Talk:2025 United States trade war with Canada and Mexico

Infobox lead figures

Of value to add the new Prime Minister’s Council on Canada-U.S. Relations & Canadian provincial premiers as "lead figures" after Trudeau under the Canadian flag on the infobox? They appear to be big players in this as well in news reports. --Gimelthedog (talk) 14:13, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Tentative support for adding Doug Ford in particular, as he has made himself a key player in this discussion. I could be talked out of it, though. Eventually we'll have to add a new Canadian PM as well. Dotdh15 (talk) 23:19, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Tentative support, i second the suggestion for adding Doug Ford. He has been very loud in his opposition, in the news surrounding the trade war regularly, and his recent move of export tariffs on electricity was quite significant. GameCreepr (talk) 17:04, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Need better sources for economic background

We really shouldn't have to be citing a newspaper for a backgrounder on NAFTA. Simonm223 (talk) 19:28, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

WSJ editorial board

@Acroterion — I'd like to discuss the inclusion of commentary from the Wall Street Journal editorial board in the article. I believe that its opinions are WP:UNDUE to include in the article and fail the WP:10YEARTEST of inclusion. Certain analysis from reliable sources could be worth including, but I don't think a newspaper calling a conflict "dumb" rises to the standard of inclusion needed to be placed alongside comments from sitting heads of state that have actual geopolitical impact. DecafPotato (talk) 22:14, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

Do you think the Wall Street Journal, of all publications, should be discarded as an unimportant opinion? Seriously? It's probably the most consequential and authoritative voice on matters of trade and economics there is, barring perhaps The Economist or the Financial Times. If you want to argue about the 10 year test, you should not try to do it in an article on an event that is one day old. Acroterion (talk) 22:23, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

The WSJ opinion seems high profile enough, given the publications reputation, to include. It may seem undue without other views being included though. The solution to that is including other notable reaction though not removing this one. Please don't view this comment as an invitation for false balance though.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 22:30, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I'm not diminishing the importance of the WSJ on economic matters. If they estimate that the trade war will cause X effects, that can be included in "Impact." But I fail to see any possible impact or notability of them calling a trade war "dumb." DecafPotato (talk) 22:32, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I'd also be amenable to including it if the WSJ's opinion is included in reliable sources that establish its significance. But Mediate seems to post an article about every quote ever said by anyone, including its current front-page story of ESPN anchor Stephen A. Smith saying he "might entertain" a run for president. DecafPotato (talk) 22:38, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

FWIIW, The Guardian, The Hill, The Toronto Sun and The Calgary Herald (among others) have mentioned the WSJ editorial in their coverage.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:12, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

In that case I think I'd support the inclusion; I can swap out the Mediaite source for the Guardian or Hill. And also, I think we could probably move this (and maybe the national-anthem thing) to a separate section of media analysis or cultural impact, because I imagine we'll get more things like that and it will be helpful to separate it from the governmental responses. DecafPotato (talk) 23:35, 2 February 2025 (UTC)

I restored the WSJ bomb you removed soibangla (talk) 00:32, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Is the "Goals" section of the infobox accurate?

The "goals" section of the infobox only lists the goals of the tariffs as being about ending illegal immigration and fentanyl smuggling. While that is the official stated goal that Trump has used in order to invoke the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, but many members of the administration have made clear that that isn't even the main goal.

Regarding Canada, Trump has focused heavily on the trade deficit (or a "subsiby", as he describes it) and very clearly called for annexation of Canada, even stating that he'd achieve that through economic force. He even said that he wasn't looking for concessions, and that there was nothing Canada could do to avoid the tariffs.

JD Vance added a total other goal, focusing on Canada's defence spending.

Shouldn't at least some of this be made clear in the infobox?

