A deal between the U.S. and Canada to stave off new tariffs on Canadian goods is now on President Donald Trump’s desk, according to three people familiar with the discussions who were granted anonymity because of the sensitivity of the talks.

Now it’s up to Trump whether the 50 percent duty goes into effect, as scheduled, at midnight.

U.S. and Canadian officials have been in wall-to-wall talks for several days, with the administration pressing Canada to drop retaliatory measures it took against Trump’s tariffs last year — including provincial bans on U.S. liquor and tariffs on U.S. automobiles — and Ottawa looking to lower U.S. duties on autos, among other goods. The potential deal taking shape also includes Canadian concessions on its tariff-rate quota on dairy — an issue that has frequently come up in Trump’s missives against Canadian trade policy, according to two of the three people.

Negotiators hope a small deal on these issues can unlock broader talks between the two countries on a North American trade agreement that is up for review this year. But automobiles remained a major sticking point in negotiations Monday as U.S. and Canadian officials huddled in the afternoon, according to three other people familiar with the status of the talks, granted anonymity to discuss them. While the duties set to go into effect Wednesday only hit a small percentage of trade between the two countries, they could poison the broader negotiation on nearly $1 trillion worth of goods and services trade between the two countries.

“You can think of it as effectively trying to come up with an early harvest, an interim deal, a smaller package of what ultimately will land as part of the USMCA talks,” said Kelly Ann Shaw, who served as deputy assistant for international economic affairs during Trump’s first term.

The political stakes are high on both sides of the border. After repurposing a hockey fighting slogan to describe his approach to the U.S. during last year’s campaign, Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney is now confronted with U.S. officials who are adamant that Canada will have to drop longstanding trade protections, like loosening its supply management program that protects the dairy and lumber industries.

“There’s going to be a political cost for Carney on any type of concession with some portion of the public,” said an industry figure, granted anonymity to speak candidly about the trade discussions. “I cannot understate how upset the average Canadian is with the United States, and really specifically with Trump.”

If the tariffs go into effect, the Trump administration risks creating more economic pain ahead of midterm elections — particularly in Maine and Michigan, two states that could help determine the control of the Senate.

“At the end of the day, [U.S. Trade Representative Jamieson] Greer cannot bring something to the president that doesn’t address some of the president’s personal core concerns,” Shaw said. “And I think Carney recognizes he’s got to bring something back where he can say, ‘Look, not only are we just at the table, but we actually got something for it.’”

The White House did not respond to a request for comment. Gabriel Brunet, the spokesman for Canada-U.S. Trade Minister Dominic LeBlanc, said the Canadians were “in a holding pattern at this time.”

Trump sparked the frenzied negotiations last month after he used a Great Depression-era tariff law to impose tariffs on a wide swath of Canadian goods, like hockey equipment and Canadian bacon, if Canada did not remove its tariffs on U.S. automobiles, eliminate provincial bans on U.S. alcohol and make changes to its dairy supply management laws. But his proclamation included a one-month lag before the duties to kick in, to allow more more talks. The tariffs officially take effect at midnight Aug. 19.

At the time, trade experts saw the tariffs as a way for Trump to force Canada to the negotiating table after struggling for months to make progress — to U.S. officials’ growing frustration.

“I think these three issues must be resolved before Canada can get into the room on USMCA with the United States,” said a former USTR official, shortly after Trump unveiled the new tariffs on Canada last month. “And the U.S. side is wanting a situation where Canada is in the room and so they’re trying to help prompt fixes to these three.”

Of the three issues, auto tariffs have emerged as a key sticking point. Canada is looking for reductions in the 25 percent auto tariffs Trump imposed last year on countries around the world and wants the duty to apply only to vehicle content produced outside North America, according to one of the people.

Automobiles could also be key to unlocking progress on U.S. demands. The United States has made clear that getting American wine and spirits back on Canadian shelves is a red line in the negotiations. But that issue is up to the individual provinces maintaining the bans, which will mean winning over premiers like Doug Ford of Ontario — a car-making hub.

Whether Ford caves will “come down to where we land on autos,” one of the people said, calling the automobile piece of the talks a “domino” in the discussions.

Ford exerted his control over his province’s liquor stores in March 2025, removing U.S. alcohol from shelves in the country’s most populous province. Other premieres soon followed, delivering a nearly $150 million blow to the U.S. distilled spirits industry, alone. While Alberta and Saskatchewan lifted their bans after just a few months, the two provinces account for less than 20 percent of the Canadian population.

Even if the premieres do end their boycott, there’s no guarantee that Canadians — who are also upset by Trump’s jabs that Canada should become the 51st U.S. state — will be quick to resume purchases.

