特朗普援引1930年旧法对加拿大加征50%关税，美墨加协定商品首遭覆盖
美国首次动用《1930年关税法》第338条，对约200亿美元加拿大商品加征50%关税，且不再豁免美墨加协定项下货物，30天后生效。
7月20日，特朗普援引《1930年关税法》第338条，对加拿大葡萄酒、冰球杆、水泥、乳制品等加征50%关税，涉及约200亿美元进口。该条款从未被实际使用，允许对歧视美国商业的国家施加最高50%的惩罚性关税。公告明确，即使符合《美墨加协定》（USMCA）的商品也不再豁免，加元应声下跌。
美方称此举回应加拿大对美国汽车、乳制品和酒类的“持续歧视”，包括整车25%关税、乳制品高额关税及酒类抵制。此前最高法院已否决特朗普依据紧急状态法加征的全球性关税，白宫转向更古老的法律工具，但第338条诉讼风险高。
渥太华方面，总理卡尼称新关税“直接违反USMCA”，但已提交全面方案并同意加强谈判。安大略省省长福特主张“关税对关税”报复。加拿大商会呼吁利用30天窗口期。北美汽车供应链高度一体化，产业界担忧成本上升。
新关税将于8月19日生效，30天缓冲期为谈判留出空间。美墨谈判进展较快，美加谈判滞后。美方本月拒绝按现有形式续期USMCA，协定转为年度审议。市场关注美加能否在生效日前妥协及第338条司法挑战。
| 撒哈拉以南非洲媒体 | 0.00 | neutral |
|---|---|---|
| 俄罗斯及独联体媒体 | −0.20 | neutral |
| 大西洋／英语圈媒体 | −0.40 | critical |
| 阿拉伯海湾媒体 | −0.50 | critical |
The tariffs are a measured response to Canadian discrimination, with key exemptions and a 30-day window for talks.
By emphasizing the exemptions and Carney's willingness to negotiate, the bloc presents the tariffs as a bargaining chip rather than an all-out trade war.
Does not mention the legal basis (Section 338 of the Tariff Act of 1930) used by Trump, which is highlighted by European continental press.
Trump's tariffs are a retaliatory tantrum, even blaming Canada for forest fires to justify his protectionism.
By inserting a bizarre environmental accusation among the official justifications, the bloc discredits the entire initiative as arbitrary and irrational.
Omits the exemptions for energy, potash, and fish, as well as Carney's conciliatory response, which would soften the narrative of irrationality.
The tariffs aggravate trade tensions and threaten inflation, especially as the war in Iran already strains American pockets.
By linking the tariffs to inflation and the Iran war, the bloc places the move within a framework of multiple and escalating threats, heightening the sense of urgency.
Does not mention the specific list of goods (wine, hockey sticks, cement) that other blocs detail, nor the legal basis of Section 338.
The 50% tariffs risk unleashing economic chaos and fraying relations between allies, with the USMCA lapse adding fuel to the fire.
Using apocalyptic language ('economic chaos', 'fraying relations') and referencing the USMCA expiration, the bloc amplifies the sense of imminent crisis.
Does not mention the exemptions for energy and critical minerals, nor the legal basis of Section 338, which would provide nuance to the crisis narrative.