Why It Matters
President Donald Trump has invoked a Depression-era trade statute to impose steep duties on three Canadian product categories, marking the first enforcement of a provision unused for roughly 80 years. The action escalates trade friction between the U.S. and Canada and tests the legal boundaries of presidential tariff authority after the Supreme Court struck down an earlier broad tariff framework in February.
What Happened
Trump issued three separate proclamations on Monday authorizing 50% tariffs on Canadian hockey sticks, wine, and cement. The administration justified the duties as a response to what it characterized as discriminatory Canadian restrictions on American goods, including alcohol, dairy, and automotive products.
A senior administration official stated that the tariffs were not connected to recent Ontario wildfires, despite their colloquial label. “These are not the so-called wildfire tariffs… These tariffs are in response to discriminatory treatment by Canada against U.S. products,” the official said.
The president and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney appeared together at a FIFA World Cup trophy ceremony in East Rutherford, New Jersey, on Sunday. According to the administration, the two leaders did not discuss the tariff plans at that event.
By the Numbers
50% — tariff rate imposed on Canadian products
3 — separate proclamations issued
1930 — year the underlying Tariff Act was enacted
1940s — last decade Section 338 was used
$166 billion — refund ordered by the U.S. Court of International Trade for duties paid under previously invalidated tariffs
Legal and Policy Context
Trump invoked Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, which permits the president to impose duties up to 50% of product value in response to discrimination against U.S. commerce. A senior official acknowledged the provision’s dormancy: “To our knowledge, Section 338 has not been used for this purpose before.”
This move follows the collapse of Trump’s April 2025 tariff regime. In February, the Supreme Court found those sweeping duties—imposed under the International Economic Emergency Powers Act—to be unlawful. The U.S. Court of International Trade subsequently ordered roughly $166 billion in refunds to affected importers.
After the Court’s February decision, Trump announced a temporary 10% base tariff on all imports under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974. That measure is currently being litigated in trade court.
Zoom Out
The shift to Section 338 represents Trump’s effort to anchor tariff policy in statutory language the courts have not yet invalidated. The provision’s age and historical dormancy mean minimal case law exists to guide judicial review, though trade law experts are watching closely as the administration tests its boundaries. Rising inflation concerns and supply-chain pressures on construction materials add economic weight to trade disputes over cement and other inputs.
What’s Next
Trade litigation over the Section 338 tariffs is expected to follow. Legal challenges may argue the provision does not authorize duties of this scope or that the president’s findings of Canadian discrimination lack sufficient evidentiary support. Importers and Canadian officials may petition Congress or seek negotiated relief while courts deliberate.