Canada’s response to the latest rupture in its trade relationship with the United States has emphasized the sharp divide between federal and provincial leadership. The fracture emerged after the Province of Ontario aired a U.S. market advertisement featuring Ronald Reagan criticizing tariffs — an ad that prompted U.S. President Donald J. Trump to abruptly halt trade talks and impose new tariff threats.
What followed was a rare moment in which a single provincial media ad reshaped the diplomatic landscape and revealed competing visions inside Canada about how to handle Trump-era economic nationalism.
Tensions between Canada and the U.S. have escalated this year as the Trump administration expanded its tariff program. Trump had repeatedly signalled that he would widen duties on steel and aluminum, prompting anxiety in Ontario’s manufacturing-heavy economy and putting pressure on Ottawa to respond. Prime Minister Mark Carney initially attempted to balance firmness and diplomacy when he took federal leadership in March: he warned Trump that Canada would impose counter-tariffs but repeatedly insisted that he remained open to negotiation. After their first bilateral phone call, Trump publicly described the exchange as “extremely productive,” even though he signaled further tariff measures were still under consideration.
Against this backdrop, the Ontario government launched a $75 million high-visibility advertisement in mid-October to play during U.S. broadcasts. The ad featured audio from a 1987 Ronald Reagan address warning that tariffs “inevitably lead to retaliation by foreign countries,” framing the message as a direct critique of Trump’s trade policy. Trump reacted within days, posting on Truth social that the advertisement was “FAKE” and announcing that he was terminating all trade talks with Canada. He added that the U.S. would impose an additional 10 per cent tariff on Canadian imports, deepening an already volatile environment.
Prime Minister Mark Carney’s response was immediate and markedly conciliatory. Carney publicly stated that he had warned Ontario Premier Doug Ford not to run the advertisement, emphasizing it was “not something [Carney] would have done” and underscoring that the conduct of international relations is the responsibility of the federal government, not the provinces.
To contain the diplomatic fallout, Carney apologized to Trump during a dinner at the APEC Summit in South Korea, acknowledging that the president was “offended” by the ad and framing the apology as a necessary act to stabilize a derailed negotiation process.
He later reiterated Canada’s willingness to resume talks whenever Washington was prepared to return to the table, maintaining a tone of restraint and de-escalation.
Ford’s reaction could not have been more different. Rather than distancing himself from the ad, Ford defended it vocally, boasting that it was successful in drawing American attention to the damage that tariffs inflict on workers. Ford characterized the advertisement as factual and effective, telling reporters the provincial government “wanted to get the message out and the message got out, 100 per cent.” Ford insisted that the uproar it caused proved its usefulness as a political instrument. Even after Trump cancelled talks and escalated retaliation, Ford maintained that Ontario’s priority was defending its economic interests, notably its auto and steel sectors, which he argued that Ottawa had not been forceful enough in protecting. Although he later paused the ad campaign, Ford insisted the move was strategic and not a concession to American pressure.
The contrast between Carney and Ford underscores a deeper debate about how Canada should navigate an unpredictable trade relationship with a Trump-led White House. Both leaders agree that U.S. tariffs pose significant risks to Canada’s economy and acknowledge that the Reagan advertisement triggered real diplomatic consequences. Yet their responses diverge sharply: Carney has prioritized diplomatic repair, apology and federal authority, while Ford has leaned into confrontation, visibility and provincial autonomy. Carney presents the episode as a setback requiring unified, federal stewardship, whereas Ford frames it as a necessary provocation that forced the U.S. to acknowledge Ontario’s concerns.
This divergence carries consequences. Mixed messaging weakens Canada’s negotiating posture, especially when dealing with a counterpart who reacts strongly to public slights. Trump seized on the ad not only to halt talks but also to justify further tariff escalation — an outcome Carney’s approach sought to avoid. When a province acts independently on foreign policy, especially through a direct appeal in U.S. media, it complicates Ottawa’s diplomatic credibility and risks presenting to Washington a Canada divided against itself.
The Reagan-ad episode ultimately reveals a country aligned in economic interests but fractured in diplomatic strategy. As long as Carney and Ford pursue fundamentally different methods of managing Trump’s tariff agenda — one geared toward negotiation, the other toward confrontation — Canada’s ability to present a coherent front may remain in question. In a trade war defined as much by symbolism as policy, the cost of those internal contradictions may yet prove significant.