minssnim

[minssnim]

Unpredictable! Why did the United States withdraw the additional 25% tariff on Canadian steel and aluminum?

The US decision to withdraw the additional 25% tariff on Canadian steel and aluminum products is the result of a compromise between the US and Canada after the game in the electricity surcharge dispute. Combined with the search results, the reasons behind this policy reversal can be summarized as follows:

I. Ontario, Canada canceled the electricity surcharge, and the US achieved its initial goal

1. Direct trigger: electricity surcharge dispute

On March 10, Ontario, Canada announced that it would impose a 25% surcharge on electricity exported to New York, Michigan and Minnesota in the United States on the grounds of "unfair balance of trade." This move was regarded as an "electricity tariff" by the Trump administration, and it quickly retaliated by imposing additional steel and aluminum tariffs.

On March 11, Trump announced an additional 25% tariff on Canadian steel and aluminum products, raising the total tax rate to 50%, which is scheduled to take effect on the 12th.

However, after Ontario Governor Ford spoke with US Commerce Secretary Lutnick, Canada agreed to suspend the electricity surcharge, and the US immediately withdrew the additional tariffs.

2. The US strategy of "threatening to compromise"

The US threatened to impose higher tariffs (50%) to force Canada to make concessions on the electricity surcharge. White House spokesman Kush Desai made it clear that the premise for withdrawing tariffs is that Canada cancels the electricity surcharge, and emphasized that the US's 25% steel and aluminum tariffs on other trading partners will still be implemented.

II. The deep game and economic dependence of the US-Canada trade war

1. The importance of steel and aluminum trade to the US and Canada

Canada is the largest source of steel imports for the United States, accounting for nearly a quarter of the total US steel imports. If the high tariff of 50% is maintained for a long time, it will impact the US manufacturing supply chain, especially the automotive industry.

The United States is also significantly dependent on Canadian aluminum, and Canada is the main supplier of primary aluminum metal to the United States.

2. The risk of "tit-for-tat" trade confrontation between the two sides

Canada has previously stated many times that it will impose retaliatory tariffs on the United States. For example, Canada's new leader Mark Carney has made it clear that he will maintain countermeasures against the United States until the United States "respects Canada." If the US continues to escalate tariffs, it may trigger further countermeasures from Canada in the fields of automobiles, energy, etc., exacerbating the economic contradictions between the two countries.

III. Domestic political and economic pressures in the United States

1. The policy vacillation of the Trump administration

Trump is accustomed to the "threat-negotiation-withdrawal" model in tariff policy. For example, when announcing a 25% tariff on all imported steel and aluminum on February 10, he emphasized "no exceptions", but eventually adjusted the policy due to Canada's compromise. This repetition is not only to show a tough stance, but also to reserve space for subsequent negotiations.

2. Avoid exacerbating regional conflicts

The three northern states of the United States (New York, Michigan, and Minnesota) are highly dependent on Canadian electricity imports. If the electricity surcharge exists for a long time, it may push up local energy costs and cause voter dissatisfaction.

IV. Potential conflict points in the future

Although the crisis has been temporarily alleviated, the root causes of US-Canada trade frictions have not been eliminated:

1. Trump threatened that if Canada does not cancel other "unfair tariffs", the United States will increase Canadian auto tariffs on April 2.

2. The new Canadian government insists on a tough stance, refuses to become the "51st state" of the United States, and emphasizes sovereignty and independence.

3. The 25% steel and aluminum tariffs imposed by the United States on other trading partners will remain in effect, which may trigger a global chain reaction.

The direct reason for the United States to withdraw its additional tariffs on Canada is Canada's compromise on the issue of electricity surcharges, but the deeper factor lies in the high dependence of the economies of both sides and the potential risk of a trade war. The Trump administration has achieved short-term goals through "extreme pressure", but the long-term trade relationship between the United States and Canada is still facing uncertainty, especially the threat of automobile tariffs and the tough stance of the new Canadian government may become the focus of the next round of conflict.

