menu_open Columnists
We use cookies to provide some features and experiences in QOSHE

More information  .  Close

Trump’s Tariff Clock Is Ticking. Does It Matter?

1 0
yesterday

Fact-based journalism that sparks the Canadian conversation

Articles Business Environment Health Politics Arts & Culture Society

Special Series Hope You’re Well For the Love of the Game Living Rooms In Other Worlds: A Space Exploration Terra Cognita More special series >

For the Love of the Game

In Other Worlds: A Space Exploration

More special series >

Events The Walrus Talks The Walrus Video Room The Walrus Leadership Roundtables The Walrus Leadership Forums Article Club

The Walrus Video Room

The Walrus Leadership Roundtables

The Walrus Leadership Forums

Subscribe Renew your subscription Change your address Magazine Issues Newsletters Podcasts

Renew your subscription

The Walrus Lab Hire The Walrus Lab Amazon First Novel Award

Amazon First Novel Award

Trump’s Tariff Clock Is Ticking. Does It Matter?

In the scramble, it’s becoming less clear what Canada is even negotiating over anymore

If you’re reading this, you likely belong to one of three camps: those freaking out about the August 19 trade negotiation deadline, those who’ve shrugged it off, and those who have no idea it’s happening.

You can be forgiven for falling into the third camp, given the volume of daily tariff, trade, and Donald Trump drama. A quick (non-AI-generated) summary: at 12:01 a.m. on August 19, the United States will slap a new, 50 percent tariff on about $20 billion worth of Canadian goods, including some covered under the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement, unless the two countries can reach a deal. Trump has signalled he’s willing to forego the new tariffs and lower pre-existing ones on the auto industry in exchange for some concessions from Canada, including allowing the sale of US alcohol products in some provinces.

But it’s possible to simultaneously register that the tariffs are no idle threat while allowing that Trump has threatened tariffs multiple times in the past without following through, that he could decide to extend negotiations last minute, and that he could choose to comply with TACO (or “Trump Always Chickens Out”).

Given the caveats, how seriously should we take Trump’s deadlines? I spoke with Andrea Lawlor, associate professor in the department of political science and the public policy program at McMaster University, about the ticking tariff clock and the psychology, practicality, and effectiveness of deadlines.

When Trump sets a deadline, what’s your response?

I tend to react now with much less a sense of urgency than I did at the beginning of the second Trump administration. We have seen what appear to be firm deadlines come and go with little by way of an actual agreement and, sometimes, even little by way of consequences. We have been given repeated cues from the American administration that deadlines, formalities, and institutionalized agreements are far more fluid than we would have initially anticipated.

So there’s a whole psychology to the application of deadlines in this context that is meant to promote a sense of urgency, but when they are treated without the normal constraints of a deadline, then I think people start to wonder: What is the use of the tool? If it’s not actually to get to an agreement by a stated date, then is it really a veiled threat?

So what do you think is the point of deadlines, at least those coming from the White House?

We’ve seen evidence over the past few years, under the Trump administration, that the deadline is really a tool to draw attention to a grievance, and that is usually attached to a threat. His deadlines tend to come with sometimes arbitrary or incomplete information, sometimes arbitrary expectations—and sometimes assertions that seem out of sync with what the negotiation is presumably trying to procure.

That’s the other part of the negotiation tactic that is really disrupted with the current trade talks: we are not even sure what we’re trying to negotiate at this point. We’re trying to stop something from happening; we’re trying to stop a consequence. Canadians and the Canadian government are looking for predictability, but that doesn’t really........

© The Walrus