President Donald Trump on Jan. 29 signed an executive order declaring a national emergency and threatened to impose ad valorem tariffs on goods from countries that supply oil to Cuba. The move was paired with a separate, targeted escalation against Canada: Trump said he would suspend U.S. certification of Bombardier’s Global series and all Canadian-built aircraft until Gulfstream business jets receive what he called “full certification,” and warned of a 50% tariff on Canadian aircraft exports to the United States if the dispute is not “immediately” remedied.
The combination of a national emergency declaration and sweeping trade threats represents an unusual blending of foreign policy, national-security powers and tariff levers. Declaring an emergency gives the administration broad discretionary authorities under statutes such as the International Emergency Economic Powers Act, but it is a blunt instrument for imposing trade measures that traditionally flow through customs law, trade remedies or negotiated accords. Legal challenges and congressional pushback are likely if the administration moves from threats to concrete duties.
The Cuba measure is rooted in long-standing U.S. efforts to isolate Havana. Washington has long used sanctions and secondary measures to deter other states from supporting Cuba politically and economically, most notably during the Venezuela–Cuba energy partnership earlier in the century. By framing oil shipments to Cuba as a national security concern, the administration is signalling a willingness to extend American coercive measures beyond conventional diplomatic or unilateral sanctions and to penalise third-party suppliers.
The aviation confrontation with Canada risks straining relations between two close allies and destabilising an important transnational supply chain. Aircraft certification is a technical, regulatory process administered by civil aviation authorities; using the certification process as leverage and threatening steep punitive tariffs would disrupt billions of dollars of aerospace trade, affect jobs in both countries and complicate programs that rely on cross-border parts and engineering. Bombardier, Canadian aerospace suppliers and many U.S. companies that integrate Canadian-made components would be exposed to significant commercial pain if a 50% duty were imposed.
Markets reacted quickly to the heightened geopolitical and trade risk: precious metals rallied, with international gold and silver prices rising in Asian trading hours on Jan. 30 after hitting record highs the previous day. Investors typically seek haven assets when geopolitical uncertainty and the prospect of disruptive trade measures increase, and any sustained tariff escalation or retaliation would likely deepen risk aversion across commodities and equity markets.
The administration’s twin threats complicate U.S. relations on multiple fronts. Targeting countries that sell oil to Cuba could draw protest or countermeasures from suppliers and their partners, potentially pushing oil exporters toward deeper ties with competitors of the United States. The Canada spat could trigger a fast-moving trade dispute under USMCA or at the World Trade Organization, and it will force Ottawa to weigh retaliation options that could range from reciprocal tariffs to suspension of bilateral cooperation in regulatory or defence arenas.
Politically, the gambit serves multiple domestic purposes: it projects toughness to a constituency that prioritises hard-line foreign policy, it signals to American manufacturers and aerospace workers that the administration will act on perceived unfair treatment, and it gives the White House a highly visible lever to extract concessions. But using emergency powers and tariff threats in this way risks legal defeat, diplomatic isolation, and unintended economic fallout if allies retaliate or if global supply chains are disrupted.
The next phase will be telling. If the administration follows through with formal tariff proclamations, expect rapid litigation in U.S. courts, formal dispute filings by affected trading partners and intensified political debate in Washington. If the threats prompt negotiated fixes—such as expedited certification processes or side arrangements on oil shipments—the move could be read as coercive brinkmanship that achieves short-term concessions at the cost of longer-term trust among allies.