President Donald Trump on Saturday warned that the United States would impose a 100% tariff on Canadian goods if Ottawa proceeds with a trade deal with China, escalating pressure on one of Washington’s closest trading partners.

The warning marks the latest turn in an increasingly coercive trade strategy that is unsettling long-standing U.S. allies.

In a post on Truth Social on Saturday, Trump said any deal between Canada and China would trigger sweeping retaliation.

“If Canada makes a deal with China, it will immediately be hit with a 100% Tariff against all Canadian goods and products coming into the U.S.A.,” he wrote.

He also accused Beijing of seeking to use Canada as a conduit to evade U.S. trade barriers, adding that Prime Minister Mark Carney would be “sorely mistaken” if he allowed Canada to become what Trump described as a “Drop Off Port” for Chinese exports into the American market.

The threat represents a sharp shift from Trump’s own comments just days earlier. On January 16, he publicly welcomed Carney’s outreach to China, telling reporters at the White House: “That’s what he should be doing. It’s a good thing for him to sign a trade deal. If you can get a deal with China, you should do that.”

The reversal has raised questions in Ottawa and other allied capitals about the consistency and predictability of U.S. trade policy under Trump’s leadership.

The immediate trigger for the dispute was Carney’s announcement earlier this month that Canada and China had reached a preliminary agreement aimed at easing trade barriers. Under the tentative arrangement, Beijing agreed to lower tariffs on selected Canadian agricultural products. At the same time, Ottawa increased import quotas for Chinese electric vehicles, applying a most-favored-nation tariff rate of 6.1%. Canadian officials framed the move as a pragmatic effort to diversify trade ties at a time of heightened global protectionism.

Trump’s response fits a broader pattern that has increasingly put Washington at odds with allies. Since returning to office, he has leaned heavily on tariffs as both an economic and political weapon, arguing that they protect American industry and force trading partners to make concessions. In practice, the approach has often blurred the line between strategic rivals and close partners.

Canada offers a clear example. In August 2025, Trump raised tariffs on Canadian goods to 35%, even as the two countries remained bound by the Canada–U.S.–Mexico Agreement. While most Canadian exports are exempt under CUSMA, key sectors such as steel, copper, and parts of the auto industry have been caught in the crossfire. For Canada, the measures have revived memories of earlier tariff battles during Trump’s first term, when steel and aluminum duties strained diplomatic ties and triggered retaliatory measures.

Similar tensions have surfaced with other U.S. allies. European governments have repeatedly voiced unease over Washington’s readiness to impose tariffs tied to national security or industrial policy goals, while Asian partners have grown wary of being forced to choose between access to the U.S. market and economic engagement with China. The result has been a gradual push among middle powers to hedge their bets by broadening trade relationships and strengthening regional blocs.

Carney’s recent remarks at the World Economic Forum in Davos captured that mood. Speaking to a global audience, he warned against economic coercion by the world’s largest powers and argued that middle powers must band together to defend their interests. A day later, Trump withdrew Canada’s invitation to join his proposed “Board of Peace,” an initiative he has pitched as a forum for global stability but which requires a $1 billion fee for countries seeking a permanent seat.

The episode has reinforced perceptions that access to U.S. political and economic initiatives is increasingly transactional. Carney had said last week that Canada intended to join the board, though details were still under discussion. Trump’s abrupt reversal underscored how quickly diplomatic goodwill can evaporate when trade disagreements enter the picture.

The broader concern is strategic for Washington’s allies as tariffs aimed at China are widely understood as part of a larger effort to curb Beijing’s economic influence. Yet when those same tools are wielded against partners like Canada, they risk weakening the alliances that have traditionally underpinned U.S. global influence. Trade officials in several capitals now see diversification not as a choice, but as a necessity.

Neither the White House nor the Canadian prime minister’s office immediately responded to requests for comment on Trump’s latest remarks. However, it is clear that the threat of a 100% tariff has moved the dispute beyond routine trade friction. It has become a test case for how far the United States is willing to go in pressuring allies — and how prepared those allies are to look elsewhere when the cost of alignment keeps rising.

The U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission has agreed to dismiss its enforcement action against Gemini, the cryptocurrency exchange founded by billionaire twins Tyler and Cameron Winklevoss, after investors in the platform’s troubled lending program were made whole.

Court filings on Friday showed that the SEC and Gemini Space Station jointly moved to dismiss the case in federal court in Manhattan, pointing to the complete return of crypto assets to Gemini Earn investors through the Genesis Global Capital bankruptcy process between May and June 2024. The regulator said it had decided last year to resolve the lawsuit following the recovery of funds, bringing a formal end to one of the more closely watched enforcement actions to emerge from the 2022 crypto market crash.

The case stemmed from the Gemini Earn program, under which customers loaned their crypto assets to Genesis Global Capital in exchange for interest payments. When Genesis froze withdrawals in November 2022, amid turmoil triggered by the collapse of FTX and sharp declines in digital asset prices, roughly $940 million worth of customer assets were locked up, according to Gemini’s earlier disclosures. The freeze sparked outrage among retail investors and drew scrutiny from U.S. regulators, who accused both Genesis and Gemini Trust Company in early 2023 of illegally selling unregistered securities to hundreds of thousands of investors.

What ultimately set the Genesis bankruptcy apart from many other crypto failures of that era was its ability to return customer assets in kind rather than liquidating holdings and repaying investors in cash at depressed market prices. Through a combination of asset recoveries and settlements, Genesis was able to distribute 100% of Gemini Earn customers’ crypto back to them, a factor the SEC cited explicitly in its decision to drop the claims.

