Yesterday, the US Supreme Court struck down Trump’s IEEPA tariffs in a 6-3 decision, because tariffs are taxes and taxes need to come from Congress. These were the so-called “reciprocal” tariffs, the fentanyl tariffs, and the “Liberation Day” tariffs, but not the Section 232 sectoral tariffs on things like steel and aluminium and autos. This means that the effect on Canada is very minimal because for those IEEPA tariffs, we had the New NAFTA exemptions on something like 85 percent of tariffed goods. (Five Things to know about this ruling here, and the list of remaining tariffs on Canada here).
Almost immediately, Trump implemented new global ten percent tariffs under a different set of powers, meaning that this whole process gets to start over again with a new legal challenge, but these powers have a 150-day expiry date, so how does that even work? Meanwhile, companies who paid those IEEPA tariffs can apparently apply for refunds, but I have a suspicion they will never see that money, because Trump will drag it out, his courts are corrupt, and well, the money will have disappeared into some Trump lackey’s accounts, because the graft is real.
https://bsky.app/profile/jrobson.bsky.social/post/3mfdo7xcbw227
Per this EO, the US really needs:-metals-energy-fertilizers-passenger vehicles-anything subject to 232 tariffs-anything under CUSMA.Amazing. Keep it up.
— Jennifer Robson 🇨🇦 (@jrobson.bsky.social) 2026-02-21T03:34:23.495Z
What problem is Trump's new global 10% tariff meant to solve?If it's about leverage, ask: How much leverage do you get from a tariff that disappears in 150 days?If it's onshoring: Who builds new factories based on tariff that disappear before the factory is built?It's a tax. That's all it is.
— Justin Wolfers (@justinwolfers.bsky.social) 2026-02-20T20:00:44.062Z
Meanwhile, this has largely served as vindication for the fact that we didn’t rush to get a deal with Trump over tariffs, because there was no deal to be had, and because those tariffs were illegal. Why come up with a deal over something that’s illegal and immoral? Why do what Keir Starmer did when capitulation just emboldens a bully?
Statement from Dominic LeBlanc:
— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-02-20T16:06:42.548Z
Ukraine Dispatch
As the war enters into its fifth year, here is a look at some of the displaced civilians from the war who has lost everything. Europe’s five biggest defence powers are launching a project to develop and build low-cost air defences that can be put into production within a year.
Good reads:
- Dominic LeBlanc is downplaying the magnitude of what Danielle Smith is playing at with her nine referendum questions.
- Here is a look at how the government has been changing up their advertising.
- The CFIA has fined Loblaws $10,000 for misleading “Product of Canada” displays at a Toronto store.
- Dr. Joss Reimer, former head of the Canadian Medical Association, has been named the new federal chief public health officer.
- India’s High Commissioner says that a comprehensive trade agreement could be signed within the year. (What transnational repression?)
- The National Post has a longread on three invasive species in Canada, and how we’re dealing with tm as a country.
- The New Brunswick legislature is moving two portraits of colonial-era governors into storage as they plan to “modernise” the legislature’s entrance.
- Danielle Smith can’t tell you how much newcomers cost her province’s health and education systems, but she’s going to keep scapegoating them anyway.
- A trio of economists debunk the myths around income supports, such as the enhanced (and badly rebranded) GST credit.
- Supriya Dwivedi calls out Carney’s capitulation to the Modi government on their transnational repression, even as convictions are being entered in the US.
- Emmett Macfarlane condemns Danielle Smith’s attack on federalism in her address to the province around her proposed referendum questions.
- Paul Wells tries to take a calmer look at Smith’s referendum questions, but finds her unconvincing in the arguments she is trying to advance.
- Justin Ling points out that building up our military export industry is going to mean moral compromises as we will have to sell to unsavoury regimes.
- Ling is also encouraged by the US Supreme Court ruling on tariffs, even if the relief is temporary before Trump tries a new route.
Odds and ends:
On a related note, I'm waiting for the announcement that Carney will dismantle the Canadian Ombudsperson for Responsible Enterprise because that office will keep flagging the forced labour practices of our "strategic partners" like China, Qatar, UAE, etc.
— Dale Smith (@journodale.bsky.social) 2026-02-20T15:01:49.001Z
Want more Routine Proceedings? Become a patron and get exclusive new content.