ChristyMcMorrow (talk) 03:15, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Yes, this is problematic because 1) these stated goals seem to be an attempt to justify the tarrifs, not the reasons for them (as noted above), and 2) listing these as the "goals" of the trade war is confusing because it is presumably (at best) only from the American perspective. Canada and Mexico have other goals (one main one presumably being an end to the trade war).-- Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 03:32, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I think it's the most reasonable thing to put in the infobox because that is legally the goal of the tariffs under the executive order imposing them. Of course those aren't the only goals, but they certainly are the primary ones and I think putting others in the infobox would both crowd the infobox and also risk WP:OR if there aren't reliable sources explicitly stating them to be the main goal of the tariffs. DecafPotato (talk) 05:18, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Another option can be to not include them. If we base ourselves off of the China–United States trade war (similar/simultaneous trade war), it does not include them in the infobox, but they are mentioned in the article. Plus the United States' goals/rationales are already explained in the Initial tariffs section of the article. EchoLuminary (talk) 05:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't know how good China–United States trade war is as an example here given that its infobox was added less than two hours before your comment. DecafPotato (talk) 05:51, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Dang, swore it was there before. Disregard that rationale then (thanks!).

Did look around other trade conflicts. Most don't even have an infobox. Other examples, like the Milk War and Pork war don't place goals in the infobox; neither do a lot of military conflicts (a different kind of conflict, yes). Do feel that we still shouldn't put reasons in the infobox, centers around one side. (If Canadian or Mexican officials explicitly state rationale, would we place all the goals in the infobox? That would considerably crowd it.) EchoLuminary (talk) 06:27, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I feel like it's helpful to have goals in the infobox but I also don't think it's that vital and wouldn't oppose removing it if others feel like it's the best move. DecafPotato (talk) 06:32, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

There was no call to 'annex' Canada - he invited them to join the U.S. - but everyone with any common sense knows this was a goad at Trudeau. Some form of 'economic union' may take place when the Conservatives come in - as has been noted in many RS opinion columns and news stories. 2603:6080:21F0:6870:D53F:E25:2F5F:C772 (talk) 00:38, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Just because Trump included this claim in an executive order doesn't make it true. Trump is a blatant liar. We should never be considering his claims to be reliable. He has just been "fact-checked" and found to be lying, making false claims, generally wrong, etc too many times. And on this particular issue he has given multiple sometimes conflicting statements about what the goal of the tariffs were to be (ie stopping illegal immigration, drug smuggling, increasing military spending, reducing trade imbalance, making Canada a 51st state, etc, etc). We are not required to accept any one rational that he gives, and since reliable sources have reported on others, I think we are required to follow them (and give each its due weight). It seems blatantly WP:UNDUE to accept one claim Trump (and other members of his administration have made) while ignoring the many others. I think we should remove this from the infobox, and that editors should be very careful about repeating Trump claims in Wikipedia's voice.--Darryl Kerrigan (talk) 23:44, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think they fit; a trade war itself does not have goals, the goals belong to Trump not to the war. I think having them in the body of the article as they are now allows us to ascribe them to Trump properly, and not say them in wiki-voice like we do by having them bulleted as they are. I'm going to try removing them see if y'all let that stand JeffUK 22:16, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Keep your personal opinions to yourself, and discuss Reliable Sources for the improvement of the article. Wiki is not an anti-Trump soap box. 2603:6080:21F0:6870:D53F:E25:2F5F:C772 (talk) 00:40, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Sources

Remove Mexico

Sheinbaum sent troops and then Trump paused the tariffs. So it is just America and Canada now. 191.9.63.6 (talk) 18:37, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

No. Just because Mexico managed to "pause" the tariffs for a month does not mean that it's over. See WP:CRYSTAL. Simonm223 (talk) 18:40, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

Okay then. 191.9.63.6 (talk) 18:43, 3 February 2025 (UTC)

It seems that Trump 'announcing tariffs' doesn't mean they're actually going to happen, so arguably the whole article falls foul of WP:Crystal! JeffUK 12:06, 4 February 2025 (UTC)

Agreed. Mexico has not issued reciprocal tariffs on the US while Canada has. There is an active trade conflict between Canada and the U.S. but there is no trade war between an actor which is not responding. I suggest renaming this article to 2025 Canada–US trade war and simply moving the Mexican segments to Tariffs in the second Trump administration RamHez (talk) 10:03, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

There has never been a trade war

No tariffs have at any point in time been installed on either the United States, Mexico, or Canada. This article should be altered to let it be clear that Canada and Mexico both caved into Trump's requests on them investing into border security without a single tariff being installed. In other words, this page's title implies there was a trade war when the closest we got was a tariff almost being installed. It's like creating a page titled "World War III" just because the media reported that a certain war will likely evolve into World War III. As of now, an actual trade war is very unlikely. MountainJew6150 (talk) 13:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

Trump/The US did impose tariffs on Mexico and Canada from 2018, then lifted them in May 2019, then readded some on Canada in 2020 and then lifted them again a month later. His starting and stopping isn't unusual, although nothing has been implemented yet for this "war".