“I would be surprised, even if the liquor goes back on the shelves, if Canadians buy it,” said the industry figure.

While Trump officials have repeatedly faulted Canada for being one of two countries that retaliated against the president’s tariffs — along with China — Trump is also attempting to get the country to drop longstanding protectionist measures for its dairy industry, a source of tension between the two neighbors for decades.

On the Canadian side, negotiators LeBlanc and Janice Charette have been pushing for reductions to U.S. national security tariffs imposed on automobiles and steel and aluminum. But the Trump administration has held firm on the 50 percent steel tariffs, according to three people familiar with the status of the metals discussions.

“That’s probably going to be something that is much more of a longer term” discussion, one of the people said, “if at all.”

Greer stressed to reporters last week that he has been satisfied with the steel tariffs and their impact on the domestic steel industry.

“This is working,” he argued, pointing to rising domestic steel production. Through mid-August, U.S. steelmaking was up more than 5 percent year-to-date on the same period last year, according to the American Iron and Steel Institute, and capacity utilization was up two percentage points.

“We’re seeing huge success in the American steel industry, which is exactly what President Trump wanted,” Greer said during a trip to Iowa Thursday.

Mike Blanchfield contributed to this report from Ottawa.

A group of 25 Democratic-led states sued President Donald Trump’s administration Monday to block the latest round of tariffs imposed on goods from dozens of countries.

The lawsuit in the U.S. Court of International Trade marks the latest in a growing list of legal actions that accuse the White House of exceeding its authority when it used Section 301 of the Trade Act of 1974 — which allows a president to impose tariffs over unfair trade practices — to penalize countries over the alleged use of forced labor after prior trade penalties had either expired or been invalidated by the Supreme Court.

“The Plaintiff States oppose forced labor in all its forms and support protections for workers around the globe,” the states said in their lawsuit. “But the Administration cannot use forced labor as a pretext to continue its illegal tariff scheme.”

Monday’s complaint contests tariffs of 10 or 12.5 percent the administration slapped on goods from 60 economies, including China and the European Union, that took effect last month.

“President Trump is so intent on raising the cost of living for Americans that he is willing to break law after law after law to do so,” said California Attorney General Rob Bonta, whose state is among the plaintiffs, in a statement announcing the lawsuit.

“Tariffs are taxes,” Bonta said. “And the American people cannot and should not shoulder the extra costs that come from the President’s failed and illegal economic policy — no matter how much the President wants them to.”

The effort to block Trump’s third crack at rebuilding his global tariff regime comes after the Supreme Court in February knocked down tariffs the president imposed on countries under the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act, and after the Court of International Trade ruled in May that the Section 122 surcharge Trump imposed in their place was also illegal. The trade court’s May ruling was stayed, allowing the duties to keep being collected pending appeal. Those tariffs expired last month.

The White House defended the tariffs, saying the administration was using its “lawful authority” to crack down on practices that burden American commerce.

“A foreign country’s failure to impose and effectively enforce a prohibition on the importation of goods produced with forced labor is unreasonable and burdens U.S. commerce, including American workers, and must be addressed,” White House spokesperson Kush Desai said in a statement. “Section 301 tariffs have proven to be a legally durable tool since the President’s first term, and they remain so now.”

The lawsuit also accuses the U.S. of bypassing country-specific consultations and failing to explain why duties on countries with such varied forced-labor measures were set in a “nearly uniform manner.”

And it comes on the heels of lawsuits from two groups of small businesses that challenged the tariffs the day they took effect: one led by Burlap & Barrel, a New York spice importer, and a separate suit led by Learning Resources, an educational-products maker that was the named plaintiff in the Supreme Court case that invalidated Trump’s IEEPA tariffs.

Background: The dispute centers on Trump’s use of Section 301, an authority widely viewed as far more legally durable than the other powers Trump tapped to impose tariffs.

Duties from one Section 301 investigation into China during Trump’s first term have now lasted more than seven years. But Section 301’s durability does not give the president unlimited discretion, because the law requires the USTR to identify specific foreign acts, policies or practices and show that they burden or restrict U.S. commerce.

Matthew Seligman, founder of Grayhawk Law and an attorney representing importers seeking tariff refunds, said the states’ challenge is strong but faces a harder legal path than the challenges to the IEEPA and Section 122 tariffs.

“Unlike those prior cases, this case will turn on how much the courts defer to the administration’s seemingly pretextual rationalization that these tariffs are aimed at combatting forced labor,” Seligman said.

“Typically, courts grant substantial deference to the executive branch about these sorts of policy judgments — especially when it implicates foreign affairs —but, as is so often the case with the Trump administration, this case will really test the limits of that judicial deference,” he added.