On a busy day in Ottawa, Pete Hoekstra welcomed me on Monday into his office at the sprawling US Embassy on Sussex Drive in Ottawa. I’ve been in the building several times. It usually takes some time to get in, past heavy security. I don’t think I’ve been in the office since George W. Bush’s second term, nearly 20 years ago. David Wilkins, one of Hoekstra’s predecessors, gave me a can of boiled peanuts, apparently some kind of South Carolina delicacy. I’m sorry to say I never ate them.
Hoekstra has been known to use salty language in some of his exchanges with other officials, but in this conversation he was businesslike. A big year is coming up on the Canada-US relations front, maybe even bigger than the year now ending, with a scheduled review of the Canada-US-Mexico free trade agreement. That one could end with a cheerful endorsement of the status quo or with abrogation of the treaty. Hoekstra figures it’ll land somewhere in between. That’ll cause enough headaches.
The ambassador, a longtime Michigan congressman, also looks forward to some celebratory moments in the year ahead. We’ll see who feels like celebrating.
Paul Wells: Pete Hoekstra, thanks for joining me. It’s been a year since you told President Trump you wanted to be the ambassador to Canada. Was that a good call? Was that a smart thing to ask for it?
Pete Hoekstra: Yes. I always like being in the mix on critical issues. And with the relationship between the US and Canada, I’m in the mix of really important issues to both countries. It’s a good place to be.
PW: It hasn’t always been the calmest conversation. It’s been reported that you had some harsh words with Ontario’s representative in Washington. Does it ever get kind of hot compared to what you expected?
Hoekstra: Maybe to what I expected, but not to what I’ve done. When I got my start, I beat a 26-year Republican incumbent for my first race in Congress. If you’re going to beat an incumbent and you’re outspent 15 to 1, you know that that gets to be a pretty intense fight. I investigated the Teamsters. Our efforts, combined with other folks, led to the resignation of a Teamsters president. That wasn’t easy. Developing our legislative response to 9/11 and the intelligence reform bill. That’s not easy. Running the Michigan Republican Party in 2024 where it’s bitterly divided and has no money. We’ve got five months to win an election. And I win by 50.1% of the vote to become the new chairman of the party. That’s not easy. In almost every single one of those examples, we came out successful and I expect the same here in Canada. I don’t expect it to be easy.
PW: What are your goals? If you had a fridge magnet that says what you want to do in Canada in the next three years, what would it say?
Hoekstra: Prosperity, security and safety. The president has given me that mandate. We want to make Americans more prosperous. We want to make Americans safer. We want to make Americans more secure. So, we think that we can partner with Canada because we think the Canadian people and the Canadian government wants to provide the same things. More prosperity, more safety and more security.
PW: There’s room to enhance the prosperity, safety and security of both countries?
Hoekstra: I think that we can go through this process and we will have a stronger outcome, a stronger relationship at the end of this than at the beginning.
PW: When you came to Canada, Prime Minister Carney had been saying things like this from speech he gave on March 28th: “It is clear that the United States is no longer a reliable partner. It is possible that with comprehensive negotiations we will be able to restore some trust, but there will be no turning back. The next government and all that follow will have a fundamentally different relationship with the United States.” Do you agree?
Hoekstra: The Prime Minister can drive the relationship wherever he wants. That’s not the indication that I think I’m getting from him today, that’s not where he wants the relationship to end up. But it’s possible. It could. But I’m on the other side. I’m more optimistic. I think it’ll be a bigger and better relationship.
PW: Clearly the return of substantial tariffs on some important components of the Canadian economy have rattled Canadians. And so did the president’s early talk about Canada as a 51st state. It’s not stuff that Canadians have been used to hearing. I mean, it can’t be too surprising that they didn’t take it well.
Hoekstra: As I’ve said—and people don’t like me to say— I don’t quite understand the emotional reaction to those comments. I will formally retract those comments and say: I have no idea. And if you’re offended by me saying I don’t understand, I will say thank you for sharing with me how you feel about this. And I will not make a clarifying statement as to whether I understand your response or not.
