Only President Trump could get the Canadians to vote for an exit to the USMCA, and he did it brilliantly

Swordsmyth

Member
Joined
Apr 14, 2016
Messages
74,737
Only President Trump could get the Canadians to vote for an exit to the USMCA, and he did it brilliantly.

To understand President Trump’s position on Canada, you have to go back to the 2016 election and President Trump’s position on the NAFTA renegotiation. If you did not follow the subsequent USMCA process, this might be the ah-ha moment you need to understand Trump’s strategy.

During the 2016 election President Trump repeatedly said he wanted to renegotiate NAFTA, the North American Free Trade Agreement. Both Canada and Mexico were reluctant to open the trade agreement to revision, but ultimately President Trump had the authority and support from an election victory to do exactly that.

In order to understand the issue, you must remember President Trump, Commerce Secretary Wilbur Ross and U.S. Trade Representative Robert Lighthizer each agreed the NAFTA agreement was fraught with problems and was best addressed by scrapping it and creating two seperate bilateral trade agreements. One between the USA and Mexico, and one between the USA and Canada.

In the decades that preceded the 2017 push to redo the trade pact, Canada had restructured their economy to: (1) align with progressive climate change; and (2) take advantage of the NAFTA loophole. The Canadian government did not want to reengage in a new trade agreement.

Canada has deindustrialized much of their manufacturing base to support the ‘environmental’ aspirations of their progressive politicians. Instead, Canada became an importer of component goods where companies then assembled those imports into finished products to enter the U.S. market without tariffs. Working with Chinese manufacturing companies, Canada exploited the NAFTA loophole.

Justin Trudeau was strongly against renegotiating NAFTA, and stated he and Chrystia Freeland would not support reopening the trade agreement. President Trump didn’t care about the position of Canada and was going forward. Trudeau said he would not support it. Trump focused on the first bilateral trade agreement with Mexico.

When the U.S. and Mexico had agreed to terms of the new trade deal and 80% of the agreement was finished, representatives from the U.S. Chamber of Commerce informed Trudeau that his position was weak and if the U.S. and Mexico inked their deal, Canada would be shut out.

The U.S Chamber of Commerce was upset because they were kept out of all the details of the agreement between the U.S. and Mexico. In actuality the U.S CoC was effectively blocked from any participation.

When they went to talk to the Canadians the CoC was warning them about what was likely to happen. NAFTA would end, the U.S. and Mexico would have a bilateral free trade agreement (FTA), and then Trump was likely to turn to Trudeau and say NAFTA is dead, now we need to negotiate a separate deal for U.S-Canada.

Trudeau was told a direct bilateral trade agreement between the U.S and Canada was the worst possible scenario for the Canadian government. Canada would lose access to the NAFTA loophole and Canada’s entire economy was no longer in a position to negotiate against the size of the USA. Trump would win every demand.

Following the warning, Trudeau went to visit Nancy Pelosi to find out if congress was likely to ratify a new bilateral trade agreement between the U.S and Mexico. Pelosi warned Trudeau there was enough political support for the NAFTA elimination from both parties. Yes, the bilateral trade agreement was likely to find support.

Realizing what was about to happen, Prime Minister Trudeau and Chrystia Freeland quickly changed approach and began to request discussions and meetings with USTR Robert Lighthizer. Keep in mind more than 80 to 90% of the agreement was already done by the U.S. and Mexico teams. Both President Andres Manuel Lopez Obrador and President Trump were now openly talking about when it would be finalized and signed.

Nancy Pelosi stepped in to help Canada get back into the agreement by leveraging her Democrats. Trump agreed to let Canada engage, and Lighthizer agreed to hold discussions with Chrystia Freeland on a tri-lateral trade agreement that ultimately became the USMCA.

The key points to remember are: (1) Trump, Ross and Lighthizer would prefer two separate bilateral trade agreements because the U.S. import/export dynamic was entirely different between Mexico and Canada. And because of the loophole issue, (2) a five-year review was put into the finished USMCA trade agreement. The USMCA was signed on November 30, 2018, and came into effect on July 1, 2020.

TIMELINE: The USMCA is now up for review (2025) and renegotiation in 2026!

This timeline is the key to understanding where President Donald Trump stands today. The review and renegotiation is his goal.

President Trump said openly he was going to renegotiate the USMCA, leveraging border security (Mexico) and reciprocity (Canada) within it.