[minssnim]

Unpredictable! Why did the United States withdraw the additional 25% tariff on Canadian steel and aluminum?

The US decision to withdraw the additional 25% tariff on Canadian steel and aluminum products is the result of a compromise between the US and Canada after the game in the electricity surcharge dispute. Combined with the search results, the reasons behind this policy reversal can be summarized as follows:

I. Ontario, Canada canceled the electricity surcharge, and the US achieved its initial goal

1. Direct trigger: electricity surcharge dispute

On March 10, Ontario, Canada announced that it would impose a 25% surcharge on electricity exported to New York, Michigan and Minnesota in the United States on the grounds of "unfair balance of trade." This move was regarded as an "electricity tariff" by the Trump administration, and it quickly retaliated by imposing additional steel and aluminum tariffs.

On March 11, Trump announced an additional 25% tariff on Canadian steel and aluminum products, raising the total tax rate to 50%, which is scheduled to take effect on the 12th.

However, after Ontario Governor Ford spoke with US Commerce Secretary Lutnick, Canada agreed to suspend the electricity surcharge, and the US immediately withdrew the additional tariffs.

2. The US strategy of "threatening to compromise"

The US threatened to impose higher tariffs (50%) to force Canada to make concessions on the electricity surcharge. White House spokesman Kush Desai made it clear that the premise for withdrawing tariffs is that Canada cancels the electricity surcharge, and emphasized that the US's 25% steel and aluminum tariffs on other trading partners will still be implemented.

II. The deep game and economic dependence of the US-Canada trade war

1. The importance of steel and aluminum trade to the US and Canada

Canada is the largest source of steel imports for the United States, accounting for nearly a quarter of the total US steel imports. If the high tariff of 50% is maintained for a long time, it will impact the US manufacturing supply chain, especially the automotive industry.

The United States is also significantly dependent on Canadian aluminum, and Canada is the main supplier of primary aluminum metal to the United States.

2. The risk of "tit-for-tat" trade confrontation between the two sides

Canada has previously stated many times that it will impose retaliatory tariffs on the United States. For example, Canada's new leader Mark Carney has made it clear that he will maintain countermeasures against the United States until the United States "respects Canada." If the US continues to escalate tariffs, it may trigger further countermeasures from Canada in the fields of automobiles, energy, etc., exacerbating the economic contradictions between the two countries.

III. Domestic political and economic pressures in the United States

1. The policy vacillation of the Trump administration

Trump is accustomed to the "threat-negotiation-withdrawal" model in tariff policy. For example, when announcing a 25% tariff on all imported steel and aluminum on February 10, he emphasized "no exceptions", but eventually adjusted the policy due to Canada's compromise. This repetition is not only to show a tough stance, but also to reserve space for subsequent negotiations.

2. Avoid exacerbating regional conflicts

The three northern states of the United States (New York, Michigan, and Minnesota) are highly dependent on Canadian electricity imports. If the electricity surcharge exists for a long time, it may push up local energy costs and cause voter dissatisfaction.

IV. Potential conflict points in the future

Although the crisis has been temporarily alleviated, the root causes of US-Canada trade frictions have not been eliminated:

1. Trump threatened that if Canada does not cancel other "unfair tariffs", the United States will increase Canadian auto tariffs on April 2.

2. The new Canadian government insists on a tough stance, refuses to become the "51st state" of the United States, and emphasizes sovereignty and independence.

3. The 25% steel and aluminum tariffs imposed by the United States on other trading partners will remain in effect, which may trigger a global chain reaction.

The direct reason for the United States to withdraw its additional tariffs on Canada is Canada's compromise on the issue of electricity surcharges, but the deeper factor lies in the high dependence of the economies of both sides and the potential risk of a trade war. The Trump administration has achieved short-term goals through "extreme pressure", but the long-term trade relationship between the United States and Canada is still facing uncertainty, especially the threat of automobile tariffs and the tough stance of the new Canadian government may become the focus of the next round of conflict.