I suppose it's a matter of definition. Does a trade war require tariffs to go into effect or just for tariffs to be announced as a mechanism of economic warfare? If it's the later we would say it started, if it's the former we would say it's a threat. I'm not sure, but imo the title is accurate because a trade war is not *just* tariffs. kara❈talk 18:17, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

I agree that it's possibly going to fizzle out.. but the sources disagree: Donald Trump tariffs: Opening salvos fired in trade war - what comes next? - BBC News How Trump Lost His Trade War - The Atlantic After Trump declares a trade war, Canadians grapple with a sense of betrayal | AP News Trump launches trade war with tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China | Reuters JeffUK 22:10, 5 February 2025 (UTC)

MountainJew6150, your time has come. Tariffs are here. 2603:7000:9600:1A2D:7914:12FF:619:C9C7 (talk) 05:15, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Move info from Second Trump Tariffs here?

Hello, please see this discussion on the Second Trump Tariffs talk page. If no one objects, I'm planning to replace Second Trump Tariffs with my rewrite and merge some of the excluded info, mostly from Second_Trump_tariffs#Canada, to this article. kara❈talk 01:06, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

I don't think we actually need both articles. I think we should marge and redirect this article to Second Trump Tariffs; they're both talking about the same subject. JeffUK 10:23, 7 February 2025 (UTC)

Split into separate Canada and Mexico pages

Would others see reason to have separate trade war pages for US–Canada and US–Mexico? I think the depth of the Canadian situation and Canada’s response warrants it having its own page. (The same may be said for Mexico, but I don’t know as much about it). The things held in common can be kept on the Second Trump tariffs page. Tundraski (talk) 17:24, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

This seems possibly premature. The article isn't THAT long yet. Simonm223 (talk) 17:31, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

Start date?

I'm just putting this topic here to start some discussion and get a feel for what others think; I have no strong feelings either way. But should this article consider the "start date" of the trade war to be February 1 — when Trump signed the order imposing the tariffs — or March 4, when the tariffs actually began? DecafPotato (talk) 19:29, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I say February 1, since threats were still used to gain economic concessions over the last month. satkara❈talk 20:51, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

@Satkara I think the lead should still briefly explain what happened in February and include the date on which the tarriffs actually came into effect. The lead currently makes it look like the tarriffs have been place since February 1. Kaotao (talk) 02:09, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Currently, the lede mentions the February 1st date in the first sentence of the first paragraph and the March 4th date in the fourth sentence of the second paragraph, which is the final sentence of that paragraph. If that isn't enough, then we could note both the start times for the trade war itself and the tariffs being active in the infobox. --Super Goku V (talk) 02:38, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

What if we change the first sentence to:

"A trade war began between the United States, Canada, and Mexico on February 1, 2025, when U.S. president Donald Trump signed orders imposing near-universal tariffs on goods from the two countries. The first of these tariffs took effect on March 4, 2025."

thoughts? satkara❈talk 05:18, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

@Satkara I added it to the end of the existing first paragraph. Kaotao (talk) 06:48, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Suggestion

I feel it would be appropriate to remove potential bias by mentioning the percentage of fentanyl coming in from the Mexican border in the sentence explaining the percentage of fentanyl coming in from the Canadian border. This information seems pertinent to the subject. ( 6:01, 4 March 2025 [EST] ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:4040:A25E:900:688F:33F5:7FF3:32B0 (talk)

One sentence in lead about Trump's calls to annex Canada

With Canadian PM Trudeau saying today that he believes the tariffs against Canada are ultimately aimed at annexation, and Trump also repeatedly saying Canada can ultimately evade tariffs by joining the U.S. (including in front of an international audience at the World Economic Forum), I believe it would be warranted to add a single sentence somewhere in the lead of the article regarding the close association between the tariffs and the annexation threats (as this association has been widely cited in reputable sources per WP:DUE), something like "Trump's tariffs on Canada were frequently associated with his calls for annexation of Canada to the United States, including by both Trump and Trudeau."

