Former Canadian ambassador to the United States Gary Doer is raising concerns about a fundamental weakness in Donald Trump’s tariff strategy: the economic consequences for American workers may not have received enough attention before major trade decisions were announced.
Speaking at the EMILI Agriculture Enlightened conference in Winnipeg on November 5, 2026, Doer questioned whether the Trump administration had adequately examined how tariffs would affect businesses, manufacturing jobs and communities across the United States. His remarks, reported on November 9, come as Washington faces growing political pressure over trade costs and the future of North American economic cooperation.
With Canadian and American industries connected through decades of investment, production and commerce, Doer’s warning highlights an uncomfortable reality. Trade barriers designed to protect domestic employment can also create significant costs for the workers they are supposed to benefit.
A Former Ambassador Questions the Economic Calculations
Gary Doer’s criticism centres on whether the White House sufficiently examined the consequences of its trade decisions before making them public. The former Manitoba premier, who served as Canada’s ambassador to Washington from 2009 to 2016, has extensive experience dealing with American political leaders and cross-border economic issues. At the Winnipeg conference, he suggested that strong political messaging sometimes appeared to take precedence over careful economic analysis. His concern was particularly relevant to industries whose investments and employment extend across the international boundary.
Doer told attendees he was surprised by what appeared to be a lack of due diligence behind recent tariff decisions. Rather than treating tariffs exclusively as a demonstration of negotiating strength, he argued that policymakers needed to examine their effects on businesses and workers. His remarks were an assessment of the administration’s decision-making, not proof that officials conducted no economic analysis. The distinction matters because trade policy can produce unintended consequences even when its stated objective is protecting domestic industries.
Bombardier’s Wichita Operations Expose the Risks for American Jobs
One of Doer’s most compelling examples involved Bombardier, the Canadian aerospace manufacturer with substantial operations in Wichita, Kansas. In September 2026, Trump threatened to prohibit Bombardier aircraft sales in the United States unless the company expanded American manufacturing. The threat created concern in Kansas, where Bombardier employs approximately 1,500 people. Wichita Mayor Lily Wu and local officials publicly defended those jobs, while Republican senators Jerry Moran and Roger Marshall raised concerns with the administration about the potential economic consequences.
The situation also demonstrated how quickly political pressure can alter a trade dispute. On October 20, Reuters reported that Trump had withdrawn his threats against Bombardier, explicitly acknowledging the importance of its Kansas workforce. Three days later, the company announced plans for $270 million in American investment and 300 additional jobs. Its broader U.S. operations already employed approximately 3,500 people. For Doer, the episode illustrated why measures aimed at a Canadian corporation could also threaten American engineering, aviation and manufacturing employment.
American Importers Often Pay the First Price of Tariffs
A central issue in the tariff debate is who actually pays when Washington taxes imported products. Under American customs regulations, the importer is legally responsible for paying the duty. Although foreign manufacturers can sometimes reduce prices to absorb part of the cost, the tariff does not automatically become a bill paid by the exporting country. Research published by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in February 2026 found that nearly 90% of the economic burden of U.S. tariffs during 2025 fell on American businesses and consumers.
For an American manufacturer purchasing Canadian components, the consequences can begin with a more expensive shipment. Management must then decide whether to absorb the additional expense, negotiate with suppliers, increase prices or change purchasing arrangements. Each option introduces financial pressure. Companies operating with narrow profit margins may have less room to absorb unexpected costs without changing their operations. The distinction between collecting tariff revenue and benefiting American workers is therefore important: government revenue can increase even while individual employers face higher production costs.
The Scale of Canada-U.S. Trade Makes Disruption Difficult to Contain
The economic relationship between Canada and the United States extends far beyond finished products crossing a border. According to the Office of the United States Trade Representative, bilateral goods and services trade totalled approximately US$872.3 billion in 2025. American companies exported US$333.6 billion in goods to Canada, while the United States recorded a US$27.7-billion surplus in services trade. These figures demonstrate that Canada is not simply a supplier competing against American businesses. It is also a major customer supporting American production and employment.
That distinction becomes especially important when trade policy focuses narrowly on bilateral deficits. A Canadian purchase of American machinery creates demand for production, transportation and related services in the United States. Similarly, Canadian materials imported by American manufacturers can help those businesses produce finished goods. The U.S. International Trade Administration reported that Canada was the leading export market for 32 states in 2024. Disrupting these commercial relationships can therefore affect communities far beyond the immediate border region, including businesses that rarely consider themselves international exporters.
Automakers Face Complications From Integrated Production
North America’s automotive industry provides another illustration of how tariffs can create unexpected costs. Automakers and parts manufacturers have developed production networks spanning Canada, the United States and Mexico. Congressional research has documented how certain automotive components can cross national boundaries seven or eight times before becoming part of a finished vehicle. Each location performs specialized work, allowing manufacturers to coordinate assembly, component production and logistics across multiple facilities. A tariff imposed at one stage can therefore influence costs elsewhere in the production process.
The Trump administration introduced a 25% tariff on certain vehicle and automotive imports in 2025, although exemptions and special treatment apply to qualifying North American products. Its additional threat to increase tariffs on Canadian vehicles and parts to 50% in January 2027 has added uncertainty. Manufacturers including General Motors, Ford, Stellantis, Toyota and Honda have significant exposure to cross-border automotive production. Moving assembly operations is not as straightforward as changing suppliers. Factories, equipment, workforce training and supplier contracts represent substantial investments that companies cannot easily relocate in response to political announcements.