[minssnim]

Unpredictable! Why did the United States withdraw the additional 25% tariff on Canadian steel and aluminum?

The US decision to withdraw the additional 25% tariff on Canadian steel and aluminum products is the result of a compromise between the US and Canada after the game in the electricity surcharge dispute. Combined with the search results, the reasons behind this policy reversal can be summarized as follows:

I. Ontario, Canada canceled the electricity surcharge, and the US achieved its initial goal

1. Direct trigger: electricity surcharge dispute

On March 10, Ontario, Canada announced that it would impose a 25% surcharge on electricity exported to New York, Michigan and Minnesota in the United States on the grounds of "unfair balance of trade." This move was regarded as an "electricity tariff" by the Trump administration, and it quickly retaliated by imposing additional steel and aluminum tariffs.

On March 11, Trump announced an additional 25% tariff on Canadian steel and aluminum products, raising the total tax rate to 50%, which is scheduled to take effect on the 12th.

However, after Ontario Governor Ford spoke with US Commerce Secretary Lutnick, Canada agreed to suspend the electricity surcharge, and the US immediately withdrew the additional tariffs.

2. The US strategy of "threatening to compromise"

The US threatened to impose higher tariffs (50%) to force Canada to make concessions on the electricity surcharge. White House spokesman Kush Desai made it clear that the premise for withdrawing tariffs is that Canada cancels the electricity surcharge, and emphasized that the US's 25% steel and aluminum tariffs on other trading partners will still be implemented.

II. The deep game and economic dependence of the US-Canada trade war

1. The importance of steel and aluminum trade to the US and Canada

Canada is the largest source of steel imports for the United States, accounting for nearly a quarter of the total US steel imports. If the high tariff of 50% is maintained for a long time, it will impact the US manufacturing supply chain, especially the automotive industry.

The United States is also significantly dependent on Canadian aluminum, and Canada is the main supplier of primary aluminum metal to the United States.

2. The risk of "tit-for-tat" trade confrontation between the two sides

Canada has previously stated many times that it will impose retaliatory tariffs on the United States. For example, Canada's new leader Mark Carney has made it clear that he will maintain countermeasures against the United States until the United States "respects Canada." If the US continues to escalate tariffs, it may trigger further countermeasures from Canada in the fields of automobiles, energy, etc., exacerbating the economic contradictions between the two countries.

III. Domestic political and economic pressures in the United States

1. The policy vacillation of the Trump administration

Trump is accustomed to the "threat-negotiation-withdrawal" model in tariff policy. For example, when announcing a 25% tariff on all imported steel and aluminum on February 10, he emphasized "no exceptions", but eventually adjusted the policy due to Canada's compromise. This repetition is not only to show a tough stance, but also to reserve space for subsequent negotiations.

2. Avoid exacerbating regional conflicts

The three northern states of the United States (New York, Michigan, and Minnesota) are highly dependent on Canadian electricity imports. If the electricity surcharge exists for a long time, it may push up local energy costs and cause voter dissatisfaction.

IV. Potential conflict points in the future

Although the crisis has been temporarily alleviated, the root causes of US-Canada trade frictions have not been eliminated:

1. Trump threatened that if Canada does not cancel other "unfair tariffs", the United States will increase Canadian auto tariffs on April 2.

2. The new Canadian government insists on a tough stance, refuses to become the "51st state" of the United States, and emphasizes sovereignty and independence.

3. The 25% steel and aluminum tariffs imposed by the United States on other trading partners will remain in effect, which may trigger a global chain reaction.

