Experts say other U.S. trade deals offer limited guidance for Canada

A new assessment from trade lawyers argues that Canada should not treat the Trump administration’s recent agreements with other countries as a ready-made blueprint for resolving its dispute with Washington. The central distinction is the scale of Canada-U.S. integration: Canada is party to CUSMA, and its economy is tied far more directly to the U.S. market than those of many countries that have recently reached arrangements with the administration. [1]

The lawyers interviewed describe the newer U.S. deals as unlike conventional comprehensive trade agreements. Georgetown law professor Kathleen Claussen said they commonly contain few commitments framed as binding obligations, while Seattle trade lawyer Adams Lee questioned whether countries would face meaningful consequences for failing to meet their stated commitments. That structure makes the agreements less useful as a durable benchmark for Canadian businesses seeking predictable market-access terms. [1]

The report also highlights the uneven concessions associated with some recent arrangements. In the July EU-U.S. deal cited in the article, Washington agreed to cap most tariffs on EU goods at 15 per cent, while the European side agreed to remove tariffs on U.S. industrial goods, reduce some agricultural tariffs and support major investment in the United States. Claussen characterized such outcomes as notably one-sided, reflecting the leverage created by tariff pressure rather than a standard reciprocal FTA negotiation. [1]

That pressure is important for Canada because the report says recent deals have often been pursued to avoid escalation or secure limited tariff relief, rather than to establish broad, enforceable rules. It notes that the administration has used national-security tariffs on steel and aluminum and other older statutes for additional tariffs, including 50 per cent duties on selected Canadian goods in August. The Supreme Court’s February ruling against the administration’s broad IEEPA tariffs is also cited as part of the shifting legal setting for U.S. tariff actions. [1]

The assessment does not conclude that a Canada-U.S. agreement is unattainable. Ottawa lawyer Alexander Hobbs said the countries’ close economic relationship means both sides are negotiating for an outcome that works for their economies, and he pointed to continued U.S. participation in CUSMA as evidence that Washington may seek a revised arrangement rather than withdrawal. But the analysis suggests that Canada’s negotiating choices cannot be evaluated simply against concessions made by the EU, United Kingdom, Japan or other partners with less integrated commercial ties to the United States. [1]