While I understand that Canadian annexation is a far-fetched proposal, the repeated insistence with which Trump has raised annexation in association with the tariffs, paired with Canada's elected leader (Trudeau) today citing annexation as the true impetus for the tariffs, make it worthy of inclusion in the article lead. Dotdh15 (talk) 23:18, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree. Among Canadian experts and politicians it's the main explanation for why Trump is acting the way he is. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 23:36, 4 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree with the above. To not have it in the lede is an NPOV issue, as it gives the US framing of the issue more weight. I have re-added the blurb that was removed by @DecafPotato: (ping) while we await their reasoning. Acebulf ^{(talk | contribs)} 02:06, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

While I agree that the threats of annexation are relevant and should be included in the article, I don't see how it's necessarily relevant to the lead. Trump's actual executive order imposing the tariffs cited immigration and fentanyl as the rationale, and that's what he said again today, so I think we can consider that his official rationale. That's doubled by the fact that when Canada and Mexico negotiated the delay their agreements with the U.S. were explicitly related to border security for immigration/drug smuggling, which is why I think that aspect of the rationale is worth including in the lead. Meanwhile, the talk of annexing Canada — unlike, say Greenland or the Panama Canal, which have at least had bills introduced in Congress and got explicit mentions in Trump's inaugural address — is largely an act taunt for which no serious progress has been made. And since the proposals are covered both at American expansionism under Donald Trump and Movements for the annexation of Canada to the United States, there's no inherent need for the proposals to be included in this article unless they are specifically relevant to the tariffs.

Trump saying Canada can avoid the tariffs by joining the U.S. is right now of the same status as him saying that they can avoid the tariffs by allowing U.S. banks to "do business" in the country and the myriad of other rationales he has floated, at one point or another, for the tariffs. I think, given that Trump's entire political brand has been characterized by saying a lot of different things, inclusion in the lead as one of his rationales should require either that Trump has made them an official legal rationale or Canada/Mexico take or propose steps to address his complaints to prevent the tariffs. The ones currently in the lead — immigration and fentanyl — satisfy both of these; the proposal to annex Canada satisfies neither.

And for the record, to preemptively refute the counterargument, I don't think that Trudeau saying that the annexation of Canada into the U.S. is Trump's true motivation for the tariffs makes it relevant. Like his southern neighbor, Trudeau is attempting to rally his country in a moment of national crisis, and rallying Canada against annexation serves his cause of national unity. And we should recall that within a week Canada will likely be led by Mark Carney or another prime minister who will undoubtedly have their own things to say about Trump's tariffs. So I don't think we should weight Trudeau's word too highly in the lead; if Canada's new prime minister reflects the same sentiment, I'd be more inclined to consider including it in the lead. (Because, of course, nothing in this message opposes its inclusion in the article altogether.) DecafPotato (talk) 04:03, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

We seem to all agree that the lead should cover the issue of why the trade war started. As with all issues, policy requires that we give due weight to all significant points of view on this. Obviously Canada's point of view is significant so it should be included. I'd like to see more on Mexico's point of view as well to make the lead give roughly equal weight to the three countries involved. Clayoquot (talk | contribs) 06:00, 5 March 2025 (UTC)

Forgot to provide a final response here but yeah, I agree with the principle of due weight and think it's worth including in a brief sentence in the lead. DecafPotato (talk) 23:18, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

Fentanyl smuggling via Canadian border

These are potential sources with more detailed content that I have added here. I was not sure where it would be relevant.Oceanflynn (talk) 03:45, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

