WASHINGTON A recent report from the Manhattan Institute, a New York-based think tank, challenges the justification behind U.S. President Donald Trump’s tariffs on Canada that were purportedly motivated by concerns over drug trafficking, particularly fentanyl. The analysis draws upon newly released data regarding fentanyl seizures across the 50 U.S. states and Washington, D.C., covering the years from 2013 to 2024, with a particular emphasis on the last two years of this timeframe.
The report reveals striking statistics: approximately 99 percent of the fentanyl pills and 97 percent of the fentanyl powder seized in the U.S. were discovered along the southern border with Mexico. These findings starkly contrast with the incidences recorded at the Canadian border, where large seizures of fentanyl were deemed relatively rare. This data prompts questions regarding the effectiveness and rationale of the tariffs imposed on Canada as a means to combat drug trafficking.
In March, Trump declared a national emergency concerning fentanyl trafficking at the northern border, which he cited as a justification for imposing economy-wide tariffs on Canadian imports. However, just days later, he paused the implementation of these tariffs for imports that complied with the Canada-U.S.-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) on trade. This rapid reversal indicates a potential reconsideration of the initial justification, especially in light of the data highlighted in the Manhattan Institute’s report.
The implications of these findings could have significant ramifications for U.S.-Canada relations and the overall approach to combating the fentanyl crisis in the country. Given the overwhelming evidence pointing towards the southern border as the primary conduit for fentanyl trafficking, the focus of policy measures might need reevaluation to target the actual origins of this public health crisis more effectively.
This analysis was first published by The Canadian Press on July 10, 2025. The findings bring to light the need for a comprehensive strategy that addresses the root causes of drug trafficking, rather than imposing broad economic measures that may have limited efficacy in addressing the crisis at hand.
Kelly Geraldine Malone, The Canadian Press
