Trump vows big tariffs on Mexico, Canada and China

U.S. President-elect Donald Trump said Monday he intends to impose sweeping tariffs on goods from Mexico, Canada and China, prompting a swift warning from Beijing that "no one will win a trade war."

In a series of posts to his Truth Social account, Trump vowed to hit some of the United States' largest trading partners with duties on all goods entering the country.

"On January 20th, as one of my many first Executive Orders, I will sign all necessary documents to charge Mexico and Canada a 25 percent tariff on ALL products coming into the United States," he wrote.

In another post, Trump said he would also be slapping China with a 10 percent tariff, "above any additional Tariffs," in response to what he said was its failure to tackle fentanyl smuggling.

Tariffs are a key part of Trump's economic agenda, with the Republican vowing wide-ranging duties on allies and adversaries alike while he was on the campaign trail.

Both China and Canada issued swift responses, each calling their trade relationships with the United States "mutually beneficial."

"No one will win a trade war," Liu Pengyu, a spokesman for China's embassy in the United States, told AFP by email, defending Beijing's efforts to curb fentanyl smuggling.

"China believes that China-US economic and trade cooperation is mutually beneficial in nature," Liu added.

Canada said it was "essential" to US energy supplies, and insisted the relationship benefits American workers.

"We will of course continue to discuss these issues with the incoming administration," said the statement from Deputy Prime Minister Chrystia Freeland.

Trump's first term in the White House was marked by an aggressive and protectionist trade agenda that also targeted China, Mexico and Canada, as well as Europe.

While in the White House, Trump launched an all-out trade war with China, imposing significant tariffs on hundreds of billions of dollars of Chinese goods.

At the time he cited unfair trade practices, intellectual property theft, and the trade deficit as justifications.

China responded with retaliatory tariffs on American products, particularly affecting U.S. farmers.

The U.S., Mexico and Canada are tied to a three-decade-old free trade agreement, now called the USMCA, that was renegotiated under Trump after he complained that the US businesses, especially automakers, were losing out.

"Mexico and Canada remain heavily dependent on the US market so their ability to walk away from President-elect Trump's threats remains limited," Wendy Cutler, vice president at the Asia Society Policy Institute, and former US trade official, told AFP.

By citing the fentanyl crisis and illegal immigration, Trump appeared to be using national security concerns as a means to break that deal, something that is usually allowed under the rules set by the World Trade Organization or in trade deals.

But most countries and the WTO treat national security exceptions as something to be used sparingly, not as a routine tool of trade policy.

Trump in 2018 cited national security justifications to impose tariffs on steel and aluminum imports that targeted close allies like Canada, Mexico, and the European Union.

This led to retaliatory measures from the trading partners.

- 'Bet on China tariffs' -

Many economists have warned that tariffs would hurt growth and push up inflation, since they are primarily paid by importers bringing the goods into the US, who often pass those costs on to consumers.

But those in Trump's inner circle have insisted that the tariffs are a useful bargaining chip for the US to push its trading partners to agree to more favorable terms, and to bring back manufacturing jobs from overseas.

Trump has said he will put his commerce secretary designate Howard Lutnick, a China hawk, in charge of trade policy.

Lutnick has expressed support for a tariff level of 60 percent on Chinese goods alongside a 10 percent tariff on all other imports.

William Reinsch, senior adviser at the Center for Strategic and International Studies, said that that move was classic Trump: "threaten, and then negotiate."

"In terms of what might actually happen, I'd bet on some China tariffs going into effect. That's legally easier and politically more palatable," he said.

"On Canada and Mexico there was going to be a renegotiation of their trade deal (the USMCA) anyway in 2026."

da-bys-arp-st/jgc

© Agence France-Presse

For customer support contact support@rawstory.com. Report typos and corrections to corrections@rawstory.com.

Earlier this year, an apparently highly ambitious Florida state Rep. named Meg Weinberger, a Republican from Palm Beach Gardens, introduced a Florida measure to rename Palm Beach International Airport to the President Donald J. Trump International Airport. Not to be outdone in the race to kiss Trump's "cheek," Rep. Brian Mast (R-FL) took the matter to the federal level by asking that the airport code name be "DJT." Gov. Ron DeSantis, wanting no part in someone else outdoing Trump's love, then signed off on March 30, 2026. On August 18th, yes - just a couple of weeks ago- PBI became DJT.

