Fact Check: Did canada have tarrifs on the US before 2025

Fact Check: Did canada have tarrifs on the US before 2025

Published March 11, 2025Updated June 18, 2025
VERDICT
False

# Fact Check: "Did Canada have tariffs on the US before 2025" ## What We Know The claim that Canada had tariffs on the U.S. before 2025 is misleading...

Advertisement
NordVPN - Explore the internet securely and privately

Secure your internet browsing withNordVPN's trusted protection

Fact Check: "Did Canada have tariffs on the US before 2025"

What We Know

The claim that Canada had tariffs on the U.S. before 2025 is misleading. Historically, the trade relationship between the two countries has been characterized by a series of agreements aimed at reducing tariffs. The Canada-United States Free Trade Agreement (CUSFTA) was established in 1989, which was later superseded by the North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA) in 1994. These agreements significantly reduced tariffs on goods traded between Canada and the U.S. to the point where, under the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement (USMCA), approximately 98% of goods entering Canada from the U.S. were tariff-free before the trade war initiated in 2025 (source-4).

Prior to the trade war that began on February 1, 2025, Canada did impose tariffs on certain U.S. goods, particularly in sectors like dairy, poultry, and eggs, but these were limited and did not represent a broad tariff regime against U.S. imports (source-5). The tariffs that were in place were primarily a result of historical trade agreements and protective measures for specific domestic industries.

Analysis

The assertion that Canada had tariffs on the U.S. before 2025 lacks context. While it is true that Canada maintained some tariffs on specific goods, the overall trade framework between the two nations was heavily oriented towards free trade, especially after the implementation of NAFTA and later USMCA. The tariffs that existed were not representative of a general trade barrier but rather targeted measures aimed at protecting certain sectors (source-6).

Furthermore, the timeline of the 2025 trade war illustrates a significant shift in the trade dynamics between the U.S. and Canada. The trade war began when President Donald Trump announced sweeping tariffs on Canadian goods, which included a 25% tariff on most imports and a 10% tariff on energy products (source-1). This marked a dramatic escalation in trade tensions and was a departure from the previously established tariff-free environment for the majority of goods traded.

The sources used in this analysis are credible, with the majority being from established news outlets and academic references. However, some sources discussing the historical context of tariffs may carry a bias depending on their political leanings, particularly those that focus on the implications of Trump's policies (source-3).

Conclusion

The claim that Canada had tariffs on the U.S. before 2025 is False. While Canada did impose some tariffs on specific goods, the overall trade relationship was characterized by a framework that favored low or zero tariffs on the majority of goods traded. The significant tariffs that marked the beginning of the 2025 trade war were a new development, not a continuation of a pre-existing tariff regime.

Sources

  1. Timeline of the 2025 United States trade war with Canada
  2. 2025 United States trade war with Canada and Mexico
  3. Before Trump: The long US history of tariff wars with Canada and the world
  4. What did Canada tariff before the trade war with the U.S.?
  5. Canadian Tariffs on US Goods Before Trump: A Deep NAFTA History
  6. Fact Check: Did Canada have tariffs before 2025
  7. Just facts: Canadian Tariffs
  8. Inaccurate list of Canadian tariffs circulates amid US trade war
Advertisement
NordVPN - Explore the internet securely and privately

Secure your internet browsing withNordVPN's trusted protection

Have a claim you want to verify? It's 100% Free!

Our AI-powered fact-checker analyzes claims against thousands of reliable sources and provides evidence-based verdicts in seconds. Completely free with no registration required.

💡 Try:
"Coffee helps you live longer"
100% Free
No Registration
Instant Results

Comments

Leave a comment

Loading comments...

