At one minute past midnight on Saturday, a 50 percent tariff landed on Canadian hockey sticks, cement, liquor and tongue depressors. The legal authority behind it is a section of a 1930 statute that had never once been used in 96 years, and the reason it was reached for is worth a Catholic’s attention. It requires no investigation, and it never expires.
The News Story
The United States imposed 50 percent tariffs on roughly $20 billion worth of Canadian goods at 12:01 a.m. Saturday, August 22, after last-ditch negotiations between Washington and Ottawa broke down late Friday night. Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said Canada will match the measures “dollar for dollar,” with retaliatory tariffs on U.S. goods taking effect September 8.
The affected products account for about 5 percent of what Canada ships to the United States annually and include hockey sticks, building materials, liquors, certain kinds of clothing, cement and tongue depressors. The tariffs had originally been set to take effect at 12:01 a.m. Wednesday; President Donald Trump extended the deadline by three days to allow talks to continue.
The legal basis is unusual. After the Supreme Court ruled in February that Trump had overstepped his authority in imposing broad double-digit tariffs on nearly every country, striking down those penalties and setting the stage for refunds to importers, the administration turned to Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, the Smoot-Hawley-era statute. Section 338 permits tariffs of up to 50 percent on imports from countries found to have discriminated against U.S. businesses, requires no investigation, and sets no limit on duration. It has never before been used to impose tariffs.
The two governments blamed each other. U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer, in a statement read to reporters shortly before midnight, said Canada “declined to finalize the trade deal under the terms agreed earlier this week,” citing “new demands and walk-backs of other commitments.” Greer said the U.S. offer was “forward-looking” and included “a historic economic and national security partnership.” Carney countered that “last-minute changes in the U.S. proposed terms were unfair, uneconomic, and called into question the reliability of any deal,” and said Washington “asked too much and offered too little.” He characterized the final U.S. move as a “power play” and the tariffs as “a miscalculation.” Carney said Canada had been prepared to drop remaining retaliatory tariffs on steel, aluminum and autos if Washington substantially lowered its own, and to encourage provinces to restore U.S. alcohol sales; Canada had sought concessions on steel, aluminum, autos and lumber.
Greer told Fox News on Saturday that no further talks are planned, saying, “Our interest is in protecting American workers and protecting American supply chains.”
The stakes are large. The two countries traded $880 billion in goods and services last year, roughly 72 percent of Canada’s goods exports go to the United States, and nearly 330,000 people and $2 billion in goods cross the 5,525-mile border each day. Ontario Premier Doug Ford backed retaliation: “tariff for tariff, dollar for dollar.” Candace Laing of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce called the tariffs “a body blow to North American competitiveness.”
The breakdown also clouds the renewal of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement. Formal talks with Mexico have begun; talks with Canada have not. Carney said his government will announce additional support for Canadian workers and businesses in the coming days, and that the two countries would “not return to our old relationship.”[1]
Catholic Social Teaching Analysis
Set The Blame Aside For A Moment
Two governments spent Friday night accusing each other of moving the goalposts, and by Saturday morning neither had produced anything a reader outside the room could judge. Greer says Canada walked back commitments it had already made. Carney says Washington changed the terms at the eleventh hour. One of those accounts is closer to the truth. I don’t know which one, and neither do you, and we may not know for years.
So set it aside. A second question is buried in this story that a Catholic can evaluate without settling who was lying on Friday, and it depends on which tool the stronger party reached for once the talking stopped.
No Investigation, No Expiration
Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930 sat in the United States Code for 96 years without being used once for this. On Saturday, it was used. It lets the president impose duties of up to 50 percent on goods from any country he determines has discriminated against American commerce.
Now consider what it doesn’t ask of him. No investigation. No fact-finding that a court, a trading partner, or a Canadian dairy farmer could examine and dispute. No sunset date, no review, no expiration. A determination is made, and the duty stands for exactly as long as the man who made it wants it to stand.
Set that against how the Church describes the way nations are supposed to settle their quarrels. The Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church says relations among peoples and political communities must be “justly regulated according to the principles of reason, equity, law and negotiation, excluding recourse to violence and war, as well as to forms of discrimination, intimidation and deceit.”[2]
Look at three of those four words. Reason means you give grounds. Law means the grounds bind you as well: not only the other party. Negotiation means the other side has something it can answer. A statute deliberately built to require none of the three is a statute built to be moved by will alone. That’s the whole design. It’s why the drafters put it in a 1930 tariff bill and why no president touched it until now.