The fact that Americans do often name airports after prominent people, usually locals, is entirely offset by two disgusting facts: First, we usually wait until someone dies, thus completing a legacy (Ronald Reagan was very sick when National became Reagan National), and, most importantly, not currently IN power. Second - and somehow, this is even worse, because Donald J. Trump considers his name to be "Commercially Controlled Property" (His NAME!), Palm Beach Int... Ahem, Donald J. Trump International has to contract to use his name. There is no fee for his name's use... yet, but it's named only under contract.

The shift was finalized in the last two weeks when more people worried about Natalie Harp than Trump influencing naming his own airport such that he could - again - perhaps someday, profit off it. (Will grade schools around the South, wanting to be "Trump Elementary," also have to pay a $50,000 fee? Do. Not. Laugh. Why not?

Not one bit of this is fine. But, fine.

West Palm Beach did this to itself, and when someone really opens the Epstein files, it will be West Palm Beach and Floridians left to explain how they named their airport after "Florida Man," and may live to regret not waiting until well after he died, to be sure they still loved him.

But speaking of people who were loved at the time of their deaths, we are still mourning the loss of a true American original and icon, one whose heart was somehow bigger than her talents and her voice in Dolly Parton. Even Donald Trump had to admit that her death warranted lowering flags for a week.

It warrants a lot more than that. We are looking at you, Nashville International Airport, or "BNA," for reasons passing understanding. We want Dolly Parton International Airport, and we want it very soon. Let us grieve, let us think, and then let us celebrate- then you act. That "BNA" becomes "DPI" is no weirder than a DJT sandwich.

There is precedent for this. Ever fly to New Orleans? Do. The celebration of music starts in the concourse and never ends. After all, you are walking through Louis Armstrong Int., or "MSY" — also for reasons meaning nothing about nothing.

Go to Louisville? Well, whether you do or don't, your packages through UPS certainly do, and when doing so, land at Louisville Muhammad Ali International Airport — very befitting of its "best citizen." See a pattern here? Yes, they were wonderful people, sons of the city, but all dead when the name changed. In so doing, they remain forever some of the city's best ambassadors. DJT being the exception on both accounts, dead or wonderful.

Dolly Parton would be the best city ambassador just about anyplace. But, Nashville? Comically perfect, could be done in a week.

Now let's really up our game and demonstrate that for every major branding Trump manages, the rest of America renames two bigger things. First, and most important, Chicago O'Hare must become "Barack Obama Intercontinental" like Bush in Houston. Why Intercontinental? Because it sounds cooler, that's why! Why Obama? Because he is cooler. (There is actually a beautiful story that goes along with O'Hare, a hero pilot, certainly worth retaining a concourse name, but we're playing for big stakes, the hometown of the first Black President.)

And no. Do not wait for President Obama to die. Do not even wait for him to get sick. Do not even worry that if Trump runs for a third term, it's Hope and CHANGE all over again and Obama will win again. President "DJT" (Best not to use his real name, or he might charge us) has proven that nothing matters anymore, so certainly nothing about this matters. Change the name, Chicago: "Obama Intercontinental" sounds cool AF. Be like Nashville, hopefully.

We did say "twice as much" as Trump, and it's hard to shelve a figure like Dolly Parton as purely a liberal icon (though she'd certainly pick the Left among two choices), so one must look elsewhere for something "big" and needing an "obvious" anti-Trump stamp somewhere, somewhere bigger than West Palm Beach. Maybe we should go back to music. Where could we find a definite Left-wing icon, someone really anti-Trump and associated with a definite place...

Newark? EWR? Is there any sufficiently justifiable reason you have not become Bruce Springsteen International yet? (Too bad the code "BOS" is already taken by Boston, or that would be too perfect.) This one would be as obvious as Parton's, but let's have the Boss at the celebration of "BSI."

Last one — and none of these are bad ideas, indeed ALL should be done asap, but San Francisco has been almost criminally negligent in not naming SFO for the late Harvey Milk long ago. As most know, Milk ran for the SF County Board of Supervisors as the first openly gay man to run for office at a time when not only was that not done, but that could get someone fired in the private sector, break up families, keep them from housing, and too often, lead to violence. But Milk insisted he be allowed to live as he was. A year later, he was assassinated by a former supervisor, along with Mayor George Moscone.

Yes, yes, New York got the ball rolling with JFK literally weeks after the young president was slain; Reagan National was the product of living in a democracy (You have to give them some rights, too, at least back then), and Reagan was extremely sick when it happened. We also saw Louisville and New Orleans go all in — all, effectively, after their deaths. Now we've lost Dolly.

