U.S. President Donald Trump at a press briefing at the White House on Friday.MANDEL NGAN/AFP/Getty Images
On Friday, ahead of the big Canada-Finland hockey game, friend-of-the-Donald Wayne Gretzky was asked, and not for the first time, to say something – anything – about the pain caused by his pal’s actions against our country. Acknowledge some truths about who’s to blame. Say whose side he’s on. A couple of sentences, tops. It wasn’t much of an ask.
He wouldn’t do it. He declined, again. He deflected that shot straight up into the netting and went for a line change.
Also on Friday, the U.S. Supreme Court was in its own hot seat. It has often shown depressing deference to a certain someone. It’s worth noting that two-thirds of the justices are Republican appointees, with half of those owing their seats to U.S. President Donald Trump.
Yet, when asked a question about the dubious legality of Mr. Trump’s invocation of a 1970s emergency powers law to impose tariffs on nearly every country on Earth, a majority of the judges gave the answer that the U.S. Constitution demands.
What does Mr. Trump’s defeat at the highest U.S. court mean? What does it change? In the short term, not much.
But every journey starts with a first step. American politics is finally delivering some overdue baby steps against Mr. Trump’s trade policies.
Most of the tariff burden on Canada – sectoral tariffs on steel, aluminum and other goods – falls under a law that was not at issue in this case, and whose use appears to be constitutional. As for the tariffs struck down by the court, the administration says it can quickly reimpose them by other means.
How Trump plans to continue his trade war with Canada without IEEPA
That leaves Canada facing the existing suite of sectoral tariffs, threats of new tariffs – last month, Mr. Trump threatened levies on Canadian-made aircraft, and an across-the-board 100-per-cent tariff on all Canadian exports – and a White House that never stops blue-skying about ripping up the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement. That’s all still there.
In the long run, however, cracks are starting to show in Mr. Trump’s mercurial tariff agenda and in his absolute control of the levers of power. This month has brought the first signs of pushback from his own side against his trade policies and autocratic approach.
On Feb. 11, six Republicans in the House of Representatives crossed the boss and voted with the Democrats to pass a resolution calling for an end to Mr. Trump’s so-called fentanyl tariffs on Canada.
Most Canadian goods – the exception being goods hit with those sectoral levies – are still exempt from Mr. Trump’s tariffs, as the White House continues to sort of respect the USMCA. In any event, that congressional resolution calling for the removal of the non-sectoral tariffs on Canada isn’t about to become law, since Mr. Trump can veto it.
But that a few Republicans in Congress publicly asserted the tiniest bit of independence, rather than automatically and entirely deferring to the President, is a good sign.
The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power of the purse, the same as Parliament in Canada. A tariff is clearly a tax; levying taxes is Congress’ job. Mr. Trump has spent the past year acting as if Congress has given him a blank cheque, and a Republican majority has repeatedly allowed him to cash it.
But with fall midterm elections looming, dozens of Republicans in Congress now have reason to worry that Mr. Trump’s actions – and his low poll numbers – could cost them their seats. It’s notable, and hopeful, that the starting point for this nascent congressional pushback is not just tariffs, but tariffs on Canada. We’re still the least plausible enemy imaginable.
Opinion: Does striking down Trump’s ‘emergency’ tariffs make it better or worse for Canada?
As for the U.S. Supreme Court, it has reminded everyone that, though a majority of the judges are Republican appointees, they have lifetime tenure and will outlive this presidency. Unlike Mr. Trump’s cabinet, they are not biological rubber stamps. Unlike Mr. Trump’s cabinet, they are intellectual conservatives, not White House autopens.
The court’s conservative majority, though obviously far more sympathetic to the President than the liberal minority, is not a wholly-owned subsidiary of Trump Inc. There appear to be lines that it will not allow the President to cross.
Friday’s 6-3 ruling changes little about the immediate substance of U.S. tariff policy, but it augurs well for the future. It appears to place some limits on Mr. Trump’s preferred form of foreign policy: threatening tariffs at the drop of a hat on any country, any time, for any reason.
It also shows that the judiciary is still independent, and the U.S. Constitution is still alive.
To the extent that the U.S. remains a rule-of-law country, where the chief executive’s whim is not the law, that’s obviously very good for Canada. It’s more important than the particulars of any decision on tariffs.
Our economy can survive and even thrive in the face of high U.S. trade walls, indefinitely. We may not survive our next-door neighbour transforming into an autocratic superpower.
Mr. Trump still has nearly three full years in office. Winter isn’t close to being over, and Canada has to prepare for the possibility of sub-zero temperatures until at least 2029.
But the weather will become milder, eventually. Eventually may have moved a bit closer.