>> President Donald Trump escalates tensions with Canada once again after announcing a new 50% tariff on select Canadian imports just as broader tariffs on dozens of countries take effect.

The administration claims Canada is discriminatory against American industries.

But critics warn the move could further strain one of the United States's closest trade relationships and raise costs for businesses and consumers, particularly in the Midwest.

Joining us now are Michael Nigro, senior fellow at the Center for American Progress.

And Robert Bruno, professor of employment and Labor relations at the University of Illinois, Urbana Champaign.

Welcome back, Tom.

And thanks for joining us.

Thank you.

So by going to Yuko offered a recently published study that found quote, Trump tariffs hit the Midwest harder than the rest of the country.

It's estimated that the tariffs increased costs for the average Midwest household by more than $2000 in the year 2025. reduce the region's economy by 18 billion dollars lead to the loss of about 42,000 manufacturing jobs.

Bob, why is the Midwest disproportionately impacted by these tariffs compared to other regions in the U.S.?

>> thanks for the question is nice to.

He bet on the program vanished fundamentally because the Midwest particularly relies on a lot of manufacturing and makes up a significant amount of GDP.

We also have a large agricultural sector.

We have like the other states in the Midwest.

A good portion of economy is based in consumer behavior and consumer activity.

This is a very large state with a very large GDP for all those reasons to you're going to have a stronger negative impact on tariffs which because of the nature of the economy.

And we're seeing similar impacts across the Midwest states and with some variations depending on the breakdown of their economy and the sectors of the economy and the workers in their economy.

>> So a new round of tariffs went into effect Friday targeting 80 countries at a rate of 10 to 12.5%, which the administration says is dependent on the extent of their efforts to address labor violations.

Mike, on the ground, how different is this round compared to the previous tariffs that we've already seen this year?

>> these tariffs are just more of the same.

What we're seeing here is a president who as very intent on using tariffs as a tool.

I just want to underscore what professor Bruno said.

That tariffs are a tax or a tax that the importer, which is typically an American business is paying to bring something from overseas.

But president has been in love with tariff since the 1980's and since coming into office, they've rolled out essentially the same set of tariffs.

now a 3rd time initially and on Liberation Day, they use and authority an emergency authority to the Supreme Court struck down in February.

Then they shifted to a different authority section one, 22 of the trade act premised on a balance of payments crisis, which means you don't have enough foreign currency union of currency to pay off your debts, which of course, is not the case because United States float its currency and now and at the expiration of those tariffs, which expired after 6 months, he's introducing a new authority section 301, as you noted, is premised on unfair trade, which they're saying is to forced labor practices.

These countries who don't have sufficient forced labor prohibitions gives them a competitive edge.

So what we're seeing is essentially the same set of tariffs double digit percentage tariffs, charged products coming in overseas.

In this case from 80 countries that the reasons have shifted multiple times because the president is just trying to get not to have a pun here, but he's just trying to get the goods through customs.

He's hoping that the Supreme Court doesn't invalidate Meanwhile, its businesses and consumers who are stuck paying the bill.

And I should note with the emergency tariffs, the Supreme Court required the federal government offer refunds to businesses.

And so even the revenues that are collected may not do much for public investment or for the national debt because if the Supreme Court strikes these doubt, these tariffs down, ultimately, they'll have to give it all back.

>> Michael, you mentioned, you know, the impact on consumer and consumers and business is Bob, how might consumers and businesses be impacted?

>> won't be.

It won't be good based on the studies that we've done looking at the 2025 what we would anticipate for every one percent increase in the terrace that impact the state households would see their costs go up by $315.

The state would be subject to losing another 1000 manufacturing jobs and we maybe a half percent drop the GDP.

That's just for.

A one percent increase in.

You heard Michael talking about the size of this.

And I would point out when we think about the household cost, we don't have included in these numbers, the impact of the war of the war on oil prices, right?

So that would be in addition, factoring into the impact on household costs.

That's a pretty severe hit for working Illinois and >> Michael, you mentioned, you know, the Trump administration using this obscure legal provision to justify the tax on Canadian goods section 3.38 Of the 1930, Tariff Act.

And this allows the president to put tariffs of up to up to 50% on imports from countries that discriminate against U.S.

Commerce, in your view, has Canada been unfair to the U.S.?

>> I don't think there's very good evidence of this Canada is very close trading partner for the United States.

Many products manufactured in the United States auto vehicles, for example, automobiles, for example, cross the border multiple times as the products are made of the cars are made and then are ultimately assembled American plant by American workers and then sold in our domestic markets.

And we have just a lot of trade going on with Canada.

There are countries out there who truly abusing trade privileges.

China being chief among them as they the heavily subsidized industries and then dump products at their consumers don't buy and markets like the United States at prices that we can't really compete with.

The president made a lot of noise about China early in his administration but backed off once the Chinese.

It made the reprisals and instead seems to focusing on our allies when the fact is if we wanted to have a good trade policy, we should be working with countries like Canada like Europe to level the playing field with the Chinese to help support American businesses.

But the president is indiscriminately firing tariffs and all of our allies.

And so that type of partnership, it's just not going to be possible.

And so I think we're going to continue to see higher costs and manufacturing job losses unless the president changes course here on tariffs.

>> Bob are just about out of time.

Canada's Illinois is number one trade partner of Canada responds with another round of retaliatory tariffs.

What industries in Illinois might lose the most in about 20 seconds.

>> We could expect manufacturing for Obviously there is some impact on agriculture.

It would actually fairly widespread.

We would feel some pain.

>> Okay.

Story that keeps all