alt.hn

7/20/2026 at 9:40:55 PM

US imposes new 50% tariffs on some Canadian products

 https://www.reuters.com/business/us-imposes-new-50-tariffs-canadian-products-2026-07-20/

by JumpCrisscross

7/21/2026 at 12:13:16 AM

There was never a Canada-wide US alcohol ban.

In places like Ontario, which admittedly is the most populous province by far, the purchaser for the government-run liquor stores (LCBO) decided not to buy US alcohol, and the LCBO decided not to sell its remaining stock.

In some provinces, US booze never went away. Here in Alberta I've never not been able to buy US wine or bourbon. Of course, I won't buy it, and I've found some Canadian whiskies I like that are new to me, like Bearface, Red Bank, and Gooderham and Worts. And at dive bars, I've started ordering a Jameson and soda.

by badc0ffee

7/20/2026 at 9:46:44 PM

§ 338 lets the President place tariffs on countries who impose “any unreasonable charge, exaction, regulation, or limitation which is not equally enforced upon the like articles of every foreign country” or “in fact against the commerce of the United States, directly or indirectly, by law or administrative regulation or practice” [1].

Just from the text, these powers appear quite broad.

[1] https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/19/1338#:~:text=Prio... §338 of the Act was apparently codified as § 1388

by JumpCrisscross

7/20/2026 at 9:51:43 PM

Yeah, I'm on Canada's side of the conflict, but there's really no question as a matter of US law that the alcohol restrictions are sufficient to satisfy the preconditions for this.

by SpicyLemonZest

7/20/2026 at 11:24:39 PM

> the alcohol restrictions are sufficient to satisfy the preconditions for this

The problem with this § 338 power is it lets "any burden or disadvantage upon the commerce of the United States" trigger duties "not to exceed 50 per" cent "on any products of" the offending country.

by JumpCrisscross

7/20/2026 at 10:50:15 PM

These new tariff's explicitly violate CUSMA/USMCA, which Trump personally signed. That treaty does include a clause for pulling out, but that isn't being properly exercised here. Failing to use the proper termination clause for the trade deal just makes the U.S. look even more unreliable and incapable of meeting it's signed commitments.

It's now clear that trade deals with the U.S. will not be honoured, so why should Canada continue granting the U.S. concession after concession? The Carney government needs to go silent and let Trump hang himself in the midterms.

As for myself, I'll never drink Kentucky bourbon again so long as I live, whether that corn swill is on Canadian shelves or not.

by beloch

7/20/2026 at 11:29:25 PM

> just makes the U.S. look even more unreliable and incapable of meeting it's signed commitments

The EU is trying to captain the sinking ship of the international system of laws. China (UNCLOS), Russia (Geneva, Budapest) and now America (Geneva, Budapest, every trade agreement) have explicitly and materially violated their signed agreements in massive ways. The only charge America hasn't joined the party on is annexing others' sovereign territory, and it's not like we're not bugging the bouncer.

by JumpCrisscross

7/20/2026 at 11:59:50 PM

There's a whole lot of middle-level countries that can/should act like the Internet and route around damage. With motivations on both sides, trade agreements can be reached more quickly. And there's trade to/from the US that has to be replaced.

by jleyank

7/21/2026 at 12:37:15 AM

> There's a whole lot of middle-level countries that can/should act like the Internet and route around damage

Carney has the right idea here. The problem is you can't just ignore the large powers–that's trying to construct a prisoner's dilemma cartel.

by JumpCrisscross

7/21/2026 at 12:18:50 AM

If there is no international police, there is no international law.

by zhoBEENG

7/21/2026 at 12:37:39 AM

> If there is no international police, there is no international law

That was the Pax Americana. The problem is the same people complaining about countries blatantly breaking contracts now were whining about imperialism before.

by JumpCrisscross

7/21/2026 at 8:36:24 AM

> These new tariff's explicitly violate CUSMA/USMCA, which Trump personally signed.

Just like in 2017, Trudeau and Trump agreed to support the expeditious completion of the Gordie Howe International Bridge. Trump 1.0 even listed it as a priority infrastructure project. But Trump 2.0 has held up the opening of the bridge for months based on profound misunderstandings of how the project was funded and completed. And of course the influence of the Moroun family.

The repeated capriciousness of this U.S. administration is undoing any sense of trust and cooperation. Everything to Trump is an all-or-nothing battle to be won. In 80 years on this earth, the man has not learned that mutual benefit is a thing.

by kashunstva