Will Trump's Regulatory Reforms Do Enough To Unleash Nuclear Energy?
One of the most substantive orders calls for a "wholesale revision" of regulations governing nuclear power. Specifically, it directs the Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) to establish guidelines that would issue final decisions on all new construction and operation applications within 18 months—a process that currently takes years.
Under the order, the NRC will work with the Department of Government Efficiency and the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) to draft these rules, which are due next year. Under an executive order issued in February, executive and independent agencies are required to submit draft and final rules to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (an office within the OMB) for review and approval.
This added layer of federal scrutiny could end up slowing down reactor approvals and make the NRC less efficient. It could also run contrary to the Atomic Energy Act of 1954, which established the NRC and its guidelines.
"The NRC is designed to be an independent agency," Adam Stein, director of the Nuclear Energy Innovation Program at the Breakthrough Institute, tells Reason. "The President has control by appointing Commissioners and has the authority to remove Commissioners for cause." However, the Atomic Energy Act says that the commission shall execute the provisions of the law, "not the Commissioners in conjunction with other parts of the Executive branch," he says.
Congress has also begun to address permitting delays at the NRC. In 2024, federal lawmakers passed the ADVANCE Act which, among other things, directs the NRC to establish a quicker permitting process for already-approved technologies (18 months to finish safety evaluations and environmental reviews and 25 months to issue a final decision). The agency is expected to issue these guidelines by September, according to the NRC website.
However, the legislation stipulates that these guidelines be enforced to "the maximum extent possible." Jack Spencer, a senior energy researcher at The Heritage Foundation, thinks Trump's order could "bring additional accountability to the process."
"Any big bureaucracy is going to be resistant to change," he says. "Legislation that basically puts it in their hands to achieve that reform, I think, will often fall short of the sorts of reform that are possible." Spencer thinks that subjecting the proposed reforms to another set of eyes "that will ask hard questions will be helpful in ensuring that real reform ultimately takes hold."
This executive order also directs the NRC to reconsider its radiation standards for nuclear power plants and "adopt science-based radiation limits."
Federal radiation regulations mandate nuclear power plants to emit levels of radiation that are "as low as reasonably achievable" (ALARA) and are based on the linear no-threshold model, which assumes that no level of radiation risk is safe to the public. This framework is not scientific (humans are exposed to natural levels of radiation that are higher than those that nuclear power plants emit) and has pushed up costs for power plant operators for no public safety benefit.
Spencer argues that fixing this rule is critical for reducing the nuclear industry's regulatory burden. "You can make the NRC the most efficient regulatory agency that has ever existed. And if the basis of its regulatory actions is not grounded in science, then who cares?"
"That doesn't mean that you're reducing safety standards. It means that you're making safety standards in line with actual risks," he adds.
This directive could face legal scrutiny.
Stein, who has been critical of these standards, says "safety standards are almost never implemented through executive order. They usually require the agency to review and 'reconsider' if the standards are appropriate." With the NRC recently reaffirming its model for radiation standards in 2021, there "would need to be new scientific evidence to justify a change now that wouldn't be viewed as arbitrary by a court." Instead of rewriting ALARA standards, Stein suggests that the NRC could adopt radiation thresholds at nuclear power facilities that are defined in the Clean Air Act.
Spencer recognizes these standards can't be changed through an executive order. "But it gets the conversation going. And it makes it more OK to talk about it, and it subjects the whole issue to daylight and makes people address it."
Trump's order also sets a goal to effectively quadruple America's nuclear energy capacity and build 400 gigawatts of nuclear power by 2050. Stein says this goal "can be a helpful signal to the market," but stating a goal does not "will it into existence."
Juliann Edwards, chief development officer at The Nuclear Company, a startup aiming to streamline the deployment of nuclear power plants, agrees. "It's obtainable if you have the right leadership and you have the right behaviors and you're removing a lot of bureaucratic, unnecessary red tape, whether that be the federal level or the state level or through some regulatory regime."