PW: Okay, but it sounds like you don’t view this return of high tariffs as a root and branch rejection of the Canada-U.S. trading relationship? It’s just sort of a new cost of doing business?
Hoekstra: Well, you got two things here. I mean, you got the increased tariffs on steel and aluminum under section 232. We’re just saying, it’s unfair competition that’s allowed for under USMCA or CUSMA. We were very close to reaching a settlement on that on those four areas just before our Thanksgiving in the middle of November. That would have been very helpful. It would have been helpful to the automotive industry, as well as the steel and aluminum, because there’s lots of steel and aluminum components that go into an automobiles.
When you’re talking about tariffs, remember, that tariffs were imposed on every country in the world at different rates. When the President announced tariffs in the Rose Garden, he had, I think, at least two fairly significant poster boards listing countries. And I was thinking: Where’s Canada? Where’s the line that says Canada? Canada wasn’t even on the two charts. So, it’s not high tariffs coming to Canada. It was tariffs going to everybody in the world.
PW: When Mark Carney says that Canada got the best deal in the world right now, with regards to trade in the United States, do you agree?
Hoekstra: Yeah. I used that phrase and [Carney] says he stole it from me. I think we’re both in agreement. From day one when the President announced tariffs, the United States has adhered to the rules and the agreement that we had in the USMCA, which basically takes 85% of the trade between the two countries and puts it at zero tariffs. That’s not a bad deal.
PW: And now we’re going to review that deal. What’s your understanding of American goals in that review of USMCA? What do you think is going to result from that review?
Hoekstra: We want an agreement that, from our perspective, is a fair agreement. I’ve never been a proponent of free trade. I don’t think free trade exist. When we voted on NAFTA in Congress in the early 90s, I told my constituents I will read the [Free Trade] agreement, which you’re thinking, oh, that should be about one page—Canadian goods coming into the U.S. is zero and U.S. stuff coming into Canada is zero tariffs. And I think it was actually 1,000 pages. I read them all, but I could read them very, very quickly. I could just kind of flip through it because the agreement was primarily tables. Here’s the tariff schedule on asparagus for the next ten years. Here’s the tariff schedule on XYZ for the next ten, 15 years. That’s not free trade. That’s negotiated trade. The U.S., Canada and Mexico, will have to reach an agreement on what is an equitable and fair agreement between all countries.
PW: Do you anticipate another negotiation on the details of terms of trade like that?
Hoekstra: I think that’s the ultimate outcome over the next 10 or 12 months. And the fundamental question that will be answered—that the agreement allows for— is for it to continue exactly the way it is, all the way to termination. I don’t think it will be terminated. And there will also be a review as to whether a trilateral agreement, or three bilateral agreements is the best way to go. The President has indicated some interest in doing bilateral. I think all of that stuff’s on the table. And the President, Sheinbaum, and Carney are going to have to figure out exactly where they want to end up.
PW: Do they have a decent working relationship right now? I mean, the President and the Prime Minister were speaking quite frequently, and it seems like that’s been largely interrupted since those Ontario Reagan ads.
Hoekstra: I think from what I hear, they’re still talking. They’re still texting. They got together at FIFA, I think for up to 45 minutes, with Sheinbaum. So, I think they still have a constructive working relationship. Absolutely.
PW: Pierre Poilievre, as the Conservative leader has sometimes said that Trump prefers Carney because Carney’s a pushover. Do you share that evaluation?
Hoekstra: Heaven forbid that I get into characterizations of Pierre or the Prime Minister, or characterizations of the other political parties. I’m hands off on Canadian politics. Obviously, the [Reagan] ads kind of torpedoed the agreement, or the approaching agreement, in November. You’ve got your political system. You guys understand your political system. And, you know, I’m learning about your system, but it’s fundamentally different than how we work.
I would not voice my opinions on Canadian politics. And I think a lot of times when I’m hearing Canadians who are experts on American politics, I kind of look at them and say, you might be better off if you didn’t talk about this stuff because clearly, they demonstrate a lack of understanding of how our politics work.