Following the 2024 presidential election, Prime Minister Justin Trudeau traveled to Mar-a-Lago and said if President Trump was to make the Canadian government face reciprocal tariffs, open the USMCA trade agreements to force reciprocity, and/or balance economic relations on non-tariff issues, then Canada would collapse upon itself economically and cease to exist.

In essence, Canada cannot survive as a free and independent north American nation, without receiving all the one-way benefits from the U.S. economy.

To wit, President Trump then said, if Canada cannot survive in a balanced rules environment, including putting together their own military and defenses (which it cannot), then Canada should become the 51st U.S state. It was following this meeting that President Trump started emphasizing this point and shocking everyone in the process.

However, what everyone missed was the strategy Trump began outlining when contrast against the USMCA review and renegotiation window.

Again, Trump doesn’t like the tri-lateral trade agreement. President Trump would rather have two separate bilateral agreements; one for Mexico and one for Canada. Multilateral trade agreements are difficult to manage and police.

How was President Trump going to get Canada to (a) willingly exit the USMCA; and (b) enter a bilateral trade agreement?

The answer was through trade and tariff provocations, while simultaneously hitting Canada with the shock and awe aspect of the 51st state.

The Canadian government and the Canadian people fell for it hook, line and sinker.

Trump’s position on the Canadian election outcome had nothing to do with geopolitical friendships and everything to do with America-First economics. When asked about the election in Canada President Trump said, “I don’t care. I think it’s easier to deal, actually, with a liberal and maybe they’re going to win, but I don’t really care.”

By voting emotionally, the Canadian electorate have fallen into President Trump’s USMCA exit trap. Prime Minister Carney will make the exit much easier. Carney now becomes the target of increased punitive coercion until such a time as the USMCA review is begun, and Canada is forced to a position of renegotiation.

Trump never wanted Canada as a 51st state.

Trump always wanted a U.S-Canada bilateral trade agreement.

Mark Carney said the era of U.S-Canadian economic ties “are officially declared severed.”

Canada has willingly exited the USMCA trade agreement at the perfect time for President Trump.

Why do you think Mexico stayed quiet?

Can you see it now?

Code:
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2025/04/28/how-the-nafta-usmca-2016-review-underpins-president-trump-remarks-on-canada/

 
This is next level XD chess.

If you think this is ingenious, wait til the Midterms.
 
.

He wouldn't have to get them to “exit” it if he hand’t gotten the to enter it to begin with. As I recall, that was heralded around here as one of the big wins from his first term. Reminds me of the old gag that FDR had one bunch of guys digging holes, and another coming behind them and filling them in. Typical political bullshit.
 
.

He wouldn't have to get them to “exit” it if he hand’t gotten the to enter it to begin with. As I recall, that was heralded around here as one of the big wins from his first term. Reminds me of the old gag that FDR had one bunch of guys digging holes, and another coming behind them and filling them in. Typical political bullshit.
It was, he ended NAFTA and replaced it with an improved deal with a sunset clause.
We are now coming up on the sunset clause and he's going to end it.

Trump is reversing globalism.
Cry harder.
 
It was, he ended NAFTA and replaced it with an improved deal with a sunset clause.
We are now coming up on the sunset clause and he's going to end it.

Trump is reversing globalism.
Cry harder.
.

Yawn.

You really need to get someone to write you some new, and better, material.

NAFTA sucked. USMCA sucked just as bad. No improvement, your claims to the contrary notwithstanding.

Now, he’s dropping USMCA but giving us a massive tax increase in its place. Yippee. Exchanging one evil for another. Trumps metier.
 
.

Yawn.

You really need to get someone to write you some new, and better, material.

NAFTA sucked. USMCA sucked just as bad. No improvement, your claims to the contrary notwithstanding.

Now, he’s dropping USMCA but giving us a massive tax increase in its place. Yippee. Exchanging one evil for another. Trumps metier.
LOL

He's getting rid of the income tax and bringing jobs back to America, he's also getting other countries to drop their tariffs on us to create even more jobs.

Your taxes will go down.
 
LOL

He's getting rid of the income tax and bringing jobs back to America, he's also getting other countries to drop their tariffs on us to create even more jobs.

Your taxes will go down.
.

The income tax isn’t going anywhere, as much as I’d love to see it go. You’re way to gullible.

I know, I know… muh tiffs rbgud. You’re a broken record.

My taxes are going down? I have your personal guarantee, I suppose?

Riiiigghhht.
 
Your taxes will go down.

