02-10-2025

Progress on the Situation at Our Northern Border

Executive OrderView the Original .pdf
View the Original .pdf

The 1-Minute Brief

What: Executive Order 14197 temporarily pauses the implementation of new tariffs on Canadian goods. The tariffs, originally scheduled to take effect on February 4, 2025, were intended to pressure Canada into taking stronger action against drug and human trafficking across the northern border.

Money: The order pauses a 25% ad valorem (based on value) tariff on most Canadian products and a 10% tariff on Canadian energy products. While there is no official CBO score for an executive order, the total value of U.S. goods trade with Canada was estimated at $762.1 billion in 2024. Imposing such broad tariffs would represent a significant economic impact, likely leading to higher costs for businesses and consumers.

Your Impact: The immediate impact of this pause is the prevention of price increases on a wide range of Canadian goods, from lumber and aluminum to vehicles and food products. If the tariffs were to be implemented later, you could expect to pay more for these items, and industries reliant on Canadian imports could face disruptions.

Status: The Executive Order was signed by the President and published in the Federal Register on February 10, 2025, with an effective date of February 3, 2025. The pause on tariffs is set to expire on March 4, 2025.

What's Actually in the Bill

This Executive Order temporarily suspends tariffs that were established by a previous order on February 1, 2025. The initial order declared a national emergency, citing Canada's alleged failure to stop the flow of illicit drugs and human traffickers as an "unusual and extraordinary threat" to the United States. This new order acknowledges that Canada has taken some cooperative actions to address the crisis and that more time is needed to see if these actions are sufficient.

Core Provisions:

  • The additional 25% ad valorem duty on Canadian goods and the 10% duty on energy products are paused.
  • The new effective date for the tariffs is March 4, 2025, at 12:01 a.m. EST.
  • During this pause, the Secretary of Homeland Security and other top officials will continue to assess the situation at the northern border.
  • The order explicitly states that if the crisis worsens or Canada's efforts are deemed insufficient, the President may implement the tariffs immediately.

Stated Purpose (from the Sponsors):

The order's stated purpose is to recognize the initial steps taken by the Canadian government and to provide a window to evaluate their effectiveness.

  1. To provide additional time to "assess whether these steps constitute sufficient action to alleviate the crisis."
  2. To encourage further "cooperative actions" from the Government of Canada to resolve the "unusual and extraordinary threat."

Key Facts:

Affected Sectors: If implemented, the tariffs would impact nearly all sectors of the Canadian economy. Key U.S. imports from Canada include mineral fuels/oil ($131 billion), vehicles ($50.76 billion), machinery, plastics, wood, and aluminum.
Timeline: The pause is in effect from February 3, 2025, to March 4, 2025.
Scope: The order applies to all goods that are products of Canada, with specific tariff rates mentioned for general goods and energy products.

The Backstory: How We Got Here

Timeline of Events:

The Shifting Justification for Tariffs (2017-Present):

Historically, presidential authority to impose tariffs has been used for specific trade disputes. However, the use of the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to impose broad tariffs on a close ally like Canada is a recent and controversial development. This act, passed in 1977, was intended to allow presidents to regulate financial transactions and freeze assets of foreign adversaries during national emergencies. Critics argue that using it for general tariff authority expands presidential power far beyond what Congress intended.

On February 1, 2025, the President issued Executive Order 14193, declaring a national emergency at the northern border. This order claimed that the flow of fentanyl and other illicit drugs, alongside human trafficking from Canada, constituted a threat to U.S. national security and the economy, authorizing the imposition of tariffs under IEEPA.

Why Now? The Political Calculus:

  • Leverage: The initial threat of tariffs was designed to create immediate and significant economic pressure on Canada to force a change in its border policies.
  • De-escalation: The rapid issuance of this pausing order just two days later suggests that Canada responded with policy commitments that the White House deemed worthy of consideration. It provides a temporary de-escalation while keeping the tariff threat on the table as a negotiating tool.
  • Economic Reality: A full-blown trade war with one of America's largest trading partners would have immediate negative consequences, including higher consumer prices and supply chain disruptions, which this pause temporarily avoids.

Your Real-World Impact

The Direct Answer: This order directly prevents, for a short time, a noticeable increase in the cost of many everyday goods and raw materials for most Americans.

What Could Change for You:

Potential Benefits:

  • Stable Prices (For Now): The pause means the prices of Canadian products—including cars, lumber for housing, food items, and energy—will not immediately jump by 10-25%.
  • Job Security: U.S. industries that are highly integrated with the Canadian economy, such as the auto industry, are temporarily spared the disruption and cost increases that could lead to layoffs.
  • Reduced Economic Uncertainty: The delay allows businesses that import from or export to Canada a brief window to plan without the immediate shock of massive tariffs.

Possible Disruptions or Costs:

Short-term (If tariffs are imposed after March 4):

  • Higher Consumer Prices: You would likely see increased prices on goods from Canada, from your grocery bill to the cost of a new car or home renovation.
  • Supply Chain Issues: U.S. manufacturers who rely on Canadian raw materials (like aluminum, steel, and wood) would face higher costs, which could slow production and increase the price of the final American-made products.

