Following last1 month’s2 three-part3 exploration of the nascent North American Union, the first of this month saw developments that might throw a wrench in that agenda: the introduction of President Trump’s long-planned tariffs, sparking fears of a global trade war. His 25% tariffs on imports from Canada and Mexico—dropping to 10% for Canadian energy resources—and 10% on China are harsher and broader than the measures taken during his first term, and take effect almost immediately under emergency powers, citing illegal immigration and fentanyl trafficking as justification. Of course, experts naturally warn that the tariffs will hurt American consumers and businesses, particularly in industries like autos, agriculture, and energy, and estimate that Mexico and Canada’s economies could shrink by 1–2%, while the U.S. impact may be smaller but still significant.
Canada and Mexico responded the same day. North of the border, Prime Minister Trudeau immediately imposing 25% tariffs on $106.6 billion of U.S. goods, including beer, wine, appliances, and sporting goods, mirroring U.S. tariffs on Canadian and Mexican imports escalating the developing trade war between neighbors. Though Trump justifies these tariffs as a response to illegal immigration and drug trafficking, Trudeau disputes these claims, arguing that the shared border is not a security threat. Meanwhile, experts warn that tit-for-tat tariffs will quickly hurt consumers and businesses on both sides, increasing prices and disrupting trade. Trump has signaled further tariff increases if retaliation continues. But these tariffs will “damage the U.S.’s reputation around the world,” warns Mark Carney, former governor of the Bank of Canada from 2008 to 2013 and of the Bank of England from 2013 to 2020 currently seeking to become leader of Canada’s Liberal Party after Trudeau’s departure.
South of the border, Mexico’s President Sheinbaum strongly rejected U.S. accusations about her government’s ties to criminal organizations and asserts that the real issue lies in American gun sales and drug consumption. Her statement highlights her country’s efforts in drug seizures and arrests while criticizing the U.S. for failing to curb domestic fentanyl use and money laundering. “Coordination yes; subordination, no,” she wrote, emphasizing the need for cooperation over confrontation while calling for mutual respect and sovereignty in joint efforts against drug trafficking. But in response to Trump’s disrespectful tone and belligerent actions, she directed Mexico’s Secretary of Economy to implement the Plan B that her administration has developed to impose tariff and non-tariff measures to defend their country’s economic interests. Though Sheinbaum’s statement offers no specifics, reports from last month indicate that Mexico has prepared itself to respond with 5%, 10%, and 20% tariffs on various U.S. goods—targeting pork, cheese, apples, whiskey, and steel, strategically affecting Trump’s voter base while excluding the automotive sector to protect its key industry—with the warning that tariffs could cost 400,000 U.S. jobs and raise consumer prices.
For its own part, China has announced it will file a legal case against the U.S. at the World Trade Organization (WTO) in response to Trump’s 10% tariffs on Chinese goods, calling them a violation of trade rules. The Chinese Ministry of Commerce vowed further countermeasures but did not specify what actions it would take. However, with Trump having previously weakened the WTO’s ability to resolve disputes by blocking judges’ appointments during his first term and thereby restricting it for now only to compiling reports, the legal case may have little immediate impact.
That leaves Trump largely free to next implement tariffs targeting the European Union, having accused the bloc of treating the U.S. “terribly” and warned he will do “something substantial” without specifying details. The EU, which exported $576.3 billion to the U.S. in 2023, is preparing to retaliate. Officials in Brussels have expressed willingness to engage diplomatically, but Trump has shown no hesitation in igniting trade wars: “Am I going to impose tariffs on the European Union?” he told reporters yesterday. “Absolutely, absolutely.”
Naturally, financial markets are already reacting negatively, and global uncertainty is rising. Most notably, the cryptocurrency sector has already fallen dramatically, with Bitcoin alone having declined more than 5% from its intraday peak on Friday as of this writing. This came little more than two weeks after the inauguration of the self-declared “crypto president” whose administration quickly enacted pro-crypto policies with the “Strengthening American Leadership in Digital Financial Technology” presidential action that he signed last month.
