Untested in court, Trump’s new tariffs on Canada raise legal questions
PBS News Hour – Politics — 2026-08-29 10:58:00 — www.pbs.org
Trump’s Use of Obscure Tariff Law Sparks Trade War and Legal Doubts
President Donald Trump has reignited tensions with Canada by invoking Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, a nearly century-old law that had never before been used by any president. Trump imposed a 50% tariff on $20 billion worth of Canadian imports, citing alleged discrimination against U.S. dairy, auto, and alcoholic beverage exports. The move immediately triggered dollar-for-dollar retaliation from Ottawa, further straining relations between the two countries.
Trump’s Position on Tariffs and the Smoot-Hawley Act
Trump, who refers to himself as “Tariff Man,” has defended his aggressive use of tariffs, arguing that the infamous Smoot-Hawley tariffs of the 1930s came too late to save the American economy during the Great Depression. This view stands in stark contrast to the consensus among economists and historians, who blame those tariffs for worsening the global economic crisis.
Legal and Factual Challenges to Trump’s Claims
Legal experts have raised significant questions about Trump’s use of Section 338. The law, part of the broader Smoot-Hawley Act, was designed to allow the president to impose tariffs of up to 50% on imports from countries discriminating against U.S. businesses. However, the Trump administration did not attempt to calculate the actual damage caused by Canadian trade practices, as required by the statute. Instead, tariffs were applied broadly, including to products unrelated to the alleged disputes, such as hockey sticks and cement.
Furthermore, experts note that Canada’s dairy protections do not specifically target U.S. farmers, but apply to all trading partners. Notably, the U.S. had previously agreed to Canada’s dairy quota system in a trade pact negotiated by Trump himself. Legal scholars called it “incongruous, to say the least, for the United States to denounce as discriminatory the very terms it agreed to.”
Obsolescence and Legal Uncertainty
Many trade lawyers argue that Section 338 has been rendered obsolete by more recent trade laws, which both limit and clarify presidential tariff authority. These newer laws require investigations and procedural steps that Trump’s administration bypassed. As a result, there is considerable doubt whether the tariffs could survive a legal challenge.
Conclusion
Trump’s unprecedented use of Section 338 has not only escalated a trade war with Canada but also raised serious legal and factual questions about the legitimacy and effectiveness of his approach. By invoking a long-dormant law and disregarding both established procedures and previous agreements, Trump’s actions have drawn criticism from legal experts and economists alike, highlighting a pattern of exaggeration and distortion in his trade policy justifications. The ongoing dispute underscores the broader risks and uncertainties created by Trump’s confrontational and unconventional trade tactics.