President Trump’s recent assertion that “we’re spending $200 billion a year to subsidize Canada” and provide it “free military protection” does not withstand scrutiny. In reality, trade flows between the United States and Canada reflect normal economic dynamics, not government giveaways. Economists emphasize that a bilateral trade deficit is not a subsidy but simply the result of Americans buying more from Canada than vice versa. Official data confirm that the U.S. trade deficit with Canada is far smaller than $200 billion, roughly $45 billion in 2024 (including goods and services). That $45 billion shortfall represents about 0.2% of U.S. GDP, a trivial sum compared to the nearly $700 billion in two-way trade with Canada. In other words, there is no mysterious $200 billion transfer: trade balances reflect consumer demand and prices, not “handouts” from one government to another.
Economists explain such trade volumes with the gravity trade model, which shows that larger and closer economies tend to trade much more. By this logic, it is perfectly expected that the United States and Canada, two of the world’s biggest economies sharing a 4,000-mile border, have an enormous trade relationship. In 2024, U.S.-Canada goods trade alone was on the order of $762 billion (with U.S. exports of $349.4 billion and imports of $412.7 billion). If one includes services, the total exceeds $1.3 trillion per year (about $683 billion in the first three quarters of 2024 alone). Fundamentals, not politics, drive these large flows. By comparison, Canada’s GDP is about $2.1 trillion versus roughly $25 trillion for the U.S., so even the smaller country trades a vast amount of goods and services simply due to the size and proximity of the American market. Indeed, about 75–76% of Canada’s exports go to the U.S. every year, and for Americans, Canada is the single largest market, roughly $330–350 billion of U.S. exports (goods and services) flowed northward over nine months in 2024.
In fact, 34 U.S. states export more to Canada than any other country. Both sides are heavily interlinked: about half of all bilateral goods trade occurs between related companies. These facts underscore that U.S.–Canada trade is a two-way, interdependent relationship, not a one-way subsidy. Below is a sector-by-sector explanation of why this is true.
Energy: The notion that the U.S. “doesn’t need” Canadian energy is economically backwards. Canada is the largest single source of U.S. energy imports. In 2019, for example, nearly $85 billion of U.S. imports from Canada were energy products, about 27% of all U.S. imports from Canada. Crude oil and petroleum products dominate this trade: in February 2025, Canada supplied 4.1 million barrels per day of crude oil to the U.S. (out of a total of 6.0 million b/d of U.S. imports), far exceeding any other country. Canada is not merely a passive recipient; U.S. refiners rely on that northern supply for gasoline and diesel. Meanwhile, the U.S. also exports energy northward (about $23 billion of oil, gas, and electricity in 2019). Thus, the energy trade is reciprocal and efficiency-driven: each country produces what it can most easily export. Ottawa’s oil sands and gas pipelines underwrite fuel supplies for American drivers, while U.S. natural gas and power exports keep Canadian homes heated. There are no cheap giveaways here, just competitive market exchange.
Automotive Sector. North America’s auto industry is deeply integrated across the U.S.–Canada border, so simply “dropping” Canadian vehicles is unrealistic. Under USMCA (formerly NAFTA), automotive parts cross the border many times before a finished car rolls off the line. U.S. parts go north to Canadian plants, then partly built vehicles come south for final assembly, and vice versa. In 2024, vehicles and auto parts were among the United States’ leading exports to Canada, while Canada also shipped large quantities of cars and engines to the U.S. Because of this binational supply chain, tariffs on autos would quickly amplify costs at each stage. The Bank of Canada illustrates this vividly: if a $25,000 car is built with parts crossing the border multiple times, a 25% tariff at each pass could add thousands to the price. Indeed, one analysis noted that a 25% duty on a $25,000 car would tack on about $6,250, a cost that dealers would almost certainly pass on to consumers. In short, imposing high auto tariffs does not make American factories instantly self-sufficient; it simply sends shocks through both countries’ factories and dealerships, hurting workers and buyers in both nations.
Lumber and Forest Products. Canada is the world’s largest supplier of softwood lumber to the U.S. Each year, roughly a quarter of American softwood demand comes from Canadian forests. In 2024, the U.S. imported about 11.9 billion board feet of lumber from Canada, approximately 23% of U.S. consumption. This trade is crucial to homebuilding and construction in the U.S.; any new tariffs would raise material costs. (Canadian lumber already faces anti-dumping duties of about 14.5%, and even these have been disputed.) Notably, lumber trade also runs the other way: U.S. producers export specialty hardwoods and paper products to Canada, a fact sometimes overlooked. Tariff disputes in recent years have illustrated the point. When broad tariffs were threatened on Canadian goods, both countries quickly announced taxes on steel, aluminum, and wood that risked raising prices for North American consumers. The forest products trade, like the auto trade, is not a one-sided gift. Each side sells what it produces efficiently.
