Khan Capital | February 2025
Key Takeaways
- Trump imposed 25% tariffs on Mexico and Canada and 10% on China, collectively covering approximately 40% of US imports, the most aggressive unilateral trade action since Smoot-Hawley in 1930.
- The tariffs were imposed under IEEPA, a national emergency authority that has never been used for broad trade barriers against allied nations, creating a constitutional question that will likely reach the Supreme Court.
- The North American auto industry, built on three decades of tariff-free continental integration under NAFTA and USMCA, faces the most immediate supply chain disruption, with potential cost increases of thousands of dollars per vehicle.
- A 25% tariff on Canadian crude oil, which represents approximately 60% of US oil imports, would raise gasoline prices by an estimated $0.25-0.50 per gallon, creating a direct and politically visible cost for US consumers.
- The market is pricing the tariffs as a negotiating tool likely to be modified, but the uncertainty created by the process of threatening, implementing, and potentially reversing tariffs is itself extracting an economic cost through delayed investment, cautious hiring, and depressed consumer sentiment.
President Trump has moved from rhetoric to action. On 1 February 2025, the White House announced 25% tariffs on imports from Mexico and Canada, the United States’ two largest trading partners, and a 10% tariff on imports from China, effective within days. The announcements came via executive order under the International Emergency Economic Powers Act (IEEPA), citing border security and fentanyl trafficking as the justification for what are, in substance, the most significant unilateral trade barriers imposed by the United States since the Smoot-Hawley Tariff Act of 1930.
The market reaction was immediate and sharp. The S&P 500 fell over 1.5% on the Monday following the announcement. The Canadian dollar and Mexican peso weakened materially. Consumer sentiment indices, already fragile, declined further. But the most significant market impact was not the initial sell-off; it was the uncertainty premium that the tariff blitz injected into every asset class, every corporate earnings model, and every monetary policy forecast for the remainder of the year.
The Scope: Three Largest Trading Partners Hit Simultaneously
The scale of the tariff action is without modern precedent. Mexico, Canada, and China collectively account for approximately 40% of total US imports. A 25% tariff on the first two and 10% on the third represents a massive and immediate increase in the cost of goods entering the United States. The breadth of products affected is staggering: Canadian energy (oil, natural gas, electricity), Mexican autos and auto parts (deeply integrated into US manufacturing supply chains), Chinese electronics, consumer goods, and industrial components.
The USMCA (United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement), the trade deal Trump himself negotiated in his first term as a replacement for NAFTA, is effectively being overridden by the IEEPA tariffs. The legal basis is contentious: IEEPA was designed to address genuine national emergencies and has historically been used for sanctions against hostile nations, not for trade barriers against allied trading partners. The use of IEEPA to impose tariffs on Canada and Mexico circumvents the established trade policy framework and raises constitutional questions about executive authority over trade that will likely be tested in court.
The Economic Impact: Supply Chain Disruption and Inflationary Pressure
The North American auto industry provides the clearest illustration of the tariff blitz’s economic consequences. A single vehicle assembled in the United States typically contains components that have crossed the US-Mexico or US-Canada border multiple times during the manufacturing process. A 25% tariff on Canadian and Mexican imports raises the cost of each crossing, potentially adding thousands of dollars to the cost of a finished vehicle. The Big Three US automakers (GM, Ford, Stellantis) have significant production facilities in Mexico and Canada that were established precisely because NAFTA and then USMCA eliminated tariff barriers. The 25% tariff does not merely raise costs; it undermines the economic logic of a continental manufacturing strategy that has been built over three decades.
The inflationary implications are straightforward. Tariffs are paid by the importing entity (typically a US company), which must then choose between absorbing the cost (reducing margins) or passing it through to the consumer (raising prices). Empirical evidence from the first Trump-era tariffs (2018-2019) and academic research consistently finds that US consumers and businesses bear the overwhelming majority of tariff costs, with foreign exporters absorbing only a small fraction. The Federal Reserve’s monetary policy framework, already complicated by persistent inflation above the 2% target, now faces the additional challenge of determining how much of any observed price increase is tariff-driven (and therefore temporary, in theory) versus demand-driven (and therefore requiring a monetary policy response).