The Force Of Law Against The Law Of Force
The Compendium has a name for this problem, and it’s a sharp one. Listing the universal principles that stand “prior to and superior to the internal law of States,” it names the equal dignity of every people, the rejection of war as a way of settling disputes, and “the need to be faithful to agreements undertaken (pacta sunt servanda).” Then it adds a warning about why that last one matters so much: to avoid the “temptation to appeal to the law of force rather than to the force of law.”[3]
That phrase, borrowed from John Paul II, is the hinge of this entire business. The force of law is authority that constrains the one exercising it. A president bound by a statute that requires findings, review, and expiration is operating under the force of law, even when the outcome hurts. The law of force is different in kind. It’s whatever the powerful party can accomplish, dressed in legal clothing after the fact. Section 338 supplies the clothing. It supplies almost nothing else.
The Compendium is blunter still. A few paragraphs later it states: “international law must ensure that the law of the more powerful does not prevail.”[4]
That sentence was written about war and territory. It applies with full weight to a country whose economy sends 72 percent of its exports to a single neighbor. When one party controls the market the other cannot survive without, the difference between negotiation and dictation is already thin. What remains of it is the requirement to give reasons that can be tested. Remove that, and you’ve removed the last thing standing between a trade relationship and a demand.
Mutual Confidence Holds The Whole Thing Up
Here’s the part that gets treated as sentiment and shouldn’t be. The Compendium teaches that “in order to consolidate the primacy of law, the principle of mutual confidence is of the utmost importance.”[5]
That’s a structural claim about how law works between sovereigns. There’s no world sheriff. No court can send marshals to Washington or Ottawa. What makes international law function at all is that states expect each other to behave predictably, and they arrange their affairs on that expectation. Trust is the enforcement mechanism. Spend it down and the law doesn’t get weaker in some abstract sense; it stops operating.
The Compendium says nations form a “family of nations” where “mutual trust, support and respect must prevail,” and that a nation’s sovereignty, real as it is, isn’t absolute in the sense of being answerable to nothing.[6] Think about what that family looked like on this particular border until this week. Five thousand five hundred twenty-five miles, undefended. Three hundred thirty thousand people crossing every day. Canadian soldiers who fought and died beside Americans in Afghanistan after September 11. Eight hundred thousand Canadians living in the United States right now, many of them at Mass this morning in Buffalo, Detroit, and Seattle.
Carney’s summary was one sentence: America has changed, and the two countries will “not return to our old relationship.” A prime minister does not say that lightly. Neither does a nation start a petition to expel an ambassador, which nearly 248,000 Canadians have now signed.
The Part That Cuts Both Ways
None of this hands Ottawa a clean win, and a Catholic reading should not be afraid to say so.
The Catechism’s teaching on contracts includes a qualifier people skip. “Promises must be kept and contracts strictly observed to the extent that the commitments made in them are morally just,” and all contracts “must be agreed to and executed in good faith.”[7] Fidelity to agreements is not fidelity to any agreement whatsoever. Carney was entirely within his rights to refuse a deal he judged bad for Canadian workers, and if he really believed the final American terms were unjust, refusing was the right thing to do. Walking away from a bad bargain is the whole reason bargaining exists.
Greer’s stated aim deserves the same fairness. Protecting American workers and American supply chains is a legitimate object of government, and the Church says clearly: sovereignty is an expression of the freedom that ought to govern relations between states.
But a legitimate object doesn’t sanctify every instrument. And there’s a limit the Compendium sets on how far a nation may press its own advantage: “the common good of a nation cannot be separated from the good of the entire human family.”[8] Notice the verb. Separated. Two nations’ goods can be distinguished, weighed, argued over, traded against each other in hard bargaining. They cannot be pulled apart and treated as belonging to different moral universes. A trade policy that handles the nearest neighbor’s economy as a lever, and only as a lever, has done the separating that sentence forbids.
What This Asks Of You
Most of us will never vote on Section 338. Nevertheless, two things remain within reach.
