Only One in Four Americans Supports Removing Trump’s Canada Tariffs, New CFR Analysis Finds

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.

Canada remains one of America’s closest trading partners, but public support for eliminating President Donald Trump’s tariffs is considerably weaker than the country’s favourable reputation might suggest. A Council on Foreign Relations (CFR) analysis published October 30, 2026, highlights a striking divide: although 56% of Americans consider Canada a fair trading partner, only 28% believe the next U.S. president should remove all tariffs on Canadian goods.

The findings reveal a complicated relationship between household affordability concerns, national security arguments, political loyalties, and international trade. As Washington and Ottawa navigate another difficult period in their economic relationship, American voters appear increasingly concerned about the costs of tariffs without necessarily agreeing on how those policies should change.

What the 28% Finding Actually Says

The headline figure comes from a CFR–Morning Consult study examining what Americans believe the next U.S. president should do about tariffs imposed on major trading partners. For Canada, 28% supported removing all tariffs. The CFR’s October 30 analysis characterized the broader result as approximately one-quarter of Americans favouring complete tariff removal on traditional trading partners. However, the precise wording matters. Respondents were not simply asked whether they approved or disapproved of Trump’s trade confrontation with Canada. They were asked to choose among different approaches to future trade policy.

The remaining 72% should not be interpreted as a unified group supporting every existing tariff. Some respondents preferred restrictions focused on national security, others viewed tariffs as potential negotiating tools, and many were uncertain about the best response. An American voter could believe tariffs are making everyday products more expensive while still arguing that Washington should secure concessions before withdrawing them. For Canadian businesses hoping a change in American political leadership would automatically restore easier market access, the results underline an important possibility: dissatisfaction with existing tariffs does not necessarily translate into support for immediately eliminating them.

The Findings Come From an August Survey, Not a New October Poll

Although the CFR analysis appeared on October 30, the underlying research was conducted on August 18 and 19, 2026. Morning Consult surveyed 2,200 American adults online using a nationally representative sample, with results weighted according to demographic characteristics including age, gender, race, and educational attainment. CFR reported a margin of error of plus or minus two percentage points for the full sample. The 28% finding therefore represents an estimate of public opinion at that time, rather than an exact count of Americans holding the position.

The timing is particularly important because the Canada-U.S. tariff dispute continued evolving after the August interviews, with additional trade measures and retaliation changing the economic landscape. The October publication offers a fresh interpretation of earlier polling, not evidence that Americans were questioned again that week. It provides useful insight into the underlying attitudes confronting policymakers, but cannot independently establish how voters reacted to every subsequent announcement. Polling questions also matter considerably. Someone could oppose additional tariffs, favour a negotiated settlement, and remain reluctant to remove all existing trade restrictions without receiving something in return.

Most Americans Still Consider Canada a Fair Trading Partner

One of the study’s most revealing findings concerns Canada’s reputation among Americans. According to the CFR–Morning Consult results, 56% described Canada as a fair trading partner. That compared with 54% for Japan, 53% for the European Union, and 52% for Mexico. Opinions about Canada were also relatively favourable across party lines, with 61% of Democrats and 59% of Republicans considering the country a fair trading partner. Those figures suggest that Canada’s standing among Americans remains stronger than the political disagreements surrounding bilateral trade might indicate.

The research also found that 40% of respondents defined fair trade as a system in which countries are bound by the same rules. This preference for consistent treatment helps explain why disagreements over tariffs are more complicated than simple hostility toward another country. A U.S. manufacturer purchasing Canadian components, for example, might value the reliability of its supplier while supporting measures intended to strengthen domestic manufacturing. Similarly, a voter might consider Canada a dependable neighbour but believe Washington should retain some negotiating leverage. The challenge for Canadian policymakers is that positive perceptions of the country do not automatically produce support for unrestricted trade.

Americans Are More Divided Over How Tariffs Should Be Changed

The CFR findings indicate that many Americans favour something between eliminating trade barriers completely and maintaining the existing tariff system indefinitely. Across the trading partners examined, approximately 20% to 24% of respondents supported restricting tariffs to national security concerns. Roughly 30% supported keeping existing tariffs or using them to negotiate additional trade concessions, depending on the country involved. Nearly one-quarter were uncertain about what should happen. These are broader findings across multiple trading partners rather than an exact breakdown of Canadian tariff preferences, but they demonstrate why complete elimination attracts limited support.

The distinctions matter because different Americans may support tariffs for very different reasons. Some consider them necessary to protect important manufacturing industries, while others see them as temporary pressure that should disappear once trade agreements are reached. A third group may dislike tariffs but remain unsure whether removing them would produce measurable benefits. For Canada, the practical challenge is identifying which policies could attract sufficient American support. Targeted reductions affecting particular industries may prove more politically achievable than an agreement requiring Washington to abandon every trade restriction simultaneously.

Other American Polls Show Stronger Opposition to Trump’s Trade War

The CFR findings appear notably different from other American public opinion research conducted during 2026. In March, the Angus Reid Institute reported that 51% of Americans preferred having no tariffs on Canadian goods, while 73% expressed a favourable view of Canada. An Ipsos poll released September 1 found that 57% opposed additional American tariffs on Canada, compared with just 20% supporting them. Another study released by Navigator Research on September 22 found that 60% opposed further tariff escalation and 59% believed Trump’s tariffs on Canadian imports had not been worthwhile.

These differences do not necessarily mean the research contradicts itself. The organizations surveyed people at different times and asked different questions. Supporting a tariff-free relationship in principle is not identical to choosing whether the next president should immediately remove every tariff imposed by Trump. Similarly, opposing new tariffs does not establish a position on existing ones. A voter might prefer lower trade barriers while believing negotiations should determine the timing of their removal. Taken together, the studies suggest substantial American frustration with the trade dispute, even though there is less agreement about how Washington should resolve it.

Household Affordability Is Becoming a Powerful Part of the Debate

The CFR–Morning Consult research found that 75% of American adults were concerned about affording groceries and food products, including 46% who were very concerned. Financial anxiety extended to several other essential purchases: 68% expressed concern about pharmaceuticals and medical supplies, 64% about clothing and footwear, and 61% about technology and electronics. These worries were present across political affiliations, although Democrats generally expressed greater concern than Republicans. For households managing grocery expenses, medical bills, and transportation costs, the affordability debate extends far beyond the price of imported luxury goods.

More recent research reinforces the significance of those concerns. An October 8 Pew Research Center report found that 73% of Americans were very worried about food and consumer goods prices, while 74% expressed the same concern about gasoline and energy. Yale’s Budget Lab estimated in August that the broader U.S. tariff regime would cost the average American household approximately $1,100 annually under then-current law. That estimate covers American tariff policies generally, not Canadian imports alone. Nevertheless, it illustrates why the economic burden of tariffs remains politically important even when voters disagree about the appropriate trade policy response.

Americans Remain Split on Who Actually Pays Tariffs

Another revealing result concerns Americans’ understanding of how tariffs work. The CFR survey found that 41% considered tariffs a tax paid by Americans, while 40% believed they were fees paid by foreigners. The remaining 19% were uncertain. In practice, customs duties are paid by the importer of record when goods enter the United States. Foreign exporters may negotiate lower prices or absorb part of the economic burden through commercial arrangements, but the U.S. government collects the tariff from the importing party rather than directly billing a foreign government.

Economic research provides further context. A review published by the Peterson Institute for International Economics found that multiple studies indicated American businesses and consumers together bore approximately 90% of the burden from U.S. tariffs in 2025. That does not mean every tariff immediately produces an equivalent increase in retail prices. Businesses can absorb expenses through smaller profit margins, negotiate with suppliers, change purchasing arrangements, or gradually increase prices. For an American company importing Canadian automotive components, higher import costs can affect manufacturing expenses long before shoppers see the consequences at dealerships. Understanding those mechanisms helps explain why tariff policy can influence both business decisions and household affordability.

National Security Arguments May Help Explain Support for Limited Tariffs

National security remains an important part of the American tariff debate. The CFR research found that 42% of respondents associated national security with goods having military applications or supporting American competitiveness in emerging and advanced technologies. Americans were also more likely to favour domestic production of medicine and energy than to insist that products such as computers, steel, and semiconductors must always be manufactured in the United States. These distinctions suggest that many voters evaluate trade restrictions differently depending on the product and its perceived strategic importance.

However, national security concerns do not necessarily imply that Americans want restrictions on imports from Canada. The research found that most respondents were comfortable importing goods considered essential to national security from traditional American allies, with Canada receiving favourable responses. China attracted considerably more hesitation. This distinction matters because Washington has imposed substantial tariffs on Canadian steel, aluminum, and automobiles using Section 232 trade authorities associated with national security. For Canada, the findings suggest an opportunity to emphasize the reliability of integrated North American supply chains. They also raise a difficult question for policymakers: which specific imports genuinely create security vulnerabilities, and which restrictions primarily serve broader economic or negotiating objectives?

Political Loyalty Is Shaping Attitudes Toward Tariffs

Partisan affiliation helps explain why Americans disagree about tariff policy even when they share concerns about household expenses. In the CFR–Morning Consult survey, 61% of Democrats believed presidents should not impose tariffs without congressional approval, compared with just 21% of Republicans. Overall, 41% of respondents opposed granting presidents that authority without congressional consent. Republicans were also more inclined to favour retaining Trump’s tariffs, with approximately one-third supporting keeping all existing duties on several major trading partners, including Canada.

The findings become more revealing when presidential party affiliation enters the question. CFR reported that Democratic support for a president’s authority to raise tariffs increased by approximately 10 percentage points for most product categories when respondents were told the president was a Democrat. Republican support generally declined when the hypothetical president was a Democrat. Meanwhile, Pew Research Center found in October that 56% of Americans expected Trump’s tariff policies to have mostly negative effects on the country, compared with 20% expecting mostly positive effects. These results indicate that public dissatisfaction does not necessarily produce a shared political solution. The party controlling the White House may influence how voters evaluate the same trade powers and restrictions.

Canada’s Exporters Face a Complicated and Expensive Tariff System

For Canadian businesses, the debate over American public opinion carries significant economic consequences. Statistics Canada reported that 71.7% of the country’s merchandise exports went to the United States in 2025, down from 75.9% in 2024. Canadian goods exports to the American market also declined 5.8% over the year, although that decrease cannot be attributed entirely to tariffs. The Congressional Research Service identifies Canada as the United States’ second-largest goods and services trading partner in 2025, underscoring the scale of the relationship. Decisions made in Washington can therefore influence Canadian factories, transportation companies, manufacturers, and workers across several industries.

The tariff system itself has become increasingly complicated. American measures include duties reaching 50% on certain metal products, 25% on automobiles subject to applicable exemptions, and additional 50% tariffs on specified Canadian goods under Section 338. Some products qualifying under the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement remain protected from particular duties, but those exemptions do not apply universally. The White House also modified its Section 338 product lists effective October 30, removing certain goods while adding others. For a Canadian manufacturer preparing an export shipment, these distinctions can determine whether a sale remains competitive or becomes considerably more expensive.

The Next Trade Agreement May Bring Relief Without Ending the Tariff Fight

The political implications are becoming particularly important as the November 3 American midterm elections approach. Reuters reported on October 26 that Washington and Ottawa were discussing potential relief from tariffs on Canadian steel and automobiles. However, an October 28 report described progress as limited, with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney indicating that an acceptable agreement had not yet emerged. Discussions involving American Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick and Canadian trade minister Dominic LeBlanc continued, but no comprehensive settlement was confirmed. The negotiations demonstrate that selective tariff reductions remain possible even without broader agreement on the future of North American trade.

The longer-term outlook remains uncertain. During the 2026 review of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, Canada and Mexico expressed support for renewal, while Washington declined to renew at that stage. The existing agreement does not immediately expire because of that decision; its scheduled expiration is 2036 unless extended. CFR’s October 30 analysis argues that tariffs may remain a substantial feature of American trade policy regardless of future election outcomes, partly because different political and industrial groups benefit from maintaining them. For Canada, that suggests progress may come through targeted agreements rather than a sweeping political reversal. The central challenge is not simply persuading Americans that tariffs are costly, but building enough support for practical alternatives that protect both countries’ economic interests.

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.