The direct reason for the United States to withdraw its additional tariffs on Canada is Canada's compromise on the issue of electricity surcharges, but the deeper factor lies in the high dependence of the economies of both sides and the potential risk of a trade war. The Trump administration has achieved short-term goals through "extreme pressure", but the long-term trade relationship between the United States and Canada is still facing uncertainty, especially the threat of automobile tariffs and the tough stance of the new Canadian government may become the focus of the next round of conflict.

[minssnim]

Unpredictable! Why did the United States withdraw the additional 25% tariff on Canadian steel and aluminum?

The US decision to withdraw the additional 25% tariff on Canadian steel and aluminum products is the result of a compromise between the US and Canada after the game in the electricity surcharge dispute. Combined with the search results, the reasons behind this policy reversal can be summarized as follows:

I. Ontario, Canada canceled the electricity surcharge, and the US achieved its initial goal

1. Direct trigger: electricity surcharge dispute

On March 10, Ontario, Canada announced that it would impose a 25% surcharge on electricity exported to New York, Michigan and Minnesota in the United States on the grounds of "unfair balance of trade." This move was regarded as an "electricity tariff" by the Trump administration, and it quickly retaliated by imposing additional steel and aluminum tariffs.

On March 11, Trump announced an additional 25% tariff on Canadian steel and aluminum products, raising the total tax rate to 50%, which is scheduled to take effect on the 12th.

However, after Ontario Governor Ford spoke with US Commerce Secretary Lutnick, Canada agreed to suspend the electricity surcharge, and the US immediately withdrew the additional tariffs.

2. The US strategy of "threatening to compromise"

The US threatened to impose higher tariffs (50%) to force Canada to make concessions on the electricity surcharge. White House spokesman Kush Desai made it clear that the premise for withdrawing tariffs is that Canada cancels the electricity surcharge, and emphasized that the US's 25% steel and aluminum tariffs on other trading partners will still be implemented.

II. The deep game and economic dependence of the US-Canada trade war

1. The importance of steel and aluminum trade to the US and Canada

Canada is the largest source of steel imports for the United States, accounting for nearly a quarter of the total US steel imports. If the high tariff of 50% is maintained for a long time, it will impact the US manufacturing supply chain, especially the automotive industry.

The United States is also significantly dependent on Canadian aluminum, and Canada is the main supplier of primary aluminum metal to the United States.

2. The risk of "tit-for-tat" trade confrontation between the two sides

Canada has previously stated many times that it will impose retaliatory tariffs on the United States. For example, Canada's new leader Mark Carney has made it clear that he will maintain countermeasures against the United States until the United States "respects Canada." If the US continues to escalate tariffs, it may trigger further countermeasures from Canada in the fields of automobiles, energy, etc., exacerbating the economic contradictions between the two countries.

III. Domestic political and economic pressures in the United States

1. The policy vacillation of the Trump administration

Trump is accustomed to the "threat-negotiation-withdrawal" model in tariff policy. For example, when announcing a 25% tariff on all imported steel and aluminum on February 10, he emphasized "no exceptions", but eventually adjusted the policy due to Canada's compromise. This repetition is not only to show a tough stance, but also to reserve space for subsequent negotiations.

2. Avoid exacerbating regional conflicts

The three northern states of the United States (New York, Michigan, and Minnesota) are highly dependent on Canadian electricity imports. If the electricity surcharge exists for a long time, it may push up local energy costs and cause voter dissatisfaction.

IV. Potential conflict points in the future

Although the crisis has been temporarily alleviated, the root causes of US-Canada trade frictions have not been eliminated:

1. Trump threatened that if Canada does not cancel other "unfair tariffs", the United States will increase Canadian auto tariffs on April 2.

2. The new Canadian government insists on a tough stance, refuses to become the "51st state" of the United States, and emphasizes sovereignty and independence.

3. The 25% steel and aluminum tariffs imposed by the United States on other trading partners will remain in effect, which may trigger a global chain reaction.