First, be careful how you talk about Canadians, and correct the talk around you. The annexation jokes, the 51st-state line, the sneering about a country that buried its own sons in Kandahar. That’s the raw material of the contempt that makes a trade fight into something worse, and it circulates in parish halls and comment sections, not only in press conferences.
Second, know who pays. A tariff is collected from the American importer, who raises the shelf price. The 50 percent lands on a household budget in Iowa before it lands on anyone in Ontario. If you’re going to support this policy, support it with your eyes open to the mechanism, and be honest that a grocery bill is part of the argument.
The instrument outlives the quarrel. This particular dispute could be patched up in six weeks. Section 338 has no expiration, no review, and now a precedent, and it will be sitting there for whoever holds the office in 2029 and 2033. Tools built to require no proof will get used again. They are reliable in that way.
This story turns on the force of law over the law of force: the principle that international dealings must be governed by rules that bind the strong as well as the weak.
One principle from the Church’s social teaching, applied to the week’s news, in your inbox each Saturday. Get it by email
Footnotes
- Paul Wiseman and Rob Gillies, “U.S. Imposes 50% Tariffs on $20 Billion Worth of Canadian Products. Canada Will Impose Retaliatory Tariffs,” Associated Press, PBS NewsHour, August 22, 2026, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/world/u-s-imposes-50-tariffs-on-20-billion-worth-of-canadian-products-canada-says-it-will-retaliate; “Canada’s Carney Says US Made Last-Minute ‘Power Play’ as Trade Talks Collapse; Retaliatory Tariffs in Place,” Fox Business, August 22, 2026, https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/canadas-carney-us-last-minute-power-play-trade-talks-collapse-retaliatory-tariffs; “As U.S.-Canada Trade Talks Collapse, Carney Says Retaliatory Tariffs Will Start Sept. 8,” CNBC, August 22, 2026, https://www.cnbc.com/2026/08/22/us-canada-trade-talks-collapse-ushering-in-wave-of-new-tariffs.html; “Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney Calls New U.S. Tariffs ‘a Miscalculation’ after Trade Talks Collapse,” NBC News, August 22, 2026, https://www.nbcnews.com/business/economy/trump-canada-tariffs-carney-rcna593510; “Carney Says US Asked ‘Too Much, Offered Too Little’ as Trade Talks Collapse,” CNN Business, August 21, 2026, https://www.cnn.com/2026/08/21/economy/us-canada-trade; “Canada Sets New Tariffs on U.S. after Trump’s 50% Levies, Trade Talks Fail,” The Washington Post, August 22, 2026, https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2026/08/22/new-50-percent-tariffs-canada-go-into-effect-after-deal-with-us-falls-through/; “US Imposes 50 Percent Tariffs on $20bn in Canadian Goods after Talks Fail,” Al Jazeera, August 22, 2026, https://www.aljazeera.com/news/2026/8/22/us-imposes-50-tariffs-on-20bn-worth-of-canadian-goods-after-talks-fail; “U.S.-Canada Trade Talks Collapse, Massive Tariffs to Take Effect,” Axios, August 22, 2026, https://www.axios.com/2026/08/22/us-canada-tariffs-trade-trump-carney; “US Hits Canadian Goods With 50% Tariff, Carney Vows to Retaliate,” Bloomberg, August 22, 2026, https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2026-08-22/us-canada-trade-talks-collapse-triggering-trump-s-50-tariffs; “U.S.-Canada Trade Talks Collapse,” NPR, August 22, 2026, https://www.npr.org/2026/08/22/nx-s1-5941584/us-canada-tariffs. ↩
- Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2004), no. 433. ↩
- Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2004), no. 437. ↩
- Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2004), no. 439. ↩
- Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2004), no. 439. ↩
- Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2004), no. 435. ↩
- Catechism of the Catholic Church, 2nd ed. (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 1997), no. 2410. ↩
- Pontifical Council for Justice and Peace, Compendium of the Social Doctrine of the Church (Vatican City: Libreria Editrice Vaticana, 2004), no. 434. ↩
Books Cited
As an Amazon Associate I earn from qualifying purchases.
- Catholic Church, Catechism of the Catholic Church, Second Edition (Doubleday / Image, 2003)
Leave a Reply