The report by Quebecor media quoted two unnamed sources from Fréchette’s government who said American government officials had attempted to negotiate tariffs with Quebec directly.
This incident aside, doesn't Quebec already have special rights within the confederation to manage certain international relationships? E.g. quasi-diplomatic General Delegation in Paris, Francophone offices overseas, certain aspects of immigration to Quebec?
Correct on all counts. I don't know how much control Quebec City has over international[1] tariffs, however.
So the shocking allegations boil down to
* US attempt to talk to Quebec City about tariffs, and
* a US think tank publishing something in February 2026 about how the US might benefit from the (meaningful, longstanding, legal) Quebecois pro-sovereignist sentiment.
Meanwhile, no shortage of announced Canadian intentions, in the first Trump administration and during the current trade war, to "target the red states" with tariffs to influence US politics, and no shortage of self-hating American Redditors cheering this on because Trump = bad, so anything that other countries do against the US = good.
[1] I have to specify this, because Canada does not have internal free trade! In some ways, trade with the US is freer than intra-Canada trade. Yet more proof of how as Paul Krugman wrote, Canada is closer to the US than to itself <<a href="https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/13/eh/" rel="nofollow">https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/13/eh/>.
> Meanwhile, no shortage of announced Canadian intentions, in the first Trump administration and during the current trade war, to "target the red states" with tariffs to influence US politics, and no shortage of self-hating American Redditors cheering this on because Trump = bad, so anything that other countries do against the US = good.
Yes, meanwhile something completely different happens somewhere else. All sorts of different things are always happening all over the world. Luckily we don't see Canada trying to negotiate tariffs with individual states, or else the thing you mentioned might be similar to the situation we're discussing.
Also, as an aside, it's rude to dismiss the majority of Americans, who overwhelmingly oppose the harmful tariffs and the related government mismanagement of the economy, as "self-hating American Redditors". They likely love their country at least as much as those who favor destroying the economy and Americans' finances in the name of unprecedented partisan brinksmanship and power grabs.
> Also, as an aside, it's rude to dismiss the majority of Americans, who overwhelmingly oppose the harmful tariffs
OP didn’t say everyone who opposes the tariffs. He said people who support Canada openly stating they will impose retaliatory tariffs on red state products specifically, which is meddling with internal U.S. politics.
> retaliatory tariffs on red state products specifically, which is meddling with internal U.S. politics
As you said, they are retaliatory tariffs. This is no more meddling in politics than pissing into the wind and getting wet. Retaliatory tariffs were a foreseeable result of policy some people voted for, and now the results have splashed them.
There's no reason they shouldn't be disproportionately concentrated on those who caused them. In fact, that approaches an ideal world, right? One in which negative externalities are primarily borne by those responsible for them? And importantly, there is no negotiation, no quid-pro-quo. It is just the law of nature manifesting (you attack someone, it is expected that they will retaliate). There's no way to change that law.
There's a popular American republican trope that those who support higher taxes should be the exclusive ones paying those higher taxes. That's precisely what's happening here (tariffs = taxes). Everybody is getting what they want, except the majority of people who want a sane, fair, and predictable tariff regime built upon a foundation of mutual respect between equals – but at least this gets us closer to that. In a crap world, I can see that being progress worth celebrating.
Retaliatory tariffs aren't interfering in politics. Targeting them specifically at red states then publicizing that fact is interfering in politics.
> Retaliatory tariffs aren't interfering in politics. Targeting them specifically at red states then publicizing that fact is interfering in politics.
I respectfully don't agree, for the reasons stated in the above post and ignored in your reply. "Interfering in politics" better describes the more dire actions alleged in this article, with direct trade negotiations between a country and a state/province behind the back of the federal government – a significantly different situation indeed.
ilamont · · focus · HN ↗
This incident aside, doesn't Quebec already have special rights within the confederation to manage certain international relationships? E.g. quasi-diplomatic General Delegation in Paris, Francophone offices overseas, certain aspects of immigration to Quebec?
TMWNN · · focus · HN ↗
So the shocking allegations boil down to
* US attempt to talk to Quebec City about tariffs, and
* a US think tank publishing something in February 2026 about how the US might benefit from the (meaningful, longstanding, legal) Quebecois pro-sovereignist sentiment.
Meanwhile, no shortage of announced Canadian intentions, in the first Trump administration and during the current trade war, to "target the red states" with tariffs to influence US politics, and no shortage of self-hating American Redditors cheering this on because Trump = bad, so anything that other countries do against the US = good.
[1] I have to specify this, because Canada does not have internal free trade! In some ways, trade with the US is freer than intra-Canada trade. Yet more proof of how as Paul Krugman wrote, Canada is closer to the US than to itself <<a href="https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/13/eh/" rel="nofollow">https://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/2010/01/13/eh/>.
ImPostingOnHN · · focus · HN ↗
Yes, meanwhile something completely different happens somewhere else. All sorts of different things are always happening all over the world. Luckily we don't see Canada trying to negotiate tariffs with individual states, or else the thing you mentioned might be similar to the situation we're discussing.
Also, as an aside, it's rude to dismiss the majority of Americans, who overwhelmingly oppose the harmful tariffs and the related government mismanagement of the economy, as "self-hating American Redditors". They likely love their country at least as much as those who favor destroying the economy and Americans' finances in the name of unprecedented partisan brinksmanship and power grabs.
rayiner · · focus · HN ↗
OP didn’t say everyone who opposes the tariffs. He said people who support Canada openly stating they will impose retaliatory tariffs on red state products specifically, which is meddling with internal U.S. politics.
ImPostingOnHN · · focus · HN ↗
As you said, they are retaliatory tariffs. This is no more meddling in politics than pissing into the wind and getting wet. Retaliatory tariffs were a foreseeable result of policy some people voted for, and now the results have splashed them.
There's no reason they shouldn't be disproportionately concentrated on those who caused them. In fact, that approaches an ideal world, right? One in which negative externalities are primarily borne by those responsible for them? And importantly, there is no negotiation, no quid-pro-quo. It is just the law of nature manifesting (you attack someone, it is expected that they will retaliate). There's no way to change that law.
There's a popular American republican trope that those who support higher taxes should be the exclusive ones paying those higher taxes. That's precisely what's happening here (tariffs = taxes). Everybody is getting what they want, except the majority of people who want a sane, fair, and predictable tariff regime built upon a foundation of mutual respect between equals – but at least this gets us closer to that. In a crap world, I can see that being progress worth celebrating.
rayiner · · focus · HN ↗
ImPostingOnHN · · focus · HN ↗
I respectfully don't agree, for the reasons stated in the above post and ignored in your reply. "Interfering in politics" better describes the more dire actions alleged in this article, with direct trade negotiations between a country and a state/province behind the back of the federal government – a significantly different situation indeed.