American Farmers Have Their Own Reasons to Oppose Trade Disruption
Agriculture is particularly important to Doer’s assessment of the political consequences of Trump’s trade strategy. American farmers depend heavily on international buyers, including customers north of the border. U.S. Department of Agriculture figures show that Canada was America’s second-largest agricultural export market in 2025, purchasing approximately US$28.2 billion in agricultural products. Those purchases included bakery goods, vegetables, fruit, ethanol and prepared foods. For producers and agricultural businesses, access to Canadian customers can influence investment decisions, production plans and employment throughout the supply chain.
The pressure can also extend beyond agricultural exports themselves. Canada’s retaliatory measures introduced in September 2026 targeted categories including dairy products and agricultural equipment, creating additional complications for affected American suppliers. Fresh fruits and vegetables were excluded from those counter-tariffs, demonstrating why the precise product coverage matters. Doer emphasized that agriculture carries considerable political significance in competitive American states. When farmers, agricultural equipment manufacturers and rural businesses experience trade disruptions, the economic consequences can become political concerns for lawmakers who depend on those communities for electoral support.
Economic Research Shows Why Tariffs Do Not Guarantee More Jobs
The White House has defended its tariff policies as a way to strengthen American manufacturing, address trade imbalances and encourage companies to invest domestically. Those objectives can appeal to workers concerned about factory closures and competition from lower-cost imports. However, economic research suggests that protection for one industry does not necessarily translate into higher employment across manufacturing. A Federal Reserve study examining the 2018–2019 tariffs found that industries facing greater tariff exposure experienced relative employment declines because higher material costs and foreign retaliation outweighed the benefits of import protection.
More recent findings offer a nuanced picture. Research published by the Federal Reserve Bank of Chicago in 2026 found no statistically significant relationship between tariff exposure and employment growth during 2025. The researchers identified opposing economic forces: protection could support jobs, while higher input costs could undermine them. A November 2026 Federal Reserve Bank of Boston study also found that tariff pressures reached American firms indirectly through suppliers, including businesses with limited direct imports. These findings reinforce Doer’s concern that employment consequences require careful examination rather than assumptions about which industries will benefit.
American Households Are Also Experiencing the Economic Pressure
The effects of tariffs can reach American households through higher retail prices, even when consumers purchase products manufactured domestically. Research released by the Federal Reserve Bank of New York in 2026 found that approximately 26% of a tariff increase passes through to consumer goods prices under the study’s conditions. Roughly two-thirds of that effect comes directly from higher import prices, while the remaining third arises indirectly through more expensive manufacturing inputs and reduced price competition. The indirect effects can take nine to twelve months to become fully apparent.
Separate Federal Reserve research examining household transaction data found that tariffs placed a disproportionate welfare burden on lower-income households. It also identified changes in shopping behaviour, including reduced purchases of non-essential products and movement toward cheaper alternatives. These adjustments matter because households do not experience trade policy as an abstract economic debate. They encounter it through everyday purchasing decisions. For workers whose wages have not kept pace with rising expenses, increased prices can reduce purchasing power even without an immediate change in employment. Tariff costs can therefore affect American families through multiple channels.
North America’s Trade Agreement Faces a Larger Test
The future of the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement presents another challenge for businesses that depend on stable cross-border trade. Negotiated during Trump’s first presidency, the agreement entered into force in July 2020. However, during its first scheduled joint review on July 1, 2026, Washington declined to extend it in its existing form. That decision did not immediately terminate the agreement. It remains in force, with additional annual reviews possible before its scheduled expiration in 2036. For companies planning major investments, the uncertainty surrounding its future can be almost as significant as the tariffs themselves.
An August 2026 economic assessment commissioned by the Canadian American Business Council examined potential outcomes of the negotiations. Under a hypothetical breakdown of the agreement, researchers estimated that the United States could have 214,000 fewer jobs in 2027 compared with their status quo scenario, while Canada could have 102,000 fewer. These are conditional modelling estimates, not confirmed job losses or predictions that the agreement will collapse. Nevertheless, they illustrate the scale of employment potentially exposed to a deterioration in North American trade relations.
Political Pressure Is Growing, but a Resolution Remains Uncertain
The November 3, 2026, American midterm elections have introduced another consideration into the tariff debate. Democrats secured victories in both the House of Representatives and Senate, positioning them to increase scrutiny of the administration’s trade policies when the new Congress takes office in January 2027. Prime Minister Mark Carney welcomed Democratic efforts to repeal tariffs affecting Canada, arguing that fewer trade barriers would benefit American households and workers. However, a change in congressional control would not automatically eliminate existing duties. Trump retains substantial executive authority and could veto legislation intended to reverse his policies.
Doer believes the changing political environment could offer Canada an opportunity to pursue more practical trade arrangements. He has encouraged Canadian negotiators to remember that Trump originally championed the North American trade agreement and to look for opportunities to remove barriers without turning every disagreement into a broader confrontation. His argument is ultimately about economic interests rather than political personalities. For a worker assembling aircraft in Kansas, building automotive components in Michigan or producing agricultural equipment for Canadian customers, the nationality of a company’s headquarters may matter far less than whether its business remains competitive. The central question raised by Doer’s criticism is whether future trade decisions will adequately account for those workers before the next major announcement is made.
