” gives Congress power over taxes and tariffs.
The Supreme Court ruling did not say whether there should be refunds, leaving companies that paid the duties to sue the federal government.
In Wednesday’s decision in the New York trade court, Judge Richard Eaton said all importers who paid IEEPA duties are “entitled to the benefit” of the Supreme Court’s decision.
Eaton was ruling specifically on a case brought by Atmus Filtration, a filtration company in Tennessee, but said he will be the only judge to hear cases about refunds.
Eaton ordered the Trump administration to finalize import paperwork without charging companies the IEEPA tariffs. If goods are past that process, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will have to recalculate them without the tariffs, Eaton said.
The Liberty Justice Center, which represented five American small businesses that pushed back on Trump’s tariffs, said the decision made it clear that all importers of record hit by IEEPA duties are entitled to refunds.
“This decision is an important step toward ensuring that businesses can recover the money they were forced to pay under tariffs the Supreme Court has now confirmed were imposed without legal authority,” the centre said in a statement on social media.
A coalition of more than 1,000 small businesses called it a victory and called on the Trump administration to act swiftly. Dan Anthony, executive director of the We Pay the Tariffs coalition, said “now the ball is in the government’s court and small businesses are concerned they will drag this out further.”
“American small businesses have waited long enough,” Anthony said in a news release. “A full, fast, and automatic refund process is what these businesses are owed and anything less is unacceptable.”
The White House has not yet responded to a request for comment. It’s unclear if the Trump administration will appeal the order or take other action to slow down the process.
Trump had warned that the Supreme Court’s decision would have catastrophic consequences for the country. After the top court’s decision came down, he said the question of refunds would get “litigated over for the next two years.”
The government had collected more than US$130 billion from the tariffs by mid-December, according to the Penn Wharton Budget Model.
In a court filing Wednesday ahead of the decision, the Trump administration indicated interest would be included if refunds are ordered.
Brandon Lord, a senior official in U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s trade office, wrote that “in accordance with applicable law, any validated refund of IEEPA duties would include interest.”
Lord indicated refunds could take some time because the department “still requires a review period to ensure no violation of other customs laws and no other duties, taxes or fees are owed.”
Some Canadian companies will be waiting on refunds but Canada had largely been shielded by the IEEPA tariffs due to a carveout under the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement on trade, known as CUSMA.
Trump declared an emergency at the northern border related to the flow of fentanyl last year in order to use IEEPA to hit Canada with 35 per cent tariffs. Those duties didn’t apply to goods compliant under CUSMA.
Trump replaced his IEEPA tariffs last week with a 10 per cent worldwide tariff using Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act. That duty can only increase to 15 per cent and it will expire after 150 days unless Congress votes to extend it.
That global tariff also does not apply to CUSMA-compliant goods.
Additionally, Canada is being hammered by Trump’s sector-specific tariffs on industries like steel, aluminum, automobiles, lumber and cabinets.
By Kelly Geraldine Malone
This report by The Canadian Press was first published March 4, 2026.
With files from The Associated Press
WASHINGTON -- A judge with the U.S. Court of International Trade on Wednesday ordered refunds for companies that paid tariffs that were later struck down by the United States Supreme Court.
In a 6-3 ruling last month, America’s top court concluded it was not legal for U.S. President Donald Trump to use the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, better known as IEEPA, for his sweeping and erratic “Liberation Day” tariffs and fentanyl-related duties on Canada, Mexico and China.
The conservative-led court found that the U.S. Constitution “very clearly” gives Congress power over taxes and tariffs.
The Supreme Court ruling did not say whether there should be refunds, leaving companies that paid the duties to sue the federal government.
In Wednesday’s decision in the New York trade court, Judge Richard Eaton said all importers who paid IEEPA duties are “entitled to the benefit” of the Supreme Court’s decision.
Eaton was ruling specifically on a case brought by Atmus Filtration, a filtration company in Tennessee, but said he will be the only judge to hear cases about refunds.
Eaton ordered the Trump administration to finalize import paperwork without charging companies the IEEPA tariffs. If goods are past that process, U.S. Customs and Border Protection will have to recalculate them without the tariffs, Eaton said.
The Liberty Justice Center, which represented five American small businesses that pushed back on Trump’s tariffs, said the decision made it clear that all importers of record hit by IEEPA duties are entitled to refunds.
“This decision is an important step toward ensuring that businesses can recover the money they were forced to pay under tariffs the Supreme Court has now confirmed were imposed without legal authority,” the centre said in a statement on social media.
A coalition of more than 1,000 small businesses called it a victory and called on the Trump administration to act swiftly. Dan Anthony, executive director of the We Pay the Tariffs coalition, said “now the ball is in the government’s court and small businesses are concerned they will drag this out further.”
“American small businesses have waited long enough,” Anthony said in a news release. “A full, fast, and automatic refund process is what these businesses are owed and anything less is unacceptable.”
The White House has not yet responded to a request for comment. It’s unclear if the Trump administration will appeal the order or take other action to slow down the process.
Trump had warned that the Supreme Court’s decision would have catastrophic consequences for the country. After the top court’s decision came down, he said the question of refunds would get “litigated over for the next two years.”
The government had collected more than US$130 billion from the tariffs by mid-December, according to the Penn Wharton Budget Model.
In a court filing Wednesday ahead of the decision, the Trump administration indicated interest would be included if refunds are ordered.
Brandon Lord, a senior official in U.S. Customs and Border Protection’s trade office, wrote that “in accordance with applicable law, any validated refund of IEEPA duties would include interest.”
Lord indicated refunds could take some time because the department “still requires a review period to ensure no violation of other customs laws and no other duties, taxes or fees are owed.”
Some Canadian companies will be waiting on refunds but Canada had largely been shielded by the IEEPA tariffs due to a carveout under the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement on trade, known as CUSMA.
Trump declared an emergency at the northern border related to the flow of fentanyl last year in order to use IEEPA to hit Canada with 35 per cent tariffs. Those duties didn’t apply to goods compliant under CUSMA.
Trump replaced his IEEPA tariffs last week with a 10 per cent worldwide tariff using Section 122 of the 1974 Trade Act. That duty can only increase to 15 per cent and it will expire after 150 days unless Congress votes to extend it.
That global tariff also does not apply to CUSMA-compliant goods.
Additionally, Canada is being hammered by Trump’s sector-specific tariffs on industries like steel, aluminum, automobiles, lumber and cabinets.
By Kelly Geraldine Malone
This report by The Canadian Press was first published March 4, 2026.
With files from The Associated Press
.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment