USTR Greer said Canada “could see additional tariffs and you could see import bans or prohibitions similar to the ones that Canada has imposed on us earlier.”, Politico reports

Remarks of this kind from a US trade representative fit the established pattern of the bilateral dispute being conducted through tariff threats and retaliatory measures rather than formal negotiation, with Canada historically among the most frequent targets given the depth of cross-border trade integration. The mechanism at issue is sector-specific: import bans and prohibitions of the kind referenced tend to hit narrower product lines, agricultural goods, dairy, lumber and metals have been the recurring flashpoints, rather than the broad tariff schedules that move the Canadian dollar at the macro level. Threats delivered through the press, as opposed to formal Federal Register notices, have in past episodes of this kind functioned as negotiating leverage and frequently preceded either escalation or quiet de-escalation depending on the counterparty's response. The reference to measures mirroring Canada's own prior actions is the standard justification framing used in these exchanges and signals the dispute remains in a reciprocal, tit-for-tat phase rather than a structural rupture. What distinguishes material escalation from rhetoric in this sequence is follow-through in the form of published tariff schedules or executive action, and whether Canadian officials respond with counter-measures or with talks. As commentary rather than policy, the signal is directional.