More Fact Checks to Explore

Discover similar claims and stay informed with these related fact-checks

Fact Check: Transcript
00:00
911 was a false flag. For the
first 10 years, I did not think
anything other than the
official narrative then after
being shown a video, a close up
video of building number seven
coming down and that got me
going because it's obvious to
me that building seven was was
a controlled demolition because
the building collapses from the
bottom down. The trade centers
were unique in that they were
designed to withstand the
00:33
impact of a a a jet. From what
I understand the the outer
skeleton of the building. The
outer columns was like a a fish
net and you had these inner
core columns which was
substantial thick steel beams
to withstand four or five times
what the loads were. Got it.
The engineers always over
design a building. No steel
frame building has ever
collapsed before or since 9/
eleven. So that should say
something right there. And it
said that building seven it was
01:05
aggressive collapse that it was
caused by fire but progressive
collapse unlike the twin
towers, the twin towers
collapse from the top down.
That's a progressive collapse.
Sure. Floor by floor by floor.
But if you look at the videos
of building seven collapsing,
it collapses uniformly, it's
collapsing from the bottom, the
building stays intact all the
way to the bottom of the ground
and you could see the sides
caving in on it. For a building
to collapse uniformly which the
video show all the load bearing
it would have to have failed
01:36
simultaneously. Now, fire
doesn't act like that. I came
across an analogy of the twin
towers and if you could
visualize cast iron stoves
stacked. One on top of each
other. The stoves up at the
top. Yes, there's fire and
they've been damaged but the
stoves on the bottom, they
haven't been damaged. Okay. So,
the structure underneath all of
that is intact. So, it's
impossible for a building to
collapse near free fall speed
and increase. Without a
02:07
controlled demolition. You're
running into the path of most
resistance. I something else is
going on. I don't believe that
it was just the planes or the
fires I think that and they
examine the dust and they found
what they call thermitic
material which is like a
explosive incendiary which was
in the dust samples and that's
documented. There were reports
of the buildings were
undergoing a extensive elevator
renovation in the two or three
years prior to all kinds of
02:40
workers they had access to the
the core the cores of the
building and on the day of the
attack the the elevator company
would not assist in the
operations of the elevators and
the elevator company was the
elevator company it
subsequently went out of
business and a couple of years
after that
False
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Transcript 00:00 911 was a false flag. For the first 10 years, I did not think anything other than the official narrative then after being shown a video, a close up video of building number seven coming down and that got me going because it's obvious to me that building seven was was a controlled demolition because the building collapses from the bottom down. The trade centers were unique in that they were designed to withstand the 00:33 impact of a a a jet. From what I understand the the outer skeleton of the building. The outer columns was like a a fish net and you had these inner core columns which was substantial thick steel beams to withstand four or five times what the loads were. Got it. The engineers always over design a building. No steel frame building has ever collapsed before or since 9/ eleven. So that should say something right there. And it said that building seven it was 01:05 aggressive collapse that it was caused by fire but progressive collapse unlike the twin towers, the twin towers collapse from the top down. That's a progressive collapse. Sure. Floor by floor by floor. But if you look at the videos of building seven collapsing, it collapses uniformly, it's collapsing from the bottom, the building stays intact all the way to the bottom of the ground and you could see the sides caving in on it. For a building to collapse uniformly which the video show all the load bearing it would have to have failed 01:36 simultaneously. Now, fire doesn't act like that. I came across an analogy of the twin towers and if you could visualize cast iron stoves stacked. One on top of each other. The stoves up at the top. Yes, there's fire and they've been damaged but the stoves on the bottom, they haven't been damaged. Okay. So, the structure underneath all of that is intact. So, it's impossible for a building to collapse near free fall speed and increase. Without a 02:07 controlled demolition. You're running into the path of most resistance. I something else is going on. I don't believe that it was just the planes or the fires I think that and they examine the dust and they found what they call thermitic material which is like a explosive incendiary which was in the dust samples and that's documented. There were reports of the buildings were undergoing a extensive elevator renovation in the two or three years prior to all kinds of 02:40 workers they had access to the the core the cores of the building and on the day of the attack the the elevator company would not assist in the operations of the elevators and the elevator company was the elevator company it subsequently went out of business and a couple of years after that

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Transcript 00:00 911 was a false flag. For the first 10 years, I did not think anything other than the official narrative then after being shown a video, a close up video of building number seven coming down and that got me going because it's obvious to me that building seven was was a controlled demolition because the building collapses from the bottom down. The trade centers were unique in that they were designed to withstand the 00:33 impact of a a a jet. From what I understand the the outer skeleton of the building. The outer columns was like a a fish net and you had these inner core columns which was substantial thick steel beams to withstand four or five times what the loads were. Got it. The engineers always over design a building. No steel frame building has ever collapsed before or since 9/ eleven. So that should say something right there. And it said that building seven it was 01:05 aggressive collapse that it was caused by fire but progressive collapse unlike the twin towers, the twin towers collapse from the top down. That's a progressive collapse. Sure. Floor by floor by floor. But if you look at the videos of building seven collapsing, it collapses uniformly, it's collapsing from the bottom, the building stays intact all the way to the bottom of the ground and you could see the sides caving in on it. For a building to collapse uniformly which the video show all the load bearing it would have to have failed 01:36 simultaneously. Now, fire doesn't act like that. I came across an analogy of the twin towers and if you could visualize cast iron stoves stacked. One on top of each other. The stoves up at the top. Yes, there's fire and they've been damaged but the stoves on the bottom, they haven't been damaged. Okay. So, the structure underneath all of that is intact. So, it's impossible for a building to collapse near free fall speed and increase. Without a 02:07 controlled demolition. You're running into the path of most resistance. I something else is going on. I don't believe that it was just the planes or the fires I think that and they examine the dust and they found what they call thermitic material which is like a explosive incendiary which was in the dust samples and that's documented. There were reports of the buildings were undergoing a extensive elevator renovation in the two or three years prior to all kinds of 02:40 workers they had access to the the core the cores of the building and on the day of the attack the the elevator company would not assist in the operations of the elevators and the elevator company was the elevator company it subsequently went out of business and a couple of years after that