Nashville, you're up.

As to the Donald Trump sycophants — surely, with his blessing or encouragement, he IS licensing the county; after all, he got the ball rolling on people who remain alive, even still in office. Chicago and Newark have an opportunity, and they best walk right on through, diminish "DJT" as much as politically possible.

Too bad that JFK is taken as beautifully as possible, the nation's premier gateway; nothing NYC can really do to needle Trump's Lex Luthor, Barack Ob... You know? Every city has a street named after Martin Luther King. What if NYC named a street or an avenue "President Barack Obama Ave"? It would have to be a big one, for sure. What's big enough to warrant an honor like...

Fifth Avenue becomes President Barack Obama Ave. Absolutely, Fifth Avenue is "big enough" in stature. Trump picked it as the place he could, in theory, shoot someone. It's also the avenue on which he built Trump Tower. Thus, Trump Tower's new address would be: "Trump Tower, President Barack Obama Ave, New York, NY 10022.

Dolly would likely approve of all of this. She would be bashful about the attention but always loved a good time. She would make one demand: DPI's concourses each better have a children's reading area, stuffed with books and little couches.

Perfect.

Jason Miciak is a Rawstory Columnist, an author, political consultant, and attorney. Please follow on Bluesky, and he can be contacted at jasonmiciak@gmail.com. He is also available for public speaking arrangements.

THANKS FOR SUBSCRIBING! ALL ADS REMOVED!

Buried within President Donald Trump’s unprecedented oil deal with Venezuela is a provision designed to exert a level of control over the South American company for 100 years, the Wall Street Journal exclusively reported Saturday night.

Announced on Friday, the deal will see the United States be granted rights to Venezuela’s untapped oil fields for a century. Furthermore, the U.S. government would take a direct stake in Venezuela's oil reserves, the single-largest proven oil reserves on earth.

According to “people involved in negotiating the agreement” who spoke with the Journal on the condition of anonymity, the U.S. government “plans to take a 35% passive stake” in North American Blue Energy Partners, a private oil-and-gas company led by controversial Venezuelan businessman Alejandro Betancourt. The company’s structure was also set up in such a way as to tie the hands of future Venezuelan governments.

“The private company structure was deliberately intended to bind future Venezuelan governments to the agreement and make it difficult to unwind, one of the people involved said,” the Journal’s report reads. “They consider it unlikely that a new government would expropriate a private company, the people said.”

Trump has faced bi-partisan scrutiny over the deal since announcing it on Friday, including from one of the chief supporters of his operation to kidnap Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar (R-FL), who slammed the deal in a social media post before quickly deleting it.

Venezuelans have been critical of the deal as well.

“It’s an operation that’s absolutely unconstitutional because it’s an illegitimate government,” said Diego Arria, a former Venezuelan cabinet minister, speaking with the Journal. “They are seizing [the oil] — there’s no other word for it.”

Rep. Maria Elvira Salazar (R-FL) published a scathing rebuke Saturday of President Donald Trump’s Venezuela oil deal only to quietly delete it and swap it for a post championing the deal as “great,” the New York Post reported.

“Any oil ‘deal’ with Venezuela’s interim regime has an expiration date: the day President Trump leaves the White House,” Salazar wrote in a now-deleted social media post on X, according to journalist Orlando Avendaño. “A lasting deal can only be made with a democratically elected government that respects the rule of law, protects private property, and is backed by strong democratic institutions.”

The post, as noted by countless onlookers, had soon been deleted, and Salazar later published a new post with commentary about the deal that included “a very different message,” the Post’s report reads.

“The oil agreement between the United States and Venezuela is a great deal for the United States and for the Venezuelan people,” Salazar wrote.

Trump recently touted what he called “THE BIGGEST OIL DEAL IN WORLD HISTORY,” revealing on Friday that the United States would be given a stake in Venezuela’s oil reserves — the single-largest proven oil reserves on earth.

Per the Associated Press, the new deal would grant the U.S. government “rights to untapped oil fields for 100 years.” The provision bears a striking resemblance to a prediction Salazar issued last year when she told Fox News that “American oil companies will be operating in Venezuela for the next 100 years.”

Salazar was also among the most vocal supporters of the Trump administration operation to kidnap Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro, and insisted that Venezuelans were "waiting for the Americans to come and help them be free again."

{{ post.roar_specific_data.api_data.analytics }}