“After the 100 percent in-kind return of Gemini Earn investors’ crypto assets through the Genesis Bankruptcy and the settlements, the Commission believes the dismissal of the claims against Defendant is appropriate,” the SEC said in the filing.

At the same time, the regulator stressed that the dismissal should not be interpreted as a precedent or as signaling any broader conclusions about other pending or future cases.

The move comes amid a broader shift in Washington’s posture toward digital assets under President Donald Trump, who has repeatedly described himself as the “crypto president” and pledged to usher in clearer, more accommodating rules for the industry.

Since Trump returned to office, the SEC has faced pressure to recalibrate its aggressive enforcement-first strategy, which had defined much of the agency’s approach under the previous administration. Senior officials have indicated that the focus is increasingly on rulemaking and compliance frameworks rather than high-profile courtroom battles, particularly in cases where investor harm has already been remedied.

The dismissal removes a major overhang for Gemini as it continues to position itself as a regulated, institution-friendly crypto exchange. The company did not immediately respond to a request for comment outside regular business hours, but the resolution reinforces its argument that customers were ultimately protected despite the turmoil that followed Genesis’ collapse.

Gemini made a strong debut on Nasdaq last year, a milestone that underscored the growing acceptance of crypto firms in public markets. According to LSEG data, the exchange is currently valued at about $1.14 billion.

The outcome also highlights a subtle but important distinction emerging in the post-crash crypto landscape. While many firms that failed in 2022 left customers nursing steep losses, cases where investors have been fully repaid appear more likely to be met with regulatory leniency. Still, the SEC’s insistence that the Gemini dismissal does not reflect its position on other matters suggests the agency intends to preserve flexibility as it navigates a fast-evolving sector.

Taken together, the end of the Gemini case reflects a moment of transition for U.S. crypto regulation: a closing chapter on the fallout from the 2022 meltdown, and an early signal of how enforcement priorities may shift as digital assets move further into the financial mainstream.

U.S. Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent on Friday indicated that Washington could roll back an additional 25% tariff imposed on Indian goods, pointing to a sharp fall in India’s purchases of Russian crude oil as evidence that U.S. pressure is having the intended effect.

Speaking in an interview with Politico at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Bessent said the collapse in Indian refinery purchases of Russian oil had validated the Trump administration’s strategy of using tariffs as leverage.

“Indian purchases by their refineries of Russian oil have collapsed. So that is a success,” he said.

While stressing that the additional 25% tariffs linked to Russian oil imports remain in place, Bessent added that he could “imagine there is a path to take them off,” a comment that markets and policymakers quickly read as an opening for tariff relief.

How trade tensions escalated

The dispute traces its roots to the geopolitical fallout from Russia’s invasion of Ukraine and the West’s subsequent effort to restrict Moscow’s energy revenues. While the U.S. and Europe moved to impose sweeping sanctions on Russian oil, India adopted a more pragmatic stance, sharply increasing its purchases of discounted Russian crude from 2022 onward. That strategy helped cushion India against global energy price shocks and inflation, but it also placed New Delhi at odds with Washington’s broader sanctions regime.

Tensions reached a new peak in August, when President Donald Trump doubled tariffs on Indian goods to 50%. The increase included a specific 25% levy explicitly tied to India’s continued imports of Russian oil. The White House framed the move as both an economic and strategic response, arguing that India’s purchases were indirectly helping to finance Russia’s war effort.

Trump warned at the time that tariffs could rise further if India failed to change course, underscoring his administration’s willingness to weaponize trade policy in pursuit of geopolitical goals. The tariffs hit a wide range of India’s exports and raised concerns about longer-term access to the U.S. market, one of its most important trading partners.

But recent data suggest India has begun recalibrating. Reuters reported on Friday that India’s imports of Russian oil in December fell to their lowest level in two years. As Russian volumes declined, supplies from OPEC producers rose, pushing OPEC’s share of India’s crude imports to an 11-month high.

That shift has been closely watched in Washington, where officials have argued that sustained pressure could eventually alter even large, price-sensitive energy markets. Bessent’s comments indicate the administration sees the December data as confirmation that tariffs and political pressure are influencing Indian refinery behavior.

Still, the reduction does not mean India has abandoned Russian oil entirely. Analysts note that refiners remain sensitive to price differentials and supply reliability, and future import patterns will depend on global oil prices, freight costs, and the availability of alternative supplies.

What tariff relief would mean

Any rollback of the additional 25% tariff would be significant for India’s exporters, who have faced higher costs and uncertainty since the August escalation. It would also mark a rare instance of the Trump administration signaling a willingness to ease tariffs in response to policy changes by a trading partner, reinforcing the idea that tariffs are being used as negotiating tools rather than permanent barriers.

Easing tariffs could help the U.S. stabilize relations with India at a time when Washington is seeking to deepen strategic and economic ties in the Indo-Pacific. India is a key partner in efforts to counterbalance China’s influence, and prolonged trade friction risks complicating that broader agenda.

But despite Bessent’s conciliatory tone, there is no immediate timeline for lifting the tariffs, and the final decision rests with President Trump. U.S. officials have repeatedly emphasized that trade measures tied to national security and foreign policy will be reviewed cautiously and incrementally.

However, Bessent’s statement indicates that Washington believes its pressure campaign has delivered results, and India’s recent oil import data have strengthened the case for at least partial relief. Analysts note that what will follow will depend on whether the administration is satisfied that India’s shift away from Russian crude is durable—and politically defensible at home.