The spectre of U.S. retaliation seems everywhere in Canadian politics today. From whether to regulate American tech companies, to lifting tariffs on Chinese electric vehicles (EVs), to supporting the war in Iran, Canadian policymaking is routinely buffeted by fears that the Trump administration will hurt us if we appear offside with its agenda.

Indeed, when President Donald Trump imposes multiple tariffs and makes other ominous threats — “Canada lives because of the United States. Remember that, Mark” — it is difficult to see retaliation as anything other than an imminent possibility.

The imbalanced relationship between the two countries makes it difficult for the federal government to act. In managing this danger, Canadian policymakers should keep in mind three important guideposts: the danger of retaliation varies issue-by-issue; some policies are worth the risk; and the timing of Canadian action — whether the U.S. is strong, distracted or weak — matters.

What exactly is retaliation? How has it changed and how should we think about it in the age of Trump?

Retaliation is a form of coercive diplomacy in which a state responds to an action by another state or actor by imposing painful costs. This can serve as an incentive for the target to walk back undesirable policies, but it can also serve as a warning about who has leverage in a relationship.

That rare moment when a prime minister shapes the country Canada’s response to Trump tariff threats risks unintended consequences Canada’s policy reset needs to go much further than trade to address Trump shock effects

That rare moment when a prime minister shapes the country

Canada’s response to Trump tariff threats risks unintended consequences

Canada’s policy reset needs to go much further than trade to address Trump shock effects

Retaliation can change policymakers’ behaviour, but so, too, can the threat of retaliation. When Ontario Premier Doug Ford proposed a 25-per-cent surcharge on electricity exports last spring, the Trump administration threatened to retaliate by doubling its tariffs on steel and aluminum. Ford quickly backed down.

Retaliation is typically seen as a “tit-for-tat” strategy where action in one area clearly leads to retaliation in another. But retaliation can also be more diffuse. As Brian Bow argues, it can lead to “grudge linkages” where a state doesn’t impose costs immediately, but rather through “malign passivity” where it becomes indifferent to the concerns........

© IRPP - Policy Options