Tariffs Aren't the Solution to the Fentanyl Crisis

As a former member of a federal commission tasked with ending the fentanyl crisis, I've seen firsthand the complexities of this issue and the need for a comprehensive, evidence-based approach. President Trump's proposed tariffs on Canada, Mexico, and China are not the solution to this crisis, and they may even exacerbate the situation.

The fentanyl crisis is a complex, multifaceted problem that requires a nuanced understanding of its root causes and potential solutions. The White House fact sheet claims that the Mexican drug trafficking organizations have an intolerable alliance with the government of Mexico, but most cartel experts disagree, stating that the Mexican government has been taking tougher action against drug cartels (NPR). Canada plays a minimal role in fentanyl smuggling into the U.S., with only about 43 pounds of fentanyl seized at the northern border in 2024, compared to roughly 21,100 pounds seized at the southern border (NPR). The U.S. Drug Enforcement Administration (DEA) reports that the amount of fentanyl seized by the U.S. on the southern border plunged last year by roughly 20%, and the potency of fentanyl pills also declined sharply, indicating that enforcement actions and cooperation with Mexico have been effective (NPR).

The proposed tariffs could have significant impacts on the economies of Canada, Mexico, and China, potentially leading to retaliatory measures that could exacerbate the situation. Canada could retaliate by imposing tariffs on U.S. goods, further escalating the situation. Mexico could also take legal action against the U.S. at the World Trade Organization (WTO), as it did in 2018, arguing that the U.S. tariffs are illegal and violate international trade rules. China could retaliate by imposing tariffs on U.S. goods, as it did in 2018 when it placed tariffs on $60 billion worth of U.S. goods, including soybeans, aircraft, and automobiles. The tariffs could also disrupt China's efforts to combat the production and smuggling of fentanyl into the U.S., as the U.S. has threatened to impose additional tariffs if China does not take more action to stop the flow of fentanyl into the U.S.

Instead of tariffs, alternative policy measures have been proposed and implemented, which can be categorized into supply reduction, demand reduction, and harm reduction strategies. These measures compare differently in terms of potential impact and feasibility compared to tariffs.



Supply reduction strategies, such as strengthening border control and targeting drug trafficking organizations, may have a more direct impact on reducing the supply of fentanyl but may face challenges in implementation and effectiveness. Demand reduction and harm reduction strategies may have a more indirect impact on the fentanyl crisis but can be tailored to specific communities and have been shown to be effective in reducing overdose deaths and connecting individuals with treatment services.

In conclusion, the proposed tariffs by President Trump are not the solution to the fentanyl crisis and may even exacerbate the situation. A comprehensive approach that combines multiple strategies, including supply reduction, demand reduction, and harm reduction, is needed to effectively address the root causes of the fentanyl crisis. Cooperation with Mexico and other countries, as well as targeted enforcement actions, have shown more promise in combating the issue.