Trade’s Broader Benefits. Trade with Canada supports American jobs and businesses. Analysts estimate that about 1.4 million American jobs depend on exports to Canada, from farmers to factory workers. Over 34 states count Canada as their top foreign market. Conversely, 2.3 million Canadians rely on selling to U.S. customers. Major U.S. industries – agriculture (roughly $30 billion in annual U.S. ag exports), automotive, machinery, electronics – all sell heavily to Canada. Canada in turn exports vast energy, auto parts, plastics and machinery back to the U.S. (along with about $40 billion in Canadian agricultural goods). These figures show a picture of interdependence: each country’s industries have grown up trading with the other. Indeed, half of all U.S.–Canada goods trade occurs between related companies or supply chains, meaning tariffs often hurt affiliates of the same business. As one Canadian economist put it, the U.S.–Canada trading relationship is a “highly integrated North American supply chain.” Any disruption, tariffs, quotas, or hostile rhetoric raises costs for businesses and consumers.
Military and Alliance. The “free military protection” claim for Canada also misrepresents the facts. Canada is a NATO ally and contributes its military forces and funding. In 2024, Canada’s defense spending was about 1.37% of GDP. The Trudeau government has pledged to meet the NATO guideline of 2% by the early 2030s. NATO’s Secretary General has explicitly praised Canada’s commitment, noting that Ottawa plans to add “billions of dollars” over coming years for new equipment, a modernized NORAD, and 5th-generation jets. Canada also contributes forces to NATO missions abroad (for example, leading a brigade in Latvia and sending training teams to Ukraine). Far from being a “free rider,” Canada is investing in collective defense. Moreover, the U.S. gains substantial defensive value from Canada’s geography: NORAD early-warning radar sites in the Arctic and Canadian airspace shield both countries. Independent analyses find that the United States shoulders the lion’s share of defense costs for North America. One study calculated that the U.S. pays about 97–98% of the combined U.S.–Canada air defense budget, while Canada pays only ~2–3%. In that study, the U.S. reaped about 91–97% of the security “benefits” (coverage of the continental airspace). In plain terms, American taxpayers are already investing heavily in continental defense, much more so than Canadians. (Even Canada’s defense ministry notes that early-warning systems are mostly on Canadian soil, and the U.S. share of NORAD costs is essentially for radars on Canadian territory). Thus, the idea that the U.S. gives Canada security “for free” is misleading: Canada both benefits from and contributes to joint defense.
Tariffs Would Hurt Both Sides. Most importantly, threats of new tariffs would inflict real harm on the U.S. economy, not just Canada. Trade taxes are paid by importers and passed to consumers and businesses at higher prices. Researchers studying the 2018–2019 tariff increases found clear evidence of this effect. By late 2018, economists estimated that American consumers were shouldering the full cost of new tariffs, reducing U.S. real incomes by about $1.4 billion per month. Factories that rely on imported inputs, from electronics to car parts, saw input costs jump. One Federal Reserve study concluded that the 2018 tariffs led to higher wholesale prices and a decline in U.S. manufacturing employment, due to rising input costs and retaliatory tariffs. For example, shifting an industry from low to high exposure to the tariffs was associated with about a 1.4% drop in manufacturing jobs and a 4.1% increase in factory-gate prices. In short, tariffs are not a gift to domestic factories; they hurt U.S. businesses that import parts and consumers who buy goods.
A new round of tariffs on Canada would have similar outcomes. The Bank of Canada warns that 25% U.S. tariffs would raise prices for U.S. consumers and damp U.S. GDP growth, as other countries retaliate. Automotive parts and finished cars would be hit especially hard, raising costs throughout the North American auto sector. Economists note that the negative impact on U.S. supply chains would likely spill over into lower economic growth and higher inflation. On the Canadian side, new U.S. tariffs would shrink exports, idle plants, and force layoffs. The Bank of Canada’s analysis finds that retaliatory measures and falling oil prices (from global trade disruptions) would worsen Canada’s output and dollar value. Recent events illustrate the cost: when Canada briefly imposed tariffs on U.S. steel and aluminum, U.S. steel exports became more expensive and some U.S. factories faced input shortages. Every such tit-for-tat move only makes goods more expensive and both economies weaker. In contrast, reducing barriers has consistently expanded output and lowered consumer prices, benefiting workers and shoppers in both countries.
In a complex, modern trade relationship, the United States and Canada gain from open borders, not one side subsidizing the other. The “$200 billion subsidy” and “free military protection” claims are not supported by the data. In reality, trade flows are explained by economic laws, and defense costs are shared, albeit unevenly, under NATO and NORAD. Canadians send vital energy, lumber, and manufactured inputs into the U.S. economy, while Americans purchase Canadian goods and have the largest export market in Canada. Both nations’ workers rely on this exchange for jobs and affordable goods. Raising tariffs or walking away from cooperation would increase costs for U.S. consumers and harm U.S. exporters and workers. The facts are clear: a robust U.S.–Canada trading partnership has brought mutual benefits, and breaking it would only undermine American prosperity, not Canada’s.
Add comment
Comments