09/11/2026
WE HAVE AN OPPORTUNITY TO MAKE A DEAL AND PREVENT THE 338 TARIFFS AND PRODUCT BANS FROM HAPPENING.
The US applied sectoral tariffs on the world. It is a violation of CUSMA. Canada retaliated and Mexico didn’t.
With AI in your hands, you have the ability to learn what CBC and Facebook bots are hiding from you.
Instead of going through the legitimate joint-review process of CUSMA compliance like Mexico is doing, our nation is being co-opted to oppose and attack the US in trade, and now it’s provided Trump with the authority to tariff our goods at 50% and ban our products.
No other nation on Earth sided with China with enforced tariffs on US goods. None.
Maia Johnson, Democrat operative(legacy media and Facebook), is the Chief Operating Officer of our Prime Minister’s Office, and it’s an election year in the US…
LOOK HOW MEXICO COMPARES TO CANADA:
“Because of sectoral 232 tariffs a violation of CUSMA, Canada retaliated against US with tariffs and product bans. Now US has 338 authority to use 50% tariffs and then ban when a nation maintains or increases a president’s action.
What did Mexico do in response of CUSMA violations of Sectoral 232 tariffs? Is Mexico under threat of 338 attacks of tariffs and bans?”
Mexico took a much more restrained path than Canada. It has not imposed broad retaliatory tariffs or product bans on U.S. goods in response to the Section 232 measures (steel/aluminum at 25–50%, autos and parts, etc.). Mexican officials have repeatedly said they will not escalate because most of their exports (~85%) still qualify for USMCA preference and they do not want a tit-for-tat spiral with the larger U.S. economy.
Instead Mexico has:
• Used the USMCA joint-review process as its main lever, pressing for relief or special treatment on steel (Mexico runs a bilateral steel deficit with the U.S.) and autos.
• Tightened its own tariffs on steel from non-FTA countries (China, Vietnam, South Korea, etc.) to protect its domestic market from diverted overcapacity.
• Discussed aligning more closely with the U.S. on external barriers against Chinese steel/aluminum as part of a possible USMCA deal.
Early 2025 threats of Mexican counter-tariffs (when IEEPA 25% measures were first announced) were largely paused or never fully executed in the same way Canada’s were.
Section 338 threat to Mexico:
No. Section 338 has been used only against Canada so far. The three July 2026 proclamations (50% additional duties, later followed by some import bans) rest on specific findings that Canada treated U.S. commerce worse than other countries:
• A 25% auto surtax applied only to U.S. vehicles,
• Provincial liquor-board bans on U.S. alcohol,
• Dairy TRQ rules that the U.S. says favor the EU over the U.S. under CETA versus USMCA.
Mexico has not taken analogous discriminatory retaliatory steps. Because of that, it is not currently facing 338 duties or bans. The legal authority exists and could be invoked if Mexico later adopted measures the U.S. deemed discriminatory and then “maintained or increased” them after an initial 338 finding. At present, however, Mexico is in active bilateral USMCA talks with the U.S. while Canada’s talks have broken down, so Mexico is not under the same immediate threat.
Mexico took a much more restrained path than Canada. It has not imposed broad retaliatory tariffs or product bans on U.S. goods in response to the Section 232 measures (steel/aluminum at 25–50%, autos and parts, etc.). Mexican officials have repeatedly said they will not escalate because most of t...
