It’s about attempting to control the counterparty without military force (which the US has shown with Iran to be entirely ineffective for “the world’s most powerful military”). Note that the best this administration can do is bully, make threats, and self own (domestic inflation from tariffs and the Iran conflict, widespread agriculture bankruptcies and farm failures from the trade war with China, etc).

Canada’s retaliatory tariffs target states with upcoming key Congressional elections by design. Canada is shipping oil to Japan now, preparing for a trade deal with Europe, and has reduced tariffs on imports on Chinese EVs.

The US tried to force Canada into being the 51st straight, and sabotaged the next decade of trade with them.

Citations:

https://www.sauder.ubc.ca/news/insights/werners-blog-canadas...

> The bottom line is that any deal struck could unravel tomorrow. Very likely, concessions made today will only embolden the Trump Administration to threaten more tariffs and ask for more concessions. Andrew Coyne called it shakedown in the Globe and Mail on August 25. He is right. And Ontario Premier Doug Ford compared Donald Trump to a schoolyard bully who "acts like a person who would steal your lunch money on the first day, a hat on the second day, and your running shoes on the third day." I think the Ontario Premier is not far off the mark.

https://abcnews.com/International/wireStory/carney-address-e...

> His government has also deepened ties with Europe through a security and defense pact and Canada’s entry this year as the first non-European country in the EU’s Security Action for Europe initiative.

> Carney has set a goal of doubling Canada’s non-U.S. exports over the next decade as he seeks to reduce the country’s economic dependence on the United States.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/how-trumps-trade-war-w...

https://www.reuters.com/business/energy/canadian-oil-heads-j...

Yes.

Two core reasons:

- generate local industry

- punish others because they’ve taken advantage of us

I think they genuinely believe this, belying their lack of strategic and economically sophisticated ability.

So: I think it is an authentic motivation, but it is amateur.

I just think politicians suck at economics and/or that the economy is of secondary concern to them. Even if they know a policy is wrong or misguided, they will still choose what's popular with voters most of the time.