Trump Says U.S. Could End All Trade With Canada and ‘Save $90 Billion’

35,000+ smart investors are already getting financial news, market signals, and macro shifts in the economy that could impact their money next with our FREE weekly newsletter. Get ahead of what the crowd finds out too late. Click Here to Subscribe for FREE.

Donald Trump has pushed the Canada-U.S. trade dispute into even more dramatic territory, arguing that Washington could simply stop trading with Canada and “save” roughly $90 billion. The U.S. president made the remarks on September 4 while pressing the Federal Reserve to lower interest rates, presenting trade deficits as leverage the United States could use against countries that depend heavily on access to the American market.

The numbers behind that argument, however, tell a more complicated story. Canada remains unusually dependent on U.S. customers, particularly in energy and manufacturing. At the same time, American refiners, automakers, farmers and exporters rely heavily on Canadian supplies and buyers. Ending trade would therefore represent far more than eliminating a line on a trade-balance spreadsheet.

Trump’s Trade Threat Was Also About the Federal Reserve

Trump’s comments about Canada came during a broader attack on U.S. interest-rate policy. He argued that countries running trade surpluses with the United States benefit enormously from access to the American economy and suggested Washington could use that leverage if the Federal Reserve does not bring rates down. Canada became one of his clearest examples. Trump said that if the United States stopped trading with Canada, it could save roughly $90 billion annually and leave Canada facing severe economic difficulty.

That context matters because the statement was not presented as a detailed plan for closing the northern border to commerce. It was part of Trump’s argument that the United States possesses enough economic power to demand lower borrowing costs at home and better terms abroad. Still, the rhetoric lands at a particularly sensitive moment. Washington and Ottawa are already dealing with tariffs, countermeasures and uncertainty surrounding the future of their North American trade framework.

A Trade Deficit Is Not the Same as Money the Government Loses

The most important distinction is what a trade deficit actually represents. U.S. Census Bureau figures show that from January through July 2026, the United States exported approximately $205.5 billion in goods to Canada and imported about $233.7 billion. That produces a goods deficit of roughly $28.2 billion for the seven-month period. For all of 2025, the American goods deficit with Canada was about $48.3 billion.

Those figures do not mean the U.S. Treasury wrote Canada a $28.2 billion or $48.3 billion cheque. A trade deficit measures the difference between the value of imports and exports. Americans received Canadian oil, vehicles, metals, food and other products in exchange for the money spent on those imports. Federal Reserve explanations of trade accounting similarly stress that deficits reflect broader patterns of consumption, investment, saving and capital flows. Eliminating imports would eliminate purchases, but it would not automatically convert their trade value into government savings.

Canada Is Highly Dependent on the U.S.—But Not for 95% of Its Exports

Trump also argued that Canada conducts almost all of its business with the United States, putting the figure at roughly 95%. Canada unquestionably has unusually deep exposure to its southern neighbour, but official merchandise data show a substantially smaller share. Statistics Canada reported that Canadian exports to the United States totaled about C$50.5 billion in July 2026 out of C$76.1 billion in total merchandise exports, putting the U.S. share at approximately 66%.

That percentage has been falling as exporters look elsewhere. Canadian shipments to countries other than the United States rose 7.4% in July to a record C$25.6 billion, accounting for 33.7% of merchandise exports that month. For 2025 as a whole, Global Affairs Canada calculated that roughly 72.5% of Canadian merchandise exports went to the United States. Those are still extraordinarily large numbers. Losing the American market would be deeply damaging, but the available trade statistics do not support treating 95% as Canada’s current merchandise-export exposure.

Energy Shows Why Cutting Trade Would Hurt Both Directions

Energy is perhaps the clearest example of why Canada-U.S. commerce cannot be viewed only through the size of the trade deficit. The U.S. Energy Information Administration estimates that bilateral energy trade was worth about $137 billion in 2025. American energy imports from Canada accounted for roughly $111 billion of that total, while U.S. energy exports to Canada were worth around $26 billion.

Canadian crude oil is especially important. The EIA says U.S. imports of Canadian crude averaged approximately 3.9 million barrels per day in 2025, making Canada the leading foreign source of American crude. Canadian government figures show that Canada supplied roughly 62% of total U.S. crude-oil imports in 2024. Refineries in parts of the Midwest and elsewhere have spent decades building logistics around those flows. A sudden cutoff would therefore require replacing physical barrels, adjusting transportation networks and potentially paying different prices. Canada would lose its biggest customer, but American refiners would also lose their largest foreign supplier.

The Auto Industry Could Feel a Disruption Almost Immediately

Automotive manufacturing provides another unusually visible example of economic integration. The Canadian government says more than 90% of Canadian-made vehicles and about 60% of Canadian-made auto parts are exported to the United States. Canada manufactured more than 1.2 million passenger vehicles in 2025, while its auto-manufacturing industry supports roughly 125,000 direct jobs. That makes access to U.S. consumers essential for Canadian plants.

