New tariff threats announced by Donald Trump at the beginning of the 2026 show that tariff measures are being used more aggressive and in multilateral manner.[i] These movements are not only bilateral trade conflicts or short-term economic pressure initiates but also, they can be interpreted as Washington’s strategy to pursue its geopolitical aims through economic sanctions and tariffs. Through these movements, Trump administration aims to place under pressure both its allies in North America and actors in Latin America.
The main idea behind the Trump ́s statements about Canada is refusal of Canadian authorities to certify US aircraft. Trump labels this as unfair and illegal and as a retaliation, he emphasizes that 50 percent tariff could be implemented on Canadian aircraft and certification process of Canadian aircraft can be postponed.[ii] Although the White House attempted to limit the scope of these explanations, this resulted in significant uncertainty in the North American aviation sector. In this manner, Canada’s largest aircraft manufacturer, Bombardier made a statement that it was in contact with Canadian government right after the announcement.
This development underlines the transformation of the certification process that normally based on technical and security considerations into instruments of political pressure. Under normal conditions, certification mechanisms in civil aviation are based on international standards and security criteria. However, Trump ́s approach turns this process into an economic and diplomatic bargaining instrument. This affects not only Canada but also all manufacturers and subcontractors cooperating with USA in global aviation sector. The politicization of certification may result in uncertainty about objectivity of U.S. technical institutions.
What lies under Trump’s pressure in Canada is foreign policy that Ottawa administration has been following lately. In a speech delivered by Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney in Davos, he indirectly criticized Trump’s policies that challenge the global order and subsequently engaged in contacts emphasizing a ‘strategic partnership’ with China.[iii] In the case that Canada enters into a trade agreement with China, Trump ́s threat of a 100% tariff serves as a direct indicator of this concern. So, the issue of aircraft certification can be seen as an indicator of further geopolitical tension.
The new tariff policy that Trump announced during the same period reflects further tightening of US’ embargo. Through a presidential executive order, Trump announced that new tarrifs can be implemented on the countries that trading oil to Cuba, either directly or indirectly. Although the rates of these tariffs and the countries that they would cover is not certain, the regulation clearly shows that Washington aims not only at Havana but also at third countries engaged in economic relations with Cuba.
The timing of this move is especially significant. After cutting off the oil support that has been provided by Venezuela to Cuba by many years and Nicolas Maduro arrest by U.S. forces, Cuba faced serious energy crisis. Approximately 35,000 barrels of oil daily were halted, leading to widespread power outages and further economic strain in the country. The emphasis on tariff threats to countries that provide oil to Cuba during this specific period by Trump administration is an indicator of conscious disregard for the humanitarian consequences of these policies.
In the relevant executive order, Trump stated that the Cuban government policies are leading extraordinary and unusual threat to US and he accused Havana of hosting actors defined as enemies of the United States.[iv] This discourse shows the revival of security narratives inherited from the Cold War era. However, this approach, by targeting third countries that aim to provide energy to Cuba, globalizes the unilateral sanctions of US.
The Cuban government responded to these threats with harsh diplomatic language. President Miguel Diaz Canel and Foreign Minister Bruno Rodriguez emphasized that Cuba ́s energy imports are a sovereign right, and no country is obliged to comply with the unilateral sanctions of the U.S.[v] This attitude of Havana is not only a defense mechanism but also a reminder of international law and the sovereign equality of states.
The Trump administration’s policies on these two issues point to a common strategic logic. The imposition of harsh trade sanctions, even against an allied country like Canada, demonstrates the US’s ability to use economic tools indiscriminately. In the example of Cuba, the expansion of the embargo to include third countries shows Washington ́s desire to direct control over global economic relations.
Expanding U.S. tariff threats to Mexico over its oil exports to Cuba poses a significant strategic paradox for Washington. Mexico is a significant part of the manufacture and supply chain that is largely integrated with the U.S. economy, especially within the sectors of energy, automotive, agricultural goods. Consequently, imposing broad trade sanctions on Mexico over its limited provision of oil or fuel to Cuba risks destabilizing the United States’ own industrial infrastructure and consumer markets. This situation underscores how such tariffs can transcend their intended targets, ultimately undermining the implementing nation’s production costs, inflationary dynamics, and supply security.
In this context, while Washington’s potential sanctions against Mexico may function as a means of political pressure in the short term, they could result in outcomes that harm the U.S. economy in the long term. A significant part of the U.S. industry depends on intermediate goods and energy inputs produced in Mexico; also cross-border production networks have become too complex to be easily restructured through tariffs. For this reason, if the Trump administration launches a sanction line including Mexico, it could trigger price increases in the U.S., slow down production processes, and weaken the effectiveness of Washington’s strategy to ‘achieve foreign policy goals through economic pressure. Most likely, the U.S. will avoid imposing sanctions on Mexico or will only include imported products in the executive order that have a minimal impact on the U.S. economy.
In conclusion, Trump’s tariff threats against Canadian aircraft and countries selling oil to Cuba go far beyond classic trade policies. These moves show that economic tools are systematically used as geopolitical pressure and that the international trade order is becoming more fragile. Both Canada and Cuba examples prove that during the Trump era, U.S. foreign policy has settled on an unpredictable, harsh, and high-cost line. This situation carries the potential to create long-term consequences not only for the target countries but for the entire global system.
[i] Hancock, Adam. “Trump Threatens Tariffs on Canada Planes and Nations Selling Oil to Cuba”, BBC News, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/c74vyr44xn3o, (Date Accessed: 01.02.2026).
[ii] Ibid.
[iii] Ibid.
[iv] Ibid.
[v] Sherwood, Dave, and Marianna Parraga. “Cuba Defiant after Trump Says Island to Receive No More Venezuelan Oil or Money.” https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/trump-suggests-cuba-should-strike-deal-with-us-2026-01-11/, (Date Accessed: 01.02.2026).