Energy markets face a specific complication. Canada supplies approximately 60% of US crude oil imports. A 25% tariff on Canadian crude would raise gasoline prices for American consumers by an estimated $0.25-0.50 per gallon, depending on how quickly refiners can source alternatives. This represents a direct and politically visible cost that the administration will struggle to explain as a benefit of trade rebalancing.
What the Market Is Misunderstanding
The tariffs may be a negotiating tool, but the negotiation itself creates damage. The market’s initial assessment was that the tariffs were leverage designed to extract concessions on border security and fentanyl cooperation, and would therefore be modified or reversed once those concessions were obtained. This may prove correct. But the process of threatening, announcing, and implementing tariffs creates uncertainty that affects business investment decisions, consumer behaviour, and financial market positioning regardless of the eventual outcome. Companies cannot make multi-year capital expenditure decisions based on the assumption that tariffs are temporary when the administration has not provided clarity on the criteria for removal.
Retaliation is the under-priced risk. Canada and Mexico are not passive participants. Both have announced or implemented retaliatory tariffs on US exports, targeting politically sensitive sectors (agriculture, bourbon, manufactured goods) in swing states. China has retaliated with targeted tariffs on US agricultural products and restrictions on critical mineral exports. The risk of a tit-for-tat escalation, in which each round of retaliation provokes further US tariff increases, is the scenario most likely to produce genuine economic damage, and it is the scenario the market is currently pricing as low probability.
The IEEPA legal challenge is a slow-burning fuse. Multiple legal challenges to the use of IEEPA as a tariff authority are expected. If courts ultimately rule that IEEPA cannot be used for broad trade barriers (a question the Supreme Court may eventually address), the entire tariff architecture could be invalidated. This creates a binary legal risk that markets have not yet priced: either the tariffs are upheld and become a permanent feature of the trade landscape, or they are struck down and the administration must pursue tariffs through the slower, more constrained channels of established trade law.
Implications for Investors
Consumer-facing companies with Mexican and Canadian supply chain exposure face the most immediate margin pressure. Automakers, retailers, food companies, and consumer electronics manufacturers should be screened for supply chain concentration risk.
US domestic manufacturers with minimal import exposure are relative beneficiaries. Companies with fully domestic supply chains, pricing power, and domestic customer bases are insulated from the tariff shock and may gain competitive advantage as import costs rise for competitors.
The Canadian dollar and Mexican peso face sustained pressure as the tariffs reduce demand for both countries’ exports to the United States. However, both currencies are already pricing significant tariff risk, and any de-escalation could trigger sharp recoveries.
Inflation expectations are the transmission mechanism to broader markets. If the tariff blitz raises observed inflation and pushes breakeven inflation rates higher, the Fed’s ability to cut rates in 2025 will be constrained, with implications for rate-sensitive assets across the spectrum.
Gold and other inflation hedges benefit from the combination of tariff-driven price pressure, policy uncertainty, and the potential for a Fed that is constrained from easing. The tariff regime adds another structural tailwind to gold’s already strong fundamental backdrop.
Conclusion
The February tariff blitz has transformed trade policy uncertainty from a background concern into the dominant risk factor for global markets in 2025. The simultaneous targeting of America’s three largest trading partners, under a legal authority of questionable applicability, with economic consequences that fall predominantly on US consumers and businesses, represents the most aggressive unilateral trade action in nearly a century. Whether the tariffs prove to be a negotiating tactic that achieves its objectives and is then withdrawn, or the opening salvo in a sustained trade war that reshapes global supply chains, the uncertainty itself is already extracting an economic and market cost that will define the investment landscape for the year ahead.
Related Reading
This was only the opening salvo of Trump’s second-term trade policy. For our analysis of the dramatic escalation that followed, see Liberation Day Tariffs: Markets Plunge on Sweeping IEEPA Tariffs. For the policy reversal that stunned markets, see The 90-Day Tariff Pause. For background on the first trade war, see Trade War 1.0.
Leave a Reply