Long-term:

  • Economic Slowdown: Economists warn that sustained, broad tariffs on a major trading partner could slow overall economic growth and increase unemployment.
  • Retaliatory Tariffs: Canada has a history of responding to U.S. tariffs with its own counter-tariffs on American goods, which would harm U.S. exporters and the workers they employ.

Who's Most Affected:

Primary Groups: U.S. consumers, American businesses that import Canadian goods or materials, and U.S. companies that export to Canada.
Secondary Groups: Workers in the U.S. manufacturing, auto, housing, and agriculture sectors.
Regional Impact: Northern border states with economies deeply intertwined with Canada's would feel the effects most acutely.

Bottom Line: This executive order temporarily protects your wallet from price hikes, but the underlying threat of a costly trade dispute with Canada remains.

Where the Parties Stand

Republican Position: "Using All Tools to Secure the Border"

Core Stance: The administration's position is that the President must use all available authorities, including economic leverage, to address national security threats like drug trafficking.

Their Arguments:

  • ✓ The threat of tariffs is a legitimate tool to compel foreign governments to cooperate on critical issues like stopping the flow of fentanyl.
  • ✓ The President has the authority under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) to take such actions in a national emergency.
  • ⚠️ The pause is a good-faith gesture to allow Canada time to follow through on its commitments, but the tariffs must be ready for immediate implementation if they fail to act.

Legislative Strategy: The administration is acting unilaterally through executive orders, bypassing the need for congressional action. The strategy is to use the threat of economic pain as a primary foreign policy tool.

Democratic Position: "Reckless and Legally Dubious"

Core Stance: Critics, including many Democrats and legal experts, argue that this use of emergency powers is an overreach of presidential authority and a misuse of a law meant for sanctioning enemies, not allies.

Their Arguments:

  • ✗ The Constitution grants Congress, not the President, the authority to lay and collect tariffs.
  • ✗ IEEPA was never intended to be used to impose broad tariffs on a major trading partner and ally over a policy disagreement.
  • ⚠️ This action creates massive economic uncertainty, threatens American jobs, and damages relationships with a key ally, all while being on shaky legal ground.

Legislative Strategy: Opponents have focused on legal challenges. Numerous lawsuits have been filed arguing that the use of IEEPA for tariffs is illegal and unconstitutional, with some initial court rulings agreeing with that assessment.

Constitutional Check

The Verdict: ⚠️ Questionable

Basis of Authority:

The Executive Order cites the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA) as its primary legal authority. This law allows the President to regulate international commerce after declaring a national emergency in response to an "unusual and extraordinary threat" that originates substantially outside the U.S.

Relevant Portion of the Constitution (Article I, Section 8, Clause 1): "The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts and Excises..."

Constitutional Implications:

[Separation of Powers]: The core legal question is whether IEEPA delegates Congress's constitutional power to set tariffs to the President. Critics argue that using a vague "national emergency" to enact sweeping tariffs usurps a power the Constitution explicitly gives to the legislative branch. A U.S. Court of International Trade panel ruled in a related case that IEEPA does not grant the president “unbounded authority” to impose such duties.

[Precedent]: While a president used a predecessor statute to impose a 10% import tax in 1971, the use of IEEPA to impose broad, punitive tariffs on a specific ally is largely unprecedented and legally contested.

[Federalism]: This action does not directly overstep powers reserved for the states, as it deals with international commerce, which is a federal power.

Potential Legal Challenges:

The use of IEEPA to impose tariffs is already facing multiple legal challenges from states and businesses. In May 2025, a federal court issued a permanent injunction against similar tariffs, ruling that the President had exceeded his authority under the act. That decision has been appealed, but it signals that these orders are on very unstable legal ground and are likely to be ultimately decided by the Supreme Court.

Your Action Options

TO SUPPORT THIS POLICY

5-Minute Actions:

  • Contact The White House: Use the White House comment line or website to express your support for using economic pressure to enhance border security.
  • Call Your Rep/Senators: Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121. "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I support the President's use of tariff authority under IEEPA to address the national security crisis at our northern border."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

  • Write a Detailed Email: Send a message to the Secretary of Homeland Security and the U.S. Trade Representative, whose agencies are mentioned in the order.
  • Join an Organization: Find and support groups that advocate for stronger border enforcement and nationalist economic policies.

TO OPPOSE THIS POLICY

5-Minute Actions:

  • Call Your Rep/Senators: Capitol Switchboard: (202) 224-3121. "I'm a constituent from [Your City/Town] and I urge [Rep./Sen. Name] to oppose the President's use of IEEPA to impose tariffs on Canada and to reassert Congress's authority over trade."

30-Minute Deep Dive:

  • Write a Letter to the Editor: Submit a letter to your local newspaper explaining how tariffs on Canadian goods would harm your community or local businesses.
  • Join an Organization: Support free-trade advocacy groups or business associations that are actively fighting these tariffs in court and in Congress.