America's fleet of commercial nuclear power plants, while still safe and effective, is aging. Most of the reactors were built between 1967 and 1990—although two came online in 2023 and 2024, seven years delayed and $16 billion over budget.
As the U.S. halted its construction, China's has accelerated. From 2014 to April 2024, the nation has added over 34 GW of nuclear capacity to its grid. "Nearly every Chinese nuclear project that has entered service since 2010 has achieved construction in 7 years or less," notes the Breakthrough Institute. China currently has 30 nuclear reactors under construction and is exporting its nuclear energy technology to developing nations. Nearly half of the world's nuclear power plant constructions are happening in China.
While several factors have played into America's pivot away from nuclear power, including market structures, state bans on the energy source, and the introduction of cheap natural gas, the impact of federal regulations cannot be overstated.
"Without doing a refresh and making sure [that] regulations are still applicable, you can get into a point, which we're seeing now, where it's extremely difficult to even cite and permit a piece of land," says Edwards. In the past 20 years, regulations have become so onerous that it takes five to seven years and close to $1 billion just to permit and cite a plot of land for nuclear energy development, according to Edwards. Streamlining the licensing process isn't a safety hazard but rather "a natural iteration that should be a part of our standard process with regulations."
Regulations have long inhibited American nuclear energy. While Trump's order is well-intentioned to fix this issue, it is sure to face legal challenges—as many of the president's orders have.
Still, the orders may be enough to get a more substantial conversation going. "I think anything that creates pressure toward reform is good," says Spencer.
The post Will Trump's Regulatory Reforms Do Enough To Unleash Nuclear Energy? appeared first on Reason.com.
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Forbes
33 minutes ago
- Forbes
Trump Hostility To Wind And Solar Has Utilities Treading Softly
AT SEA - JULY 07: A wind turbine generates electricity at the Block Island Wind Farm on July 07, ... More 2022 near Block Island, Rhode Island. The first commercial offshore wind farm in the United States, five power generating structures are located 3.8 miles from Block Island, Rhode Island in the Atlantic Ocean. The five-turbine, 30 MW project was developed by Deepwater Wind and began operations in December, 2016 at a cost of nearly $300 million. (Photo by) President Donald Trump reiterated his hostility to wind generation when he arrived in Scotland for what was ostensibly a private visit. 'Stop the windmills,' he said. But the world isn't stopping its windmill development and neither is the United States, although it has become more difficult and has put U.S. electric utilities in an awkward position: It is a love that dare not speak its name, one might say. Utilities love that wind and solar can provide inexpensive electricity, offsetting the high expense of battery storage. It is believed that Trump's well-documented animus to wind turbines is rooted in his golf resort in Balmedie, near Aberdeen, Scotland. In 2013, Trump attempted to prevent the construction of a small offshore wind farm — just 11 turbines — located roughly 2.2 miles from his Trump International Golf Links, but was ultimately unsuccessful. He argued that the wind farm would spoil views from his golf course and negatively impact tourism in the area. Trump seemingly didn't just take against the local authorities, but against wind in general and offshore wind in particular. Yet fair winds are blowing in the world for renewables. Francesco La Camera, director general of the International Renewable Energy Agency, an official United Nations observer, told me that in 2024, an astounding 92 percent of new global generation was from wind and solar, with solar leading wind in new generation. We spoke recently when La Camera was in New York. My informal survey of U.S. utilities reveals they are pleased with the Trump administration's efforts to simplify licensing and its push to natural gas, but they are also keen advocates of wind and solar. Batteries Improve Usefulness Of Wind, Solar Simply, wind is cheap and as battery storage improves, so does its usefulness. Likewise, solar. However without the tax advantages that were in President Joe Biden's signature climate bill, the Inflation Reduction Act, the numbers will change, but not enough to rule out renewables, the utilities tell me. China leads the world in installed wind capacity of 561 gigawatts, followed by the United States with less than half that at 154 GW. The same goes for solar installations: China had 887 GW of solar capacity in 2024 and the United States had 239 GW. China is also the largest manufacturer of electric