JUST IN: Carney WALKS AWAY From Trump’s Deal, Hillman Reveals What He Refused
In a massive escalation of the U.S.-Canada trade war, Prime Minister Mark Carney has walked away from the negotiating table, rejecting an American trade offer that experts say would have signed a "death warrant" for key Canadian industries. The decision highlights a growing consensus that the United States is no longer a reliable negotiating partner, with experts arguing that America is destroying its own credibility on the global stage. Read the full breakdown below.
1. Rejecting the "Death Warrant" Deal
Former Canadian Ambassador to the United States Kirsten Hillman, who served in D.C. for over eight years across two Trump administrations, offered a blunt assessment of why Canada walked away. While the U.S. insisted they were offering Canada "the best deal that we had given anyone," Hillman explained that is simply the wrong metric.
According to Hillman, the draft text put forward by the Trump administration would have led to "uneconomic consequences" and threatened the actual viability of core Canadian sectors, specifically steel, autos, and lumber. She stated that in her entire career as a negotiator, she had never faced a partner who did not understand that a country simply cannot sign a deal that destroys its own core industries.
2. A Total Loss of American Credibility
An American economics professor from the University of Michigan bluntly explained the structural problem the Trump administration has created for itself: no country will make important concessions to the U.S. because "everyone does understand that any American concessions last until the president changes his mind."
The economist pointed out that Trump has a history of ripping up established agreements (like NAFTA and USMCA/CUSMA) on a whim. The host emphasized this point, noting that a trade agreement is fundamentally a bet on the reliability of the partner, and the United States has spent its credibility and cannot get it back. The "noise" and "threats" coming out of Washington are now viewed as distractions by serious negotiators who are focusing solely on the actual, unacceptable text of the proposals.
3. "Retaliation" vs. Recapturing the Market
Hillman also reframed how people should view Canada's counter-tariffs. She argued the word "retaliatory" is inaccurate because it implies Canada is hitting back for purely offensive reasons. Instead, she explained that Trump's tariffs created a "double hit" for Canadian companies: they lost access to the U.S. market (say, 30% of their sales) while still facing competition from American companies selling in Canada. Canada's tariffs are designed to level the playing field, blocking American imports so Canadian businesses can recapture those lost sales domestically.
May you like
While the American economist suggested the Canadian tariffs were cleverly targeted at politically vulnerable U.S. border states (like Michigan and Ohio) ahead of the midterms, Hillman pushed back. She noted the list was methodically designed based on import data to protect specific Canadian industries, though she acknowledged the political impact on those U.S. states is a reality.
The economist concluded with a stark assessment of how the trade war ends: the winner will either be the leader who doesn't care about hurting his own people (pointing to Trump) or the side willing to endure pain because important principles are at stake (pointing to the Canadians).