Yet the supply chain does not stop at the border. Vehicle components routinely move between Canadian and American plants during production, with many manufacturers operating under just-in-time inventory systems. Transport Canada has previously documented how disruptions at key crossings can quickly force assembly plants on both sides to reduce or suspend production because facilities keep limited parts inventories. A true halt in trade would therefore look very different from simply buying fewer Canadian cars. American factories using Canadian engines, metals, components or subassemblies could face shortages at the same time Canadian factories lose their U.S. customers.

American Exporters Would Also Lose One of Their Biggest Customers

The trade relationship is much larger than Canadian sales into the United States. U.S. government data describe Canada as traditionally the biggest market for American exports. In 2024, Canada accounted for approximately 16.8% of U.S. goods exports, while American goods and services exports to Canada approached $441 billion. The U.S. Commerce Department says 32 states counted Canada as their largest export market, while Canada ranked either first or second for 44 states.

Agriculture illustrates the exposure particularly well. U.S. Department of Agriculture data show Canada purchased approximately $28.7 billion in American agricultural products during 2025, representing 16.7% of total U.S. agricultural exports. Those shipments ranged from vegetables and fruit to ethanol, baked goods and food preparations. Eliminating trade would consequently mean eliminating a major market for American producers as well. Canadian companies would scramble for substitute suppliers, while U.S. farms, factories and distributors would have to replace Canadian customers that currently purchase hundreds of billions of dollars in American output.

Consumers Would Eventually Encounter the Costs Too

Trade barriers rarely remain confined to customs offices. Federal Reserve researchers studying the tariff increases introduced in 2025 found measurable increases in U.S. consumer-goods prices, with the effects accumulating over time as retailers passed higher import costs through to shoppers. One Federal Reserve analysis estimated that tariff changes through November 2025 had raised core-goods personal consumption expenditure prices by approximately 3.1% by February 2026.

Other Federal Reserve research published in 2026 found that households responded not only to price increases but also by reducing purchases of affected goods, with lower-income consumers carrying a disproportionate welfare burden. A complete halt in Canadian trade would be considerably more disruptive than an ordinary tariff because some products would suddenly need entirely different sources. Energy, food, lumber, metals and manufacturing inputs would be especially sensitive. Canada would face its own price and supply adjustments, but the consequences would not stop at the border. American households and companies buying Canadian products would also have to absorb the transition.

Leaving CUSMA Would Not Automatically Mean Ending Trade

Trump also has several different policy paths available, and they should not be treated as identical. The Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement contains a formal withdrawal clause allowing any member to leave after giving the other countries six months’ written notice. Washington already declined to renew the agreement at the July 2026 joint review, but the U.S. Trade Representative has explicitly said CUSMA remains in effect while negotiations continue.

The agreement has therefore moved into annual reviews rather than disappearing overnight. Even formal U.S. withdrawal from CUSMA would primarily remove the preferential rules governing North American trade; it would not, by itself, constitute an automatic prohibition on every commercial transaction with Canada. A genuine suspension of all trade would be a much more sweeping step, raising separate questions about presidential authority, congressional powers, existing statutes and the practical administration of the border. The distinction matters when assessing whether Trump’s remark is negotiating pressure or a blueprint for imminent action.

Canada Is Diversifying, but Geography Still Gives Washington Enormous Leverage

Ottawa’s response has increasingly combined negotiation with an effort to reduce long-term dependence on the American market. On September 4, Canada’s minister responsible for U.S. trade, Dominic LeBlanc, met with senior ministers, negotiators and an advisory committee to discuss the worsening relationship. The government said Canada remains prepared for constructive engagement on a mutually beneficial agreement while strengthening domestic industries and expanding opportunities abroad.

There are already signs of diversification. Statistics Canada recorded an unprecedented C$25.6 billion in exports to non-U.S. destinations in July, helped by increased shipments to markets including China, Germany and the Netherlands. Still, geography cannot be rewritten quickly. Pipelines, railways, highways, factories and decades of investment were constructed around continental commerce. That is why Trump’s threat carries genuine weight even if the “$90 billion” framing oversimplifies the economics. Canada has more alternatives than the rhetoric suggests, but replacing the scale, proximity and infrastructure of the American market would take years rather than months.

This Options Discord Chat is The Real Deal

While the internet is scoured with trading chat rooms, many of which even charge upwards of thousands of dollars to join, this smaller options trading discord chatroom is the real deal and actually providing valuable trade setups, education, and community without the noise and spam of the larger more expensive rooms. With a incredibly low-cost monthly fee, Options Trading Club (click here to see their reviews) requires an application to join ensuring that every member is dedicated and serious about taking their trading to the next level. If you are looking for a change in your trading strategies, then click here to apply for a membership.