Efforts by Prime Minister Mark Carney to signal pragmatism and bonhomie in his meetings with Donald Trump have been undermined by other messages that rile Mr. Trump on issues far from trade.Mark Schiefelbein/The Associated Press
Fen Osler Hampson is a professor of international affairs at Carleton University and the co-chair of the Expert Group on Canada-U.S. Relations.
Henry VIII divorced or executed his wives not because they failed in their duties, but because they could not satisfy his constant quest for personal validation and desire for a male heir. Canada is dealing with a sovereign with a similar outsized ego in the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement trade negotiations.
U.S. businesses and consumers want the marriage to last. However, the fate of the agreement turns less on shared interests than on the fickle moods of Donald Trump – the king – in Washington.
On the fundamentals, the case for renewal is overwhelming. Cross‑border supply chains now form a single, seamless production line. Industries on both sides of the border have said in overwhelming numbers that USMCA works well. Consumers benefit from lower prices and wider choice. The deal has some critics, but almost no serious economic constituency is saying it should be torn up.
Trump may use USMCA withdrawal as a bargaining tactic, trade experts warn
The problem is that shared interests no longer guarantee a stable outcome. Normally, such deep interdependence would lock in a deal, as it did with the original NAFTA until Mr. Trump came along. Powerful domestic lobbies would have punished any normal leader who threatened to blow it up. But Mr. Trump is not normal. He does not see USMCA as a desirable institutional framework for trade. He sees it as a stage on which he can prove that he is stronger, smarter and never out‑bargained.
That is why Canada’s problem is not just what to offer in upcoming talks, but how to manage his supersized ego. Mr. Trump’s personal calculus blends national interest with status, attention and grievance. A concession that looks generous in Ottawa may still fall flat in Mar‑a‑Lago if Mr. Trump does not feel it is a “win.” Worse still, a stray comment by a Canadian leader can upset Mr. Trump, destroying any gains secured at the bargaining table.
It is increasingly clear that Canada has not mastered this terrain. Efforts by Prime Minister Mark Carney to signal pragmatism and bonhomie in his meetings with Mr. Trump have been undermined by other messages that rile Mr. Trump on issues far from trade. Positioning on Israel or provincial government ads that mock Mr. Trump’s policies may play well at home, but have turned trade talks into a vendetta. When the king feels slighted, even a deal that rewards American business can end up on the chopping block.
This is especially dangerous given the government’s political constraints. Many of the files Mr. Trump will target are third rails for Mr. Carney’s minority government. Supply management is the obvious example. Major concessions on dairy and poultry would fracture the government’s support in key constituencies in Quebec and Ontario. Similar red lines exist on cultural exemptions, digital policy and autos. The government cannot agree to a deal that throws farmers, content creators or auto workers under the bus.
Our leaders have to think less like technocrats and more like courtiers. But that does not mean flattery and moral surrender. It means rigorous control of the factors that drive Mr. Trump’s pique. Ottawa needs discipline across party and provincial lines: no loose talk that paints Mr. Trump as an enemy and no gratuitous posturing that turns him into a foil in our own culture wars.
Opinion: Where is Canada’s leverage in trade talks with Trump?
At the same time, any concessions we make should be structured with the king’s unpredictability in mind. Handing over big, one‑off, irreversible concessions is like giving Henry VIII a vast new estate. He will bank the win, bask in the headline and come back for more. Instead, Canada should design targeted, limited concessions that can be adjusted or withdrawn if Washington reverts to higher tariffs or threatens to tear up USMCA.
Think of concessions as annuities rather than dowries. Modest allowances on specific products, regulatory concessions that can be withdrawn unless both sides agree to extend them, or conditional deals (such as on defence procurement or critical minerals) tied to the absence of new unilateral tariffs. The king gets periodic “wins” to show to his court. Canada keeps its leverage and avoids sacrificing its vital domestic interests.
None of this is easy. Canadians must understand that the goal is not to please Mr. Trump, but to protect jobs and investment in a world where his conceit and whims matter much more than they should. It also means resisting opposition temptations to use USMCA as a stage for grandstanding. Turning the talks into a proxy fight about who “stands up” to Mr. Trump might score a quick partisan win but could inflict immeasurable costs on the country.