With the imminent threat of increased tariffs from the Trump administration in January, many Canadians are pondering what strategies could be employed to steer them away from this course of action.

The query implies that there are tangible steps that could influence U.S. President Donald Trump’s decisions, suggesting that if Canada retaliates strongly enough or shows readiness to endure hardship, it could prompt a change in policy.

Christopher Ragan, the founding director of McGill University’s Max Bell School of Public Policy and former chair of Canada’s Ecofiscal Commission, emphasized the uncertainty of negotiating with an unpredictable and volatile party like the U.S.

Don Drummond, former chief economist for TD Bank, highlighted the various ways Canadians could retaliate against the U.S., emphasizing the importance of targeting areas deemed crucial by the U.S., such as oil and electricity.

Canada holds significant leverage in energy and fertilizer, as demonstrated by the substantial percentages of oil, electricity, natural gas, and potash imported by the U.S. from Canada in 2025.

Drummond proposed non-tariff options, including notifying the U.S. about potential restrictions on critical mineral reserves and reconsidering the purchase of F-35 fighter jets in favor of alternatives like Gripen from Sweden.

Furthermore, he suggested divesting Canadian assets in U.S. treasury bonds to impact the U.S. financial market. However, caution was advised regarding actions that may harm Canada’s economy more than the U.S.

Amid discussions on potential retaliatory measures, some economists warned about the negative repercussions on Canada’s economy in both the short and long term. They emphasized the need for strategic trade expansion and domestic development to mitigate losses.

The debate on how to respond to U.S. trade actions continues, with considerations for the potential impacts and the broader implications for both countries’ economies.