PW: Is it possible to boil it down to 1 or 2 things that you wish Canadians understood better about American politics? Just that they don’t have a feel for them?
Hoekstra: No, I didn’t say they don’t have a feel for them. But, you know, when I ran for office, and I got elected [I knew that I’d get elected] on November 5th, and I would know that in two years, I’d have another election. The first Tuesday following the first Monday in November. You just kind of plan that way. That’s what you factor into your decision making. In Canada, well, you know, [someone can get] elected on this date and we could have another election in five months, or it could be four years.
That’s a whole different calculus, that you have to factor into your decision making that we don’t have to. Relationships between your provinces and your federal government is different than our states and our federal government. The powers of our states versus the powers of your provinces are very, very different. They may not seem that significant, but when it comes to political calculus and how you make their decisions, they’re probably very, very significant.
PW: You come from a border state. The net effect of this tariff policy is to put an extra cost on imports into the American market from Canada. To put a transaction cost on trade that had been much lower cost. Is that a hard case? You’re now operating for the entire United States, but you go home to Michigan. Is that a hard case to make in Michigan?
Hoekstra: I think Michigan looks at certain trade agreements and those types of things and people in Michigan say those things were devastating to our industry and to our economy, to our jobs, to our communities, and those types of things. It doesn’t necessarily make it easy. But it means that there are a lot of people in Michigan who believe that certain trade agreements were devastating to them, to Michigan’s economy, and it’s time to rethink them.
PW: Including, but not only, NAFTA? I mean, you campaigned on China and the WTO as a very bad deal for Michigan.
Hoekstra: Yeah. We had the Central American Free Trade Agreement. We had NAFTA. We had China entering the WTO. And probably 4 or 5 other trade agreements. And my record was kind of mixed. There were some that I voted for— I voted for NAFTA. There are just so many similarities, and the integration between trade with Michigan and Canada. I voted against the China thing because I think China cheats on trade. They cheat on intellectual property. Those were never concerns I had with Canada. Canada protects intellectual property. So, it’s complicated, but I think a lot of folks in Michigan and across the country believe the net effect of a lot of these trade deals has been negative.
PW: A lot of the big policy choices that Canada’s made in the last year have to do with reducing Canadian reliance on the American market and building up the internal Canadian market and looking for third markets east and west, rather than north and south. First of all, do you understand the impulse behind that shift in Canadian priorities?
Hoekstra: Yeah, it makes sense. I met with the Belgian ambassador recently and he said, hey, our biggest trading partners are the Netherlands, Germany and France. Oh, those are your three neighbors. Developing more distant relationships is hard. It may be easier in the financial sector but it’s hard in a manufacturing sector. I’ve talked with a lot of Canadian manufacturers. They love doing business with the United States. Your energy sector loves doing business with the United States. Over the last 50 years, we’ve brought a lot of prosperity to both sides of the border because of those relationships. If Canada wants to diversify the people it’s doing business with, you know, go for it. Just recognize that your friends south of the border are probably going to be trying to continue to present ourselves as one of the best places for Canadians to do business.
PW: One reason Belgium trades mostly with France, Germany and the Netherlands is they’re all part of a great long-term, stable single market trading relationship. Ours doesn’t feel as stable these days.
Hoekstra: I think the real potential exists to build a more stable, stronger relationship than we have today. There have always been irritants in the relationship. Tariffs is one thing. But there are non-tariff barriers that are out there that have been put in place which create some real problems.
Having spent some time in Europe— not as an expert in how that all works—but there are some real irritants in the relationships between individual governments and the European Council that sets trade policy. I experienced some of those in the Netherlands in terms of their environmental standards. Their fishing standards, and those kinds of things. It’s not necessarily that everyone is one big happy family. There are all kinds of trade disputes that go on in the EU at different times. I’ve experienced it.
PW: A visitor [to the U.S.] from Britain next year might have to cough up five-year’s worth of social media history. All the emails that they’ve used. That’s not something that the Brits were expecting a couple of weeks ago. Is that something that Canadian travelers might have to face?
