More Than 64% of Americans Say Trump Has Gone Too Far on Tariffs as Canada Remains a Trade Target

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.

President Donald Trump’s tariff strategy is facing growing resistance from the very Americans it was intended to benefit.

A new Associated Press-NORC poll finds that 64% of U.S. adults believe Trump has gone too far in imposing tariffs on other countries, up from 58% in January. The findings arrive as Washington continues imposing trade restrictions on major partners, including Canada, and American households confront persistent concerns about rising prices.

The economic disagreement is becoming increasingly political ahead of the November 3 midterm elections. With Canadian products facing multiple U.S. tariff measures and Ottawa responding with its own duties, the confrontation is testing public support for one of Trump’s signature economic policies.

For businesses and families on both sides of the border, the question is whether Washington’s trade pressure will eventually produce better agreements or simply prolong higher costs.

A New Poll Reveals Growing Opposition to Trump’s Tariffs

The latest indication of public discontent comes from an Associated Press-NORC survey released October 1. It found that 64% of U.S. adults believe Trump has gone too far in imposing new tariffs on other countries, up from 58% in January. The six-percentage-point increase matters because the question concerns the president’s overall tariff approach, not just his treatment of Canada. At a time when trade debates often divide Americans along party lines, nearly two-thirds judging the policy excessive represents a substantial political obstacle.

Researchers interviewed 2,140 adults from September 24 through 28 using NORC’s probability-based AmeriSpeak panel. The overall sampling margin of error was 2.9 percentage points, meaning small changes should be interpreted cautiously. Another finding reinforces the broader direction of opinion: 68% disapproved of Trump’s handling of trade negotiations with other countries. The survey captures public sentiment rather than predicting election results, but it shows how a signature economic policy has become a growing source of concern.

Economic Frustration Goes Beyond Tariffs

Tariffs have become entangled with broader frustration over living costs. In the same AP-NORC survey, just 17% approved of Trump’s handling of the cost of living, and 26% approved of his management of the economy. Sixty-five percent said his policies bore more responsibility for elevated prices than factors outside his control. These figures do not prove tariffs caused every price increase. Energy costs, wages, supply conditions and the conflict involving Iran also influence household expenses.

For families struggling with grocery bills or filling their vehicles, those economic distinctions may be less visible than the final amount paid at checkout. In interviews accompanying the poll, Americans who had previously supported Trump described disappointment that promised financial relief had not arrived. Pew Research Center’s October survey similarly found that 65% believed his economic policies had made conditions worse, compared with 19% who said better. Economic anxiety now reaches beyond the familiar division between Democrats and Republicans, even though the parties continue to disagree over its causes.

Canada Is Caught in Two Different U.S. Tariff Campaigns

Canada remains exposed to overlapping American trade measures, a distinction often lost in broad descriptions of the tariff war. In July, Washington announced additional 50% duties under Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930, alleging discriminatory Canadian practices involving dairy products, alcoholic beverages and motor vehicles. After a brief delay, the measures took effect on August 22 and applied to specified Canadian products. They were not a blanket 50% tariff on everything entering the United States from Canada.

A separate action under Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 introduced tariffs on imports from 60 economies, including Canada. Washington said that action responded to shortcomings in countries’ enforcement of prohibitions on goods produced with forced labour. Canada’s Section 301 rate is 10%, subject to exemptions, including qualifying products protected under the North American trade agreement. These different legal authorities explain why tariff headlines sometimes appear contradictory. The actual duty depends on the product, its eligibility for exemptions and the particular trade measure being applied.

The North American Trade Agreement Still Protects Some Goods

The Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement, known in Canada as CUSMA and in the United States as USMCA, continues to provide important protection for qualifying goods. Canadian government guidance states that products meeting the agreement’s rules of origin and properly claiming preferential treatment remain exempt from the newer Section 301 tariffs. A product may qualify because it was grown in Canada or because sufficient manufacturing occurred within North America. Certification is essential, however; crossing the border from Canada does not automatically establish eligibility.

Those protections do not extend uniformly to every U.S. tariff. Canadian authorities warn that CUSMA-compliant products can still face Section 338 measures and certain industry-specific Section 232 duties. For exporters, that means carefully checking product classifications and paperwork rather than assuming a single headline tariff rate applies. A manufacturer shipping components to Michigan and a farmer selling produce across the border may encounter very different rules. The complexity creates another challenge for Canadian businesses already struggling to calculate future production costs and make long-term investment decisions.

Ottawa’s Retaliation Adds Another Layer of Economic Pressure

Prime Minister Mark Carney’s government has responded with counter-tariffs rather than simply accepting Washington’s latest trade demands. Effective September 8, Canada imposed additional duties of 15%, 25% and 50% on selected American products. The measures covered approximately C$27.6 billion in U.S. imports and targeted sectors including steel, dairy, household appliances, agricultural equipment, paper and electronics. Ottawa framed its response as matching American pressure and protecting Canadian workers and companies from increasingly restrictive trade conditions.

Retaliation can strengthen a government’s negotiating position, but it can also produce costs at home. Canadian firms importing machinery or materials may face higher bills when domestic alternatives are limited. American suppliers risk losing sales as Canadian customers seek other sources or postpone purchases. Those consequences help explain why the dispute matters far beyond government negotiations. For a factory manager placing orders months in advance, the immediate concern is not the political symbolism of retaliation. It is whether the next shipment will arrive at a predictable price and allow production to continue profitably.

Most Americans Prefer Compromise With Canada

A separate Ipsos poll suggests that skepticism about tariffs is especially pronounced when Canada is mentioned directly. Released September 1, the survey found 57% of Americans opposed additional U.S. tariffs on Canadian goods, compared with 20% who supported them. Sixty-eight percent said Washington should be willing to make tradeoffs with Canada even if it did not obtain everything it wanted. Only 25% preferred maintaining a tougher position and insisting on securing most American demands.

The poll also examined responsibility for the dispute. Forty-six percent placed more blame on the United States, while 12% assigned greater responsibility to Canada and 18% said both countries were equally responsible. Conducted August 28–30 among 1,023 adults, the survey carried a sampling margin of error of 3.5 percentage points. Its findings do not mean Americans oppose every attempt to secure better trade terms. Instead, they suggest a substantial preference for negotiated compromise over an indefinitely escalating contest of tariffs. That distinction could become increasingly important as economic concerns influence political discussions ahead of November’s election.

Canada’s Reputation Has Changed, but Public Trust Has Not Disappeared

The broader relationship is experiencing a noticeable decline in public perceptions of diplomatic closeness. AP-NORC found that only 26% of Americans now consider Canada a close U.S. ally, compared with 45% in March 2025 and 62% three years earlier. However, that decline does not mean most Americans regard Canadians as adversaries. Another 35% described the countries as friendly but not close allies, while 30% said relations were not friendly without considering the two nations enemies.

Other research offers a more encouraging picture of Canada’s commercial reputation. A Council on Foreign Relations-Morning Consult survey published October 6 found that 56% of Americans considered Canada a fair trading partner. That judgment crossed partisan lines: 59% of Republicans and 61% of Democrats described Canadian trade as fair. The questions measure different things, diplomatic closeness and economic fairness, but together reveal a complicated public mood. Americans can recognize that the bilateral relationship has deteriorated without accepting the argument that Canada deserves extensive economic punishment.

Economists Explain How Tariffs Reach American Consumers

A tariff is collected from the American importer at the border, not directly from the foreign government. That company can absorb the expense, negotiate a lower price from its supplier or pass some of the cost to customers. Research by economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York, revised in September, found that about 26% of the tariff increases they examined passed through to retail consumer prices. Importantly, higher costs also appeared in American-made products when factories paid more for imported components or faced less competition.

The researchers found that some indirect effects can take nine to twelve months to emerge. A related analysis published October 6 specifically anticipated additional delayed consumer-price effects from tariffs affecting Canadian goods. Separately, Yale’s Budget Lab estimated in August that U.S. tariff policies then in effect would ultimately cost American households approximately US$1,100 annually on average. That figure is a modelled economy-wide estimate, not a cost attributable solely to Canada. Together, the studies help explain why the financial consequences of trade restrictions can continue long after their original announcement.

Michigan Shows Why the Trade Dispute Is Personal

Few American states illustrate the economic stakes more clearly than Michigan. Federal trade figures show Canada purchased US$23.2 billion in Michigan goods during 2025, accounting for approximately 39% of the state’s merchandise exports. Automakers and suppliers maintain interconnected operations on both sides of the border, meaning additional costs can spread through production networks. Against that backdrop, Republican Senate candidate Mike Rogers released an October 7 advertisement declaring that Canada was not America’s enemy and calling for the tariff dispute to end.

The human consequences extend beyond automotive factories. In an October 11 report, the Associated Press described Nelson Vandermeer, a longtime Republican voter who lost his job after Michigan clockmaker Howard Miller closed its factory and laid off nearly 200 workers. The company had faced declining demand alongside costs associated with imported components, so tariffs cannot fairly be presented as its only difficulty. Nevertheless, Vandermeer’s experience illustrates why trade promises are now receiving greater scrutiny from voters whose financial security depends on manufacturing employment.

A Supreme Court Setback Did Not End Washington’s Tariff Strategy

Trump’s tariff programme has also encountered significant legal limits. On February 20, the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that the International Emergency Economic Powers Act did not authorize the president to impose tariffs. The decision curtailed an earlier approach that relied on a national emergency declaration to justify sweeping import duties. It did not establish that every tariff imposed under every trade statute was unlawful, nor did it eliminate the government’s ability to use specifically authorized trade remedies.

Washington subsequently relied more heavily on other statutes, including Sections 301 and 338. The newer Section 301 action covers 60 economies and rests on allegations concerning the enforcement of forced-labour import restrictions. The Canada-focused Section 338 action cites alleged discrimination against American commerce. Because these laws establish different powers and requirements, their application raises separate legal questions. For Canadian exporters and American importers, the changes create additional uncertainty. The future of a particular tariff may depend not only on negotiations between governments but also on whether its legal justification survives judicial scrutiny.

The White House Continues Defending Tariffs as an Industrial Strategy

The Trump administration disputes the argument that tariffs are primarily a burden on American consumers. It maintains that raising the price of imported goods can encourage companies to establish factories in the United States, protect strategically important industries and obtain concessions from foreign trading partners. A White House manufacturing report released October 10 cited growing factory construction and employment as evidence of its broader economic strategy. Federal labour statistics show manufacturing payrolls had increased by 72,000 from a recent low in December 2025 through September 2026.

That improvement does not settle the economic debate. The Associated Press reported that manufacturing employment remained below its level when Trump returned to office in January 2025, while individual companies have announced layoffs associated partly with higher import costs. The administration also credits tax incentives, deregulation and investment commitments, making it difficult to attribute every factory expansion specifically to tariffs. Supporters emphasize industrial protection, bargaining power and domestic production. Critics point to retaliation, uncertain business conditions and higher prices. Assessing the policy requires considering both its potential industrial benefits and its measurable costs.

The Midterm Elections Could Increase Pressure for a Canada Trade Deal

The November 3 midterm elections are approaching without a clear resolution to the bilateral dispute. During the July 1 review of the North American trade agreement, Washington declined to renew it in its existing form, although the agreement remains legally in force. On October 8, U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson Greer said the administration was maintaining its negotiating position while remaining in frequent contact with Canadian officials. Ottawa, meanwhile, has continued defending its countermeasures as leverage for a more balanced agreement.

Public-opinion surveys cannot determine how Americans will vote. People weigh trade policy alongside health care, immigration, national security and candidates’ broader records. Nevertheless, the combination of growing dissatisfaction, research documenting consumer costs and political pressure from manufacturing states creates a difficult environment for Washington. For Canada, the central question is whether American opposition to the tariffs will eventually translate into meaningful trade relief. For businesses and households on both sides of the border, a lasting agreement would provide something that has become increasingly difficult to secure during the trade confrontation: predictability about future costs, market access and investment.

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.