• February 1, 2025 President Trump announced tariffs in response to the "extraordinary threat posed by illegal aliens and drugs, including deadly fentanyl" claiming that it "constitutes a national emergency under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA)."
• February 3, 2025 According to the Associated Press, in the 2024 fiscal year United States Customs agents "seized 43 lb (20 kg) of fentanyl at the Canadian border", "compared with 21,100 lb (9,600 kg) at the Mexican border," which represents less than one per cent of all fentanyl seized by US border agents imports coming into the United States and into the United States. CBC News reported that in 2024, Canadian border officials confiscated eight million grams of drugs that had been smuggled into Canada compared to five million grams entering the United States via Canada seized by the U.S. Customs and Border Protection.
• February 11, 2025 In response to the threat of tariffs, Prime Minister, Justin Trudeau announced the appointment of Kevin Brosseau as Canada's new Fentanyl Czar to work with Americans to "disrupt and dismantle this illegal drug trade crossing our border".
• February 19, 2025 The Canadian ambassador to the United States, Kirsten Hillman reported that there was a 90% reduction in illegal migration from Canada to the United States in the last few months.
• February 27, 2025 The Canada Border Services Agency (CBSA) announced the launch of Operation Blizzard to respond to fentanyl smuggling. Since early February, CBSA and their partners made significant seizures at the Canada–United States border, including six seizures amounting to 1.98 oz (56 g) of fentanyl brought in by two US citizens. It only takes a few grams of fentanyl to cause death.
• February 27, 2025 A CBC News article listed the efforts Canada made in February alone. Royal Canadian Mounted Police Commissoner and CBSA president met with American officials to present "major successes" in decreasing the flow of drugs and migrants into the United States.

Sources

Converting to a chronological layout?

Thoughts on converting to a chronological layout for easier updating?

It seems like everything from "Political background" onward could be reorganized to a chronological guide ie

• 2016-2020: First Trump administration and transition
• 2021-January 2025: Biden and Trump re-election
• November 2024-February 2025: Initial negotiations and metal tariffs
• March 2025-Present: Direct tariff impositions

satkara❈talk 18:23, 6 March 2025 (UTC)

I agree that a timeline would be an easier way to organize this article. Though I think that the background part should stay and the first "time chunk" should be the "initial negotiations and metal tariffs."

• Background
• November 2024-February 2025: Initial negotiations and metal tariffs
• March 2025-Present: Direct tariff impositions

While doing that change, I think the economic background should be reduced and merged with the political background. The "trade agreement" section seems pretty US centric and also somewhat unnecessary to the article as a whole, such as:

"The backlash to free trade allowed candidates like Donald Trump supporting protectionist policies to rise to prominence in U.S. politics. However, many parts of the U.S. benefited from NAFTA's increased trade and economic activity."

These are more general "free trade" information that unfairly centers the impacts on the US. I wouldn't say it's wrong, but it's slanted towards the US and against free trade in general, which i felt disrupted the NPOV. Especially given that none of this is really about the past free trade agreements. Trump barely even mentioned the USMCA when discussing the tariffs. MsZiggy (talk) 17:28, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

War infobox

Is it even necessary to include a war infobox in a trade war article? Seems egregious and unnecessary, considering similar events did not have a war infobox in them. BarakHussan (talk) 15:57, 7 March 2025 (UTC)

I think the infobox is helpful to give basic information at first glance, and it isn't a "war" infobox — i.e., it doesn't use {{Infobox military conflict}} — so I don't think that's a reason to oppose it. And there's not really any established standard for "trade war articles" to go off of (not that WP:OTHERCONTENT is particularly convincing to begin with), because there's generally very few of these articles to go off of. You cited Russian embargo of Ukrainian goods and China–United States trade war (the latter of which does have an infobox, though its {{Infobox Chinese}}, but I could just as easily turn to 2025 United States tariffs against the European Union or other articles to back up the inclusion of an infobox here; there's no strong majority either way. DecafPotato (talk) 22:37, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

the article of 2025 United States tariffs against the European Union suffers the similar issue with this article as the inclusion of the infobox is unnecessary (along with the dating of the trade war making the article created at the same chronological year as this page) as it does not follow most trade war pages, the only one I found with this infobox was milk war and even then, it wasn't necessary. I recommend creating a discussion for trade war formatting to make things more conventional. BarakHussan (talk) 04:21, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

What makes an infobox necessary from your perspective? I think the conflict box makes sense, whereas the Trump infobox gives WP:UNDUE weight to the US perspective to an article that should cover all of the nations perspectives' equally. The Trump infobox should go on Second Trump tariffs and First Trump tariffs, though.