vehicles. This gives it market advantage globally and environmental bragging rights, even though it is still building coal-fired plants. While utilities applaud Trump's easing of restrictions, which might speed the use of fossil fuels, they aren't enthusiastic about installing new coal plants or encouraging new coal mines to open. Both, they believe, would become stranded assets. Utilities and their trade associations have been slow to criticize the administration's hostility to wind and solar, but they have been publicly cheering gas turbines. However, gas isn't an immediate solution to the urgent need for more power: There is a global shortage of gas turbines with waiting lists of five years and longer. So no matter how favorably utilities look on gas, new turbines, unless they are already on hand or have set delivery dates, may not arrive for many years. Another problem for utilities is those states that have scheduled phasing out fossil fuels in a given number of years. That issue – a clash between federal policy and state law — hasn't been settled. In this environment, utilities are either biding their time or cautiously seeking alternatives. For example, facing a virtual ban on new offshore wind farms, veteran journalist Robert Whitcomb wrote in his New England Diary that New England utilities are looking to wind power from Canada, delivered by undersea cable. Whitcomb wrote a book about offshore wind energy, 'Cape Wind: Money, Celebrity, Energy, Class, Politics and the Battle for Our Energy Future,' published in 2007. New England Frustrated By Pipeline Shortage New England is starved of gas as there isn't enough pipeline capacity to bring in more, so even if gas turbines were readily available, they wouldn't be an option. New pipelines take financing, licensing in many jurisdictions, and face public hostility. Emily Fisher, a former general counsel for the Edison Electric Institute, told me, 'Five years is just a blink of an eye in utility planning.' On July 7, Trump signed an executive order which states: 'For too long the Federal Government has forced American taxpayers to subsidize expensive and unreliable sources like wind and solar. 'The proliferation of these projects displaces affordable, reliable, dispatchable domestic energy resources, compromises our electric grid, and denigrates the beauty of our Nation's natural landscape.' The U.S. Energy Information Administration puts electricity consumption growth at 2 percent nationwide. In parts of the nation, as in some Texas cities, it is 3 percent.


CNN
33 minutes ago
- CNN
Analysis: Trump bludgeoned the EU on trade. Good luck doing the same to China
President Donald Trump isn't going to bulldoze China on trade like he did Europe. Two days after the EU agreed to a framework trade deal with the White House that some of the bloc's national leaders regard as a capitulation, Trump's negotiators left talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping's team in Sweden with no breakthrough. Following a flurry of trade deal announcements celebrated by the administration, China and the US are expected to carry on talking. But the lack of significant progress was a blunt reminder of China's power, the stakes it sees in standing up to Trump and how efforts to remake global trade will be incomplete without a deal with Beijing. Instead of another win, Trump's negotiators on Wednesday will present him with a proposal to extend a pause on historic mutual tariff hikes, which would otherwise hit on August 12. The president has a choice: either approve more time for more talks, which would suit Beijing, or revive a disastrous superpower trade war. It's hardly a choice at all. 'We're just going to give him the facts, and then he will decide,' Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who along with US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer led the US delegation in Stockholm, told CNBC Tuesday. No one is denying Trump's on a roll with trade. He can justifiably claim significant political victories with a series of framework deals with the EU, the UK, Japan, Indonesia and the Philippines that favor the United States by imposing one-sided tariffs. Trump's bet that other nations and trading blocs would have no option but to, in his words, pay more for access to the mighty American market has paid off. And, in his trade deals, he successfully opened up some previously closed markets to American manufacturers. Trump has long regarded Europeans as freeloading off American power. He's made good on his promise to substantially reinvent the transatlantic relationship, securing a 15% tariff on the EU's exports while forcing NATO members to agree to steep increases in defense spending by 2035. His hunch that allies are so beholden to the US on security that they'd fold on trade was spot-on. Trump is also flouting the conventional wisdom of most economic experts, and he's fractured the global free trade and low tariff system in imposing some of the highest duties since the 1930s. And so far, the global economic disaster that many predicted has not materialized. Most remarkably, he's acted to impose a personal obsession he's nursed since the 1980s — tariffs. But it may only be halftime. Many of the expected consequences of this new radical US trade policy are yet to kick in, including higher prices for American consumers that could quickly sour voters on the president's approach. Goldman Sachs estimates that it could take up to eight months for price hikes to show up. Other consequences of Trump's trade romp will also take time to become obvious. That's not stopping the administration's triumphalism. 