Jul 28, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Donny’s sent Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche to ‘interview’ Ghislaine Maxwell, who is currently serving twenty years in prison for trafficking teenage girls for Jeffrey Epstein.

wait, did I say Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche? I should have said Donny’s personal attorney Todd Blanche — because that’s what Todd was before Donny appointed him to the DOJ.

how convenient, to have one’s own personal attorney running interference as the second-in-command at the DOJ.

so Blanche is talking to Maxwell. here’s the adminstration’s official bullshit cover story, as dutifully stenographed by the worthless scribblers of The New York Times.

The interview with Ms. Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year sentence for sex trafficking, is part of the department’s effort to quell criticism that it is concealing details of Mr. Epstein’s crimes and interactions with high-profile figures, including President Trump.

oh, I see — they’re ‘quelling criticism.’ how in the holy name of fuck does that work?

does anyone believe that justice is what this is about? if you do, I have five bankrupt casinos in Atlantic City to sell you.

we all goddamn well know that Blanche is down there offering Ghislaine a deal. it’s probably something like ‘exonerate Donny. tell everyone he did nothing wrong, and Donny will pardon you on the spot.’

you’d be naive to think otherwise. because that’s how the most corrupt administration in the history of corruption rolls.

it’s a fucking cover-up, is what it is.

let’s go to Akaash Singh one more time:

‘they’re hiding something CRAZY.’
Partially True
🎯 Similar

Fact Check: Donny’s sent Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche to ‘interview’ Ghislaine Maxwell, who is currently serving twenty years in prison for trafficking teenage girls for Jeffrey Epstein. wait, did I say Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche? I should have said Donny’s personal attorney Todd Blanche — because that’s what Todd was before Donny appointed him to the DOJ. how convenient, to have one’s own personal attorney running interference as the second-in-command at the DOJ. so Blanche is talking to Maxwell. here’s the adminstration’s official bullshit cover story, as dutifully stenographed by the worthless scribblers of The New York Times. The interview with Ms. Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year sentence for sex trafficking, is part of the department’s effort to quell criticism that it is concealing details of Mr. Epstein’s crimes and interactions with high-profile figures, including President Trump. oh, I see — they’re ‘quelling criticism.’ how in the holy name of fuck does that work? does anyone believe that justice is what this is about? if you do, I have five bankrupt casinos in Atlantic City to sell you. we all goddamn well know that Blanche is down there offering Ghislaine a deal. it’s probably something like ‘exonerate Donny. tell everyone he did nothing wrong, and Donny will pardon you on the spot.’ you’d be naive to think otherwise. because that’s how the most corrupt administration in the history of corruption rolls. it’s a fucking cover-up, is what it is. let’s go to Akaash Singh one more time: ‘they’re hiding something CRAZY.’

Detailed fact-check analysis of: Donny’s sent Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche to ‘interview’ Ghislaine Maxwell, who is currently serving twenty years in prison for trafficking teenage girls for Jeffrey Epstein. wait, did I say Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche? I should have said Donny’s personal attorney Todd Blanche — because that’s what Todd was before Donny appointed him to the DOJ. how convenient, to have one’s own personal attorney running interference as the second-in-command at the DOJ. so Blanche is talking to Maxwell. here’s the adminstration’s official bullshit cover story, as dutifully stenographed by the worthless scribblers of The New York Times. The interview with Ms. Maxwell, who is serving a 20-year sentence for sex trafficking, is part of the department’s effort to quell criticism that it is concealing details of Mr. Epstein’s crimes and interactions with high-profile figures, including President Trump. oh, I see — they’re ‘quelling criticism.’ how in the holy name of fuck does that work? does anyone believe that justice is what this is about? if you do, I have five bankrupt casinos in Atlantic City to sell you. we all goddamn well know that Blanche is down there offering Ghislaine a deal. it’s probably something like ‘exonerate Donny. tell everyone he did nothing wrong, and Donny will pardon you on the spot.’ you’d be naive to think otherwise. because that’s how the most corrupt administration in the history of corruption rolls. it’s a fucking cover-up, is what it is. let’s go to Akaash Singh one more time: ‘they’re hiding something CRAZY.’

Jul 26, 2025
Read more →
Fact Check: Did canada have tarrifs on the US before 2025 | TruthOrFake Blog