Also, what else do you think template:infobox civil conflict should be used for (vs template:infobox military conflict) if not trade conflicts? satkara❈talk 14:58, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

That infobox for civil conflict should be used in the matter stated in the template infobox: " about a particular civil conflict (for example, protest, strike, clash with police)". Considering this conflict is neither of the listed examples, it is unnecessary to include. It also makes the trade war resemble a legitimate conflict even though there has not been any strike/protest/clashing other than the parties applying tariffs which is not a conflict in either a civil or conventional sense, causing confusion to believe there is a literal conflict between the three parties involved. Unless there are mass protests or something similar within the context that is directly organized against each side by a side, there is no reason to add a conflict infobox to a trade war. BarakHussan (talk) 14:42, 16 March 2025 (UTC)

IMHO, an infobox should be used for an article when it (a) helps the reader by consolidating the most important facts of the article and/or (b) offers a standardized form for the information across multiple similar articles, making it easier for readers to grasp the subject quickly. The current infobox does cover (a) well. The follow-up question is then, is this the best infobox to use? IDK. (disclaimer: not unbiased as I created the current infobox...with inspiration and based on code from the military conflict infobox hence the visual similarity) Justin Ormont (talk) 07:49, 28 March 2025 (UTC)

Why the trade war started

I agree wwith Clayoquot: "We seem to all agree that the lead should cover the issue of why the trade war started. As with all issues, policy requires that we give due weight to all significant points of view on this. Obviously Canada's point of view is significant so it should be included. I'd like to see more on Mexico's point of view as well to make the lead give roughly equal weight to the three countries involved."

I think we need a section at the top of the article on why Trump launched the trade war. There needs to be reference made to the 3 executive orders and Fact Sheets that state the reasons. The reasons behind the declaration of a state of emergency needs to be explained clearly and accurately. Then we need content on the disconnect between the E.O. and the nature of the changing grievances and lists of things that Trump is now asking for.

The challenge for the Canadian point of view is that the E.O. 14194 "Imposing duties to address the flow of illicit drugs at the nouthern border of the United States" is based on the argument that "Canada has played a central role in these challenges, including by failing to devote sufficient attention and resources or meaningfully coordinate with United States law enforcement partners to effectively stem the tide of illicit drugs." A CBC article says that, "The notion that the flow of illegal fentanyl across the U.S. border with Canada could somehow justify punitive tariffs on Canadian imports was always flimsy, at best."

By February 4, this is no longer the focus of the trade talks between Trump and Trudeau and between other officials. Oceanflynn (talk) 04:09, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

References

Note on reliability of news sources and SCIRS

Keep in mind that per WP:SCIRS:

news reports are inappropriate as reliable sources for the technical aspects of scientific results or theories [...] A news article should therefore not be used as a sole source for a scientific fact or figure

Per SciRS this includes economics (which falls under the social sciences and behavioral sciences). This means we need to avoid any cases where the effects of tariffs (or similar) are cited only to news sources.

If you want to cite news sources for quotes from professional economists applying standard economic analysis to this situation, that might be OK, but you should also look for a reliable academic source (e.g. that backs up the analysis, as it's common for news sources to cherry-pick one or two "economists" who fall well outside the mainstream to support their viewpoints. (Examples of economists with reputations for shoddy analysis who are often on the news regardless would be Peter Navarro, Ha Joon-Chang, and Stephanie Kelton.)

Good secondary sources which I'd recommend are well-known textbooks (any decent introduction to micro book will cover tariffs), literature reviews (use Google Scholar), and statements from professional associations like the American Economic Association and the Chicago Booth Panel. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2025 (UTC)

This content was deleted without discussion

In an interview with Bloomberg News editor John Micklethwait at the Economic Club of Chicago on October 15, 2024, then-presidential candidate Donald Trump outlined his economic strategy, emphasizing the use of "draconian" tariffs as a key component to fund his proposed tax cuts, which would incentivize companies to invest in manufacturing within the United States.

In January, Columbia University's economics professor and Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz said that "Virtually all economists think that the impact of the tariffs will be very bad for America and for the world...They will almost surely be inflationary." The Peterson Institute for International Economics cautioned that the cost of the combined tariffs to the typical American family would be over $1,200 a year, according to a February 27 Bloomberg News article.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Oceanflynn (talk • contribs) 01:53, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I think this was in response to my note on WP:SCIRS above. Removing the content is probably overzealous, though, since it seems to be basically correct; I just meant we should try and firm up the citations in this section.