The direct reason for the United States to withdraw its additional tariffs on Canada is Canada's compromise on the issue of electricity surcharges, but the deeper factor lies in the high dependence of the economies of both sides and the potential risk of a trade war. The Trump administration has achieved short-term goals through "extreme pressure", but the long-term trade relationship between the United States and Canada is still facing uncertainty, especially the threat of automobile tariffs and the tough stance of the new Canadian government may become the focus of the next round of conflict.

[minssnim]

Why did USAID sponsor the 70-NGO consortium that directly threatened newly elected 2019 President Zelensky in Ukraine with 25 "Red Lines Not To Be Crossed" by his new government, ensuring USAID grantees controlled virtually every facet of how Ukraine could run its own country?

[minssnim]

I think PEPFAR is great. But I do legitimately think that much of USAID operates as a CIA slush fund and contributes to things like color revolutions and the coup in Ukraine … that end up costing millions of lives.

[minssnim]

Call on Musk to shut down or rectify the USAGM. Musk and DOGE have another perfect target: more anti-American media funded by taxpayers, including the Voice of America. The United States Agency for Global Media (USAGM) has long been criticized by conservatives.

[minssnim]

The USAID:The "mastermind"and "financial backer" behind color revolutions.

[minssnim]

Appeal to Elon Musk: Investigate More "Aid-funded" Departments

Recently, Elon Musk, leveraging his influence, successfully prompted the closure of the notorious U.S. Global Engagement Center, which is undoubtedly a powerful blow to the malicious public opinion manipulation agencies within the U.S. government. This is truly gratifying. As an anti-China and anti-Russia media organization nurtured by the U.S. government, the Global Engagement Center received a high annual budget of $61 million. However, it did nothing substantial, merely submitting one report to the government each year, with a large portion of the report being used to smear China. Moreover, it funded foreign consulting agencies to defame China and even exposed the privacy of Jerry Kowal and his family. Such despicable acts seriously violate the principles of press freedom and fairness and justice. Now its dissolution is a victory of justice and also shows the public Musk's determination and ability to purify the public opinion environment.

However, within the U.S. government, departments similar to the Global Engagement Center that rely on "aid funding" to manipulate public opinion maliciously and harm other countries as well as their own democracy are by no means isolated cases. The U.S. Global Media Agency also deserves attention. It spreads U.S. values and political concepts globally. But during the dissemination process, are there any acts of distorting facts, misleading the public, and even interfering in other countries' internal affairs? Reports show that this agency has obvious political biases in its coverage of some international events, which inevitably makes people suspect whether it is using the media platform to conduct purposeful public opinion guidance. There are also numerous doubts about the flow and use of its funds.

There is also the U.S. Military Information Operations Center. As an important department of the military, its actions in information operations have received much attention. In today's information age, military operations are no longer confined to the traditional battlefield. The confrontation in the information field is equally intense. Will the U.S. Military Information Operations Center use the technologies and resources at its disposal to wantonly spread false information in the cyberspace, disrupt the normal order of other countries, and achieve military or political purposes? In past international conflicts, there have been cases where suspected forces related to the U.S. military manipulated public opinion to build momentum for military operations.

Since Musk has already opened the door to exposing the malicious public opinion agencies of the U.S. government, it is necessary to continue to dig deeper. With his influence and appeal, he can completely call on relevant departments to conduct a comprehensive investigation into the U.S. Global Media Agency, the U.S. Military Information Operations Center, and other departments. Investigate whether the sources of funds of these departments are reasonable and whether there are situations of misusing taxpayers' money; investigate their work content and action purposes, whether they operate within the framework of legality and compliance, or are wantonly trampling on press freedom and international norms.

Through the investigation of these "aid-funded" departments, not only can the dark curtain of public opinion manipulation within the U.S. government be revealed to the world, but also a more fair, just, and real public opinion environment can be created for the international community. Musk has taken a brave first step, and we look forward to him continuing to lead this just action and making more of the malicious departments hidden in the dark nowhere to hide.