Trump’s trade czar says U.S. wants to work with Canada on energy, critical minerals, sources say

U.S. trade chief Jamieson Greer said "America First" is the guiding policy and that Canada should not expect a return to prior trade norms ahead of the USMCA review due this year. He signaled openness to energy and critical minerals cooperation, but only on terms consistent with U.S. policy and without Canada using those resources as leverage for concessions. The comments suggest a pragmatic but tougher negotiating stance that could keep Canada-U.S. trade relations and energy-linked discussions in focus over the coming months.

Analysis

The key market signal is not that trade friction is easing; it’s that the U.S. is trying to reprice the negotiating table around energy, minerals, and deficit optics rather than broad tariff relief. That shifts bargaining power toward assets that are structurally embedded in North American industrial policy—pipes, midstream, LNG-linked infrastructure, and select miners with U.S.-friendly supply chains—while leaving pure renewable-transition winners more exposed to policy drag and rhetoric risk. The second-order effect is that Canada’s energy exports become less of a shield and more of a bargaining chip: if Washington frames them as part of deficit reduction, it can demand concessions without having to threaten immediate flow disruption.

The near-term risk is not a sudden trade shock, but a slow grind of headline volatility that keeps capital on hold until the USMCA review path is clearer. That matters because project finance and M&A in energy and critical minerals are highly sensitive to policy visibility; even a 3–6 month delay can push FIDs, widen discount rates, and advantage incumbent producers with existing cash flow over developers reliant on permitting or cross-border demand growth. The market may be underestimating the asymmetry: Canada likely has less leverage than it thinks, because U.S. refiners, utilities, and industrials can substitute politically over time, whereas Canadian exporters have fewer alternate outlets at scale.

Contrarian view: the consensus may be too bearish on the entire North American energy complex. If the administration is prioritizing deficit reduction and domestic industrial resilience, it could actually be supportive for U.S.-based upstream, midstream, and critical-mineral processors that reduce import dependence, even while it pressures Canadian counterparts. The biggest loser may be the thesis that green-transition capex gets a clean policy tailwind; the messaging suggests electrification remains welcome only when it does not conflict with U.S. manufacturing or trade objectives, which argues for a more selective rather than broad-brush ESG long.

Key Decisions for Investors

• Long US midstream vs. Canadian integrated energy exposure for the next 3-6 months: pair KMI/WMB over SU/ENB on the view that U.S.-centric infrastructure benefits from policy continuity while Canadian names face higher headline and negotiation risk.
• Add a tactical long in U.S. critical-minerals names or ETFs with domestic processing exposure (e.g., MP) into USMCA review volatility; upside is 15-25% if Washington explicitly leans into non-China supply chain security, with downside capped if talks remain merely rhetorical.
• Short a basket of Canada-sensitive renewable-transition proxies or use put spreads on EV/clean-energy exposure over 1-3 months; the risk/reward favors downside if policy messaging keeps prioritizing trade balance over transition subsidies.
• Buy optionality in large-cap U.S. E&P and LNG-linked names via call spreads for 3-6 months; the setup is attractive because the market is underpricing a scenario where U.S. policy promotes domestic energy output while keeping Canadian flows intact.
• Avoid or trim Canadian capital-goods/industrial names with high U.S. trade dependence until the formal USMCA calendar is clearer; the expected return is poor relative to the probability of repeated negotiation-driven de-rating.