Hoekstra: I’m not aware of those specifics. I find it hard to believe. I mean, obviously with what recently happened in Australia, I think that we’ve just taken down a potential threat. And, you know, some of this may be homegrown, and all those kinds of things, but we are going to put in place steps to identify those who are threats to the security and the safety of Americans.
PW: The President continues to make surprising statements, sometimes about potential terrorists in the future. On December 8th, he said he might impose very severe tariffs on fertilizer. Is that something that potash companies in Saskatchewan should worry about?
Hoekstra: My guess is that they don’t have to worry about it all that much because we import 83% of our potash from Canada. We don’t have natural sources of potash ourselves. I kind of like the position of where potash producers in Canada might be right now.
PW: Does that mean they don’t have to worry about tariffs when the President talks about tariffs?
Hoekstra: I think when the President speaks, you should take what the President of the United States says seriously. When Prime Minister Carney speaks, we take seriously what the Prime Minister says. So, yes.
PW: I’m still not sure whether very severe tariffs on potash are coming.
Hoekstra: I’m not either. I wouldn’t expect them, but, you know, we’re in a process called negotiations and reviews. When Mexico and Canada and the US announced a five-year review [of USMCA] I think it was insightful that they put that clause in there. It says that the whole thing’s up for review. I think coming out of that, I’m optimistic we can create a better and a stronger agreement than what we had before.
PW: Is it fair to characterize your response to some of the Canadian talk about the bilateral relationship as overreacting? Do you think some Canadians are overreacting to the Trump presidency?
Hoekstra: Far be it for me to characterize Canadian behavior. I will not characterize the behavior of the Prime Minister, or of the Canadian people. That just has no benefit. They may react. They can do that.
PW: Do those reactions affect the choices America has to make in the next little while? If we squeal, are we going to get in bigger trouble?
Hoekstra: These are professional trade negotiators. They may listen to some of the noise that’s out there. But it’s not like they’re going to react to a squeak or whatever.
On major issues? Yes, there will be a response. You start using taxpayer dollars in Canada to personally attack our President, attack his policies, I think it’s fair to say, yes, that will get our attention.
PW: The ads in question didn’t mention President Trump, if I’m not mistaken?
Hoekstra: They clearly talked about the President’s policies. They clearly referenced a former President of the United States. And the holders of the flame, so to speak, of that group said that it mischaracterized a former President.
On tariffs, it’s pretty hard to differentiate between the President and his policies. That [Reagan ad] was one that our negotiators and the President took notice of. But in terms of a lot of the other, stuff that’s going on, no, I don’t think [they will react to a squeak].
PW: The National Security Strategy that was released last week talks about cultivating resistance to Europe’s current trajectory within European nations. That sounds like settled American policy of influencing internal European politics.
Hoekstra: It says we’ve expressed an opinion about them. We don’t agree with them. We don’t agree on specific areas. We have concerns about mass migration—the impact it’s had on the United States and on Europe, and the impact it may have. We’ve talked about the concept of freedom of speech and freedom of religion that are happening in Europe. Those are areas that we are concerned about.
PW: How do you expect your activity here in Ottawa, dealing with the Canadian public and the Canadian government, to be different in ’26? Do you have plans for ’26?
Hoekstra: We’ve got all kinds of plans for ‘26. 2026 is going to be a great year. We’re celebrating our 250th anniversary, so there will be a lot of activities there. We will highlight a lot of the successes and relationships that we’ve had with allies throughout that time. I’m sure that at some point in time we will talk about the success the United States and Canada had when they liberated significant parts of the Netherlands, including, the Canadians liberating my family and, my parents and the city of Groningen.
We will talk about after 9/11, places like Gander and Halifax taking in large numbers of people from around the world who were headed to the United States on that day. When we said, sorry, our airspace is closed and the Canadians opened airports and their homes for people who couldn’t get to the United States.
We’ll spend a tremendous amount of time talking about the number of American businesses and Canadian businesses who have such a significant partnership across the border that have brought prosperity and investment and jobs to both sides of the border. 2026 will be a year of highlighting a lot of the relationships and the friendships that we’ve developed over those 250 years that have helped make the world a better place because of those kinds of relationships.