Shovel_work.gif
 
President Trump was discussing the USMCA and said: “As you know it terminates fairly shortly. It gets renegotiated fairly shortly.” … “This was a transitional deal, and we’ll see what happens, we’re going to start renegotiating that” … “I don’t know if it serves a purpose anymore.” …. “And the biggest purpose it served was, we got rid of NAFTA.”

Code:
https://theconservativetreehouse.com/blog/2025/07/29/canadian-officials-continue-wondering-why-trump-administration-projects-ambivalence-toward-u-s-canada-trade-deal/

 
Notice the backwards presuppositions in the OP.

There's this NAFTA loophole that allows us to enjoy the benefits of cheap imports from China via Canada. And in the OP, this is seen as a bad thing for America and something that provides one-way benefits to Canada. For the OP, the selling point for getting out of NAFTA and the USMCA is that it will result in us having to pay higher tariffs.

Of course, there's another way to close the same loophole, which would be for the regime in DC to lower the tariffs it charges us on imports from China. Then we could just import them from China without needing them to go through Canada first. But that's not even up for consideration.
 
Notice the backwards presuppositions in the OP.

There's this NAFTA loophole that allows us to enjoy the benefits of cheap imports from China via Canada. And in the OP, this is seen as a bad thing for America and something that provides one-way benefits to Canada. For the OP, the selling point for getting out of NAFTA and the USMCA is that it will result in us having to pay higher tariffs.

Of course, there's another way to close the same loophole, which would be for the regime in DC to lower the tariffs it charges us on imports from China. Then we could just import them from China without needing them to go through Canada first. But that's not even up for consideration.

There is no such thing as a free lunch. If China is giving you something for free or deeply subsidized there is a cost born from it.

The cost isn't necessarily just the deindustrialization of your country.

You can't have one country control the world's economy because they produce everything the world needs.

Otherwise you get Chinese defacto rule where China can exert control over political speech and force corporations in America to censor speech they dont like and control who wins elections in our country.

This is because you let China seize the means of production. Thats how you get communism.

Communism doesn't come from a vote it comes by force
 
There is no such thing as a free lunch. If China is giving you something for free or deeply subsidized there is a cost born from it.

The cost isn't necessarily just the deindustrialization of your country.

You can't have one country control the world's economy because they produce everything the world needs.

Otherwise you get Chinese defacto rule where China can exert control over political speech and force corporations in America to censor speech they dont like and control who wins elections in our country.

This is because you let China seize the means of production. Thats how you get communism.

Communism doesn't come from a vote it comes by force
If you don't want to buy imports from China, then don't. If you want to use some kind of self-imposed punishment to help yourself limit how much you buy from China by sending extra money to DC every time you do, then suit yourself.

Just keep your hand out of my pockets.
 
If you don't want to buy imports from China, then don't. If you want to use some kind of self-imposed punishment to help yourself limit how much you buy from China by sending extra money to DC every time you do, then suit yourself.

Just keep your hand out of my pockets.
If you dont want to have an industrialized nation with sovereignty and INDEPENDENCE you can always move to Canada.

You dont have to live in a free country if you dont want to.
 
If you dont want to have an industrialized nation with sovereignty and INDEPENDENCE you can always move to Canada.

You dont have to live in a free country if you dont want to.
When I buy something imported from China, that's between me and the person I buy it from. Freedom, sovereignty, and independence (i.e. my own freedom, my own sovereignty, and my own independence) is when I can do that without you interfering with threats of violence to charge me money for something that's none of your business.
 
When I buy something imported from China, that's between me and the person I buy it from. Freedom, sovereignty, and independence is when I can do that without you interfering with threats of violence to charge me money for something that's none of your business.
No it's not. You are part of a union.

Commerce with other nations is regulated.

You dont get to enjoy the fruits of the United States democratic capitalism system without paying your union dues.
 
No it's not. You are part of a union.

Commerce with other nations is regulated.

You dont get to enjoy the fruits of the United States democratic capitalism system without paying your union dues.
In other words, you don't support freedom or independence, and the only kind of sovereignty you support is your sovereignty over me--so I don't have any sovereignty.

You're a statist. plain and simple. When you throw around the vocabulary of freedom and independence, you're lying.
 
In other words, you don't support freedom or independence, and the only kind of sovereignty you support is your sovereignty over me--so I don't have any sovereignty.

You're a statist. plain and simple. When you throw around the vocabulary of freedom and independence, you're lying.

No I dont support you selling our country's independence to China.

I know its profitable to sell our country's independence to China but its NOT FOR SALE.
 
Back
Top