Citing a media source for comments from Joseph Stiglitz on economics is generally alright—he gets quoted a lot in media because he's a smart, well-respected economist. However, for hot-button topics, we need to be very careful to make sure whatever we write genuinely reflects consensus across different viewpoints, and we need to make sure readers don't dismiss it as bias or cherry-picking. Stiglitz is definitely left-leaning and (just like the rest of us) he can let his emotions or ideology get the best of him when he discusses contentious or political topics. Ideally, we want to check his comments against statements from well-respected conservative- or libertarian-leaning economists, to be sure there's a real consensus here and avoid accusations of bias.

In this case it should be easy, since conservative economists tend to be more anti-tariff if anything. Two right-leaning economists who put out high-quality commentary are Scott Sumner and Greg Mankiw. Mankiw's blog has this quote, for example:

Trade restrictions do not increase GDP. Indeed, by interfering with the international marketplace and the forces of comparative advantage, they reduce productivity and thereby GDP.

That said, both are "Never Trump" types, so a Trump supporter might argue they're biased. At this point, I'd usually cite the risk of falling into both sidesism; if the only people willing to support you are the ones willing to bend over backward for whatever you just said, this probably reflects badly on your position. But in this case, we don't have to—even the Trump people (with any economic credentials) are anti-tariff! Trump advisors Arthur Laffer and Stephen Moore (who at least passed econ 101) have a book praising every Trump policy position—except for tariffs, where the best they could say about Trump's plans is they might work as a bluff to extract concessions. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 01:47, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

As the person who "removed" those paragraphs in these edits, I thought my rationale was clear but just to make sure here:

• The Bloomberg interview gives WP:UNDUE detail for something already covered in the article (the interviewer's name, exact day, and exact location are hardly relevant, and the article already covered Trump's post-election tariff threats). But I did, in my edits, incorporate those sources to add the sentence Trump's 2024 presidential campaign outlined an economic strategy that emphasized the use of tariffs to fund proposed tax cuts and incentive domestic manufacturing in the United States.
• The opinion of a single economist doesn't add anything more to what was already in the "Prospective economic impact section": Many economists have expressed skepticism over the effectiveness of Trump's strategy in imposing tariffs, and many have said that increased tariffs would raise the prices of consumer goods in the U.S. and worsen the country's cost-of-living crisis.
• The estimate that "the combined tariffs to the typical American family would be over $1,200 a year" is also already included in the "Prospective economic impact" section (though sourced to a different analysis): The Budget Lab at Yale University estimated that the tariffs would lead to a loss of about US$1,200 in purchasing power for the typical American household

TL;DR: the information was practically all duplicating what was already mentioned in the article, and the only part that I felt added new information (Trump's presidential campaign platform) I integrated into the article in a more appropriate place using the exact source linked to the information. DecafPotato (talk) 03:50, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Creation of Timeline of events related to the 2025 United States trade war with Canada

I created a new article, Timeline of events related to the 2025 United States trade war with Canada, to complement this article and to keep track of the rapid changes chronologically. I have been contributing to this article "2025 United States trade war with Canada and Mexico" so there may be some duplication. I added a similar message to the talk page of the new article. Please see history of the article for attribution, starting on Revision as of 16:21, 6 March 2025 edit. If there is any content contributed by another user without attribution in the Timeline, it is unintentional and will be removed or attributed when notified. Note that some content I added to "2025 United States trade war with Canada and Mexico" has been merged and improved in "2025 United States trade war with Canada and Mexico" by subsequent editors for brevity/organization, etc. The timeline article focuses on Canada and will include more background content. Contribution from other editors is encouraged as this improves Wikipedia articles. Oceanflynn (talk) 19:44, 9 March 2025 (UTC)

I'm not sure this is actually distinct enough to merit a separate article—maybe it should be merged back here? – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 03:24, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

As it stands, you are correct that it should be merged, but I think we should maybe wait it out at least a bit. It could be worth merging back if this whole situation gets wrapped up in the next couple of weeks, but (without trying to predict the future), it might be a waste of effort to bring it back in only to separate it again in a month when it's gotten too long to keep together. MsZiggy (talk) 17:44, 11 March 2025 (UTC)

Stock Market Section

I want to note that there are a few discussions that are starting for the official definitions of "Stock market Crash", "Bear Market" and "Recession". This is none of those things as of writing this but is obvious to many that those words have serious weight and we should at this point be measuring to determine how close/far we are to them.