'No one's moved as fast as the world has moved with respect to Donald Trump. He has moved the world in a way that no one can imagine,' Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told CBNC. 'He's done this in six months; this is amazing.' But China is looming in the path of Trump's victory lap. And the president may have met his match in Xi. He faces none of the constraints that spiked the trade guns of Europe — which was wary of antagonizing Trump and risking its military umbrella and its need for US support on Ukraine. And China's resistance is grounded in economics, sovereignty and politics that are existential for its Communist Party regime. No Chinese leader — especially one like Xi, who built his power on nationalism and restoring what Beijing sees as its rightful dignity and respect — can capitulate to an American president in a trade negotiation. China's centralized political structure, unlike the often-fractious 27-nation EU, also gives it stability. It also has cards to play that can hold the US economy hostage — including its dominance of the production of rare earth elements used in the manufacture of smartphones, smart weapons, satellites and aviation engines. China reacted to Trump's initial declaration of a trade war by blocking the export of the vital elements. It has since reopened the market, but the Trump administration is still complaining that Beijing is taking too long to approve all rare earth applications for US companies. But the fact that rare earths are a Trump card for Xi is not lost on anyone. Decades ago, China's isolated leaders didn't understand US politics. That's no longer the case. And it would not be surprising if they've already concluded that if they stand up to Trump, he'll back down. Calling China's bluff in these circumstances would be a massive gamble. It's not that China wants a trade war or would not be hurt by one. Its economy is plagued by problems. But its authoritarian system means Xi can impose more pain on his people than Trump might risk inflicting on Americans. It was almost alone among global trading powers in ignoring Bessent's admonition not to retaliate after Trump's tariff outburst in April. Bruce Stokes, a visiting senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund, argued that Trump's desire to visit Beijing later this year for a summit with Xi could also be crucial. 'This is not just about economics. (Trump) wants to be tough on China, I think that's indisputable,' said Stokes. 'But I think he wants even more so to have the opportunity to go mano a mano in Beijing, both for the optics of it and he believes he's a dealmaker who can strike a deal.' Stokes added: 'The Chinese experts I talk to think that the Chinese think that this guy can be manipulated. 'This guy, you can play him, and we'll see what happens.'' Trump's zeal for one-on-one dealmaking is antithetical to the protocol-laden approach of the Chinese. Chinese negotiators seek to shield their leader by ironing out agreements at lower levels. Trump's team seeks to set up theirs for grand photo-ops that fuel his 'Art of the Deal' ego. There's zero chance that Xi would fly to a meeting with Trump and improvise an agreement, then dole out sycophantic praise for his dealmaking as top European official Ursula von der Leyen did at the weekend. Bessent told CNBC that there was extensive 'pregame' planning in Stockholm, starting with 75 Chinese officials, compared with the 15 in the US delegation. Eventually, the teams were whittled down for the nitty gritty involving Bessent, Greer and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng. The Treasury chief insisted that the talks had made 'good progress' toward the US position on a 'clunky' Chinese system of controls on rare earth exports. Vice Premier He said that the talks were constructive and that the two sides would continue to push for a 90-day extension of the pause on reciprocal tariffs. But Bessent cautioned that China had jumped the gun on the pause before Trump weighs in. Of course, presidents make the ultimate decision in foreign policy. But this may be mostly optics. Trump needs to be seen as the big guy. But it's also a measure of his chaotic volatility that nothing is for certain unless he signs off. China