That executive order fulfilled many industry hopes by replacing Securities and Exchange Commission leadership and repealing an accounting rule (SAB 121) that had made it difficult for banks to engage with cryptocurrency markets and paving the way for broader adoption. Further reinforcing his crypto-friendly stance, Trump signed an executive order promoting the advancement of digital assets and exploring the idea of a U.S. digital asset stockpile. A new Working Group on Digital Asset Markets will assess the feasibility of a stockpile, potentially using lawfully seized cryptocurrencies, under instructions to submit regulatory and legislative proposals in 180 days—on 22 July 2025, for those who want to follow the market’s progress during that time. Simultaneously, the order explicitly bans the creation of a Central Bank Digital Currency (CBDC).
While many view deregulation of financial institutions in general and cryptocurrencies in particular as steps toward greater liberty for the private citizen—particularly given the aforementioned ban on a U.S. Federal Reserve CBDC—it’s worth noting that digital currencies echo one feature emphasized in last century’s Technocracy Movement that we detailed in our first bulletin on the North American Union: specifically, the economic system of “energy accounting” wherein production capacity is measured by energy usage.
In this system, all citizens receive equal energy credits used to acquire goods and services, with prices measured in those goods’ and services’ energy inputs. With the energy consumption of the Bitcoin network already ranging between the world’s 10th and 15th largest economies, it’s not hard to imagine that the energy required to generate a unit of a given cryptocurrency would make it a modern analog to technocratic energy credits. Accordingly, and assuming that the North American Technate proposed last century had been genuinely intended to prefigure the later agenda for a North American Union, we would find some justification for the theory that U.S. intelligence agencies themselves developed Bitcoin, which we first explored last year.

Of course, it’s difficult to see just how Trump’s tariffs might support the introduction of digital currencies as energy credits—except by crashing the prices of those risk-on assets through July, allowing financial institutions to add them to their holdings at a discount compared to their prices at the time that Trump signed the aforementioned executive order. Perhaps one might say the same about whether Trump’s tariffs could in any way support the establishment of a North American Union: after all, launching a trade war with one’s neighbors hardly seems like a step toward joining them in any economic bloc.
But while many can see the higher inflation rate for consumer prices in the U.S., Canada, and Mexico as a sure short-term result of these tariffs, one can still imagine less obvious results in the long term. Viewers of our New Year spectacle may recall our query to Tarot by Fergus about the apparent contradiction between forecasts of a second American civil war and those of an integrated North American Union, in response to which our esteemed soothsayer considered it possible that the former would serve to help instantiate the latter. Remembering this, it seems likely to us now that the enhanced economic turmoil that Americans, Canadians, and Mexicans will soon begin suffering may provide a similar precondition.
Such hardships might make citizens of all three countries more inclined toward reaping economic benefits like those supposedly available in the “economic union” between the U.S. and Canada that Kevin O’Leary proposed in December, on which we commented in our first and second North American Union bulletins. After Trump suggested that Canadians could save 60% on taxes by joining the U.S. as its 51st state, O’Leary proposed a more limited integration, focusing on energy and natural resources, where the two nations could immediately benefit. Outlining the potential benefits of combining the U.S. and Canadian economies—including a shared currency, harmonized taxes, and increased trade—O’Leary suggested that Canadians, especially given the hardships they’ve faced under Trudeau’s leadership, would be open to such a union.
Thus, while President Trump’s aggressive tariff policies and the subsequent trade wars may appear to be a direct conflict with the notion of a North American Union, they could inadvertently set the stage for deeper economic integration between the U.S., Canada, and Mexico. As the tariffs begin to strain consumers, businesses, and economies across all three countries, citizens may begin to reconsider the benefits of cooperation over confrontation. The idea of an economic union may one day offer a potential pathway out of the economic turmoil exacerbated by these tariffs, with the promise of greater tax relief, resource sharing, and harmonized economic policies—along with, perhaps, the shared currency of a digital “Amero” facilitating cross-border payments. (Which might, of course, be a CBDC of its own: after all, Trump’s aforementioned executive order did nothing to prevent any future “Central of Bank of the North American Union” from issuing one.)
Ultimately, though the short-term impact of the tariffs is likely to be painful, the long-term effect could be a push towards the very integration that was once considered an improbable outcome. In this way, what initially seems like a barrier to cooperation may turn out to be a catalyst for a North American Union, as citizens may become more inclined to seek stability and shared prosperity in the face of economic hardship. This, then, is one of the “deep trends” that you can count on Radio Free Pizza tracking in the months and years to come.
“All Over the Map” (12 January 2025)
“Abandoned Borders” (15 January 2025)
“Enemies Among the Three Amigos” (19 January 2025)