Impact on the Market

Bear Market is defined by a prolonged drop in investment prices, generally a bear market happens when a broad market index falls by 20% or more from its most recent high.

A Stock Market Crash as a definition occurs to assets or indexes across a shortened period of time; typically 60 - 70 days as measured from previously defined crashes. Although individual assets have their own trade halts that are often referred to as "crashes" built into the [US stock exchange][1].

Current 52-week High Closing Price for S&P 500 index was 612.93 on February 19, 2025, 21 days ago at time of writing this March 12th.

That same S&P 500 index is down 10.2% according to yesterday's closing price; 20 days from peak. [yahoo finance][2]

Impacts on GDP

A Recession is determined by a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization called the National Bureau of Economic Research determines when the U.S. economy is in a recession; based on a number of factors including economic growth, employment, industrial production, consumer spending and retail sales. Classically Recessions in the United Kingdom consider it concreted when there are two consecutive fiscal quarters of negative GDP; although in America 2022 was not called a recession.

It is clear this first fiscal quarter will be impacted heavily by the economic burden of increased costs of goods with the tariffs.

• as per the Atlanta FED latest estimate of Q1 GDP is -2.4 percent — [March 06, 2025][3].

Beautato (talk) 15:15, 12 March 2025 (UTC)

We can't attribute or argue for cause-and-effect here without reliable sources. The main reason stocks have fallen a bit is "yeah, they just kinda do that"—cf. excess volatility puzzle, and remember how stocks have predicted 9 of the last 5 recessions). Per WP:SCIRS, we need reliable scientific/academic sources to attribute causality (i.e. peer-reviewed papers in economics journals), which probably won't be available for a year or two. – Closed Limelike Curves (talk) 04:07, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

to your first point of "attribute or argue for cause-and-effect"

The Atlanta FED view's are archived each change with commentaries from GDPNow estimates directly read the metrics that go into the GDP that changed the rating on the day the trade war started.

...FEDnowcast of the contribution of net exports to first-quarter real GDP growth fell from -0.41 percentage points to -3.70 ... personal consumption expenditures growth fell from 2.3 percent to 1.3 percent... [atlantafed archives][4] in their first update in march on the start of the tariffs.

we can clearly attribute the trade war to be the scope of the economic measures laid out as changes to the GDP reading, but no one is predicting a recession, I am clearly laying out what that word means and why its not to be used until needed; and agree, we should not speculate these things. Beautato (talk) 15:46, 13 March 2025 (UTC)

US-World Trade war

I believe under the current circumstances we must call this what it is, a US v. World trade war, it is at a global scale and it should be considered as such. A new article should be created on this. Thanks Camilo Sánchez Talk to me 02:46, 3 April 2025 (UTC)

Should Trump's Tariffs on the EU be included in the "See Also" Section?

I'm new to this so please forgive my ignorance if it comes off as that, but I'm wondering: If the "tariffs on the EU during ... Trump Admin" links to Tariffs in Trump's Second Admin, then why is the EU included as a separate link when it is eclipsed by tariffs on, well, the entire world? I don't know if it's due to the EU being the largest trading bloc in the world, but just wanted to know if it was redundant or should be fine. Thanks! Whynoms (talk) 00:06, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

@Whynoms good catch! I replaced it with Tariffs in the 2nd Admin. The EU article used to be a separate article, but since no direct tariffs actually went into effect it was consolidated back. satkara❈talk 20:41, 12 April 2025 (UTC)

Illegal immigration at Canada-US border

I didn't see anything in the article refuting Trump's claims about illegal immigration from Canada. While it is certain that some occurs, my understanding that there are more illegal immigrants heading north than south.

The article might also say something about the increasing numbers of Americans interested in emigrating to Canada. While some don't like the US political situation in general, others feel distinctly threatened and are being called "refugees".

I will note reliable sources as I come across them.

Humpster (talk) 23:00, 25 April 2025 (UTC)

On second thought, reading the title of the article, perhaps this is considered outside the scope. Possibly there is already a different article covering immigration. Nevertheless, some immigration consequences are likely to arise from the effect of tariffs on business.

Humpster (talk) 23:02, 25 April 2025 (UTC)