On Jan. 16, 2026, Donald Trump publicly shrugged at the idea of Canada deepening trade with China. Her told reporters it was “okay” and that Canada “should be doing that deal if they can get it.” A week later, he flipped hard.
On Jan. 24, Trump posted on Truth Social that if Prime Minister Mark Carney makes Canada a “Drop Off Port” for China to funnel goods into the U.S., Canada will be hit with an “immediate” 100% tariff on all Canadian goods entering the United States.
He didn’t stop at tariffs. Trump added an unusually melodramatic warning: “China will eat Canada alive, completely devour it.” He claimed a China deal would destroy Canada’s “businesses, social fabric, and general way of life.” This wasn’t policy analysis; it was a hostage note written in all-caps vibes.
Then came Jan. 25, and a second Truth Social post escalating the same message. “The last thing the World needs is to have China take over Canada,” insisting it “isn’t going to happen.” In 48 hours, Trump went from “it’s okay” to “China is annexing Canada” to “I will economically punish you for preventing that imaginary annexation.”
What Canada actually did with China
Canada’s recent Beijing outreach was described domestically as a “strategic partnership” and a recalibration. It’s not a plan to become China’s logistics chute into the U.S. Federal Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc also pushed back publicly, saying Canada is not pursuing a free trade deal with China. (Via Global News)
Canada’s government, for its part, has also been explicit that the Jan. 16 engagement with China was about economic and trade discussions. It was about “advancing trade and investment,” not signing up to be anyone’s “drop-off port.”
This is the part where the “Here we go again” kicks in. Trump’s Jan. 16 posture was “sure, make the deal if you can.” That is exactly the kind of permission slip allies rely on when navigating great-power economics. But Trump’s Jan. 24–25 posture rewrites that into a threat: make any deal and I’ll torch you.
What a “100% tariff on all goods” would actually mean
Notice how the rationale morphs mid-sentence. First it’s “market access” and “drop off ports.” Then it becomes a civilizational panic story about Canada being “devoured.” That’s not a trade policy. That’s a vibe-based loyalty test with a 100% tariff attached.
A blanket 100% tariff isn’t a scalpel; it’s a sledgehammer. It would effectively double the tariff line on imports at the border, pushing costs through supply chains. And because tariffs are paid by importers, it would create an immediate price pressure and retaliation risk. The threat is designed to force political behavior, not fix “unfair trade.”
But the punchline remains the 360 that Trump has pulled. He told Canada a China deal was fine, then threatened to economically punish Canada for doing the thing he said was fine. He also tried to reframe standard Canada–China talks into a cartoon plot where Canada becomes China’s “port” into America. The policy isn’t consistent, But the dominance theater is.
Published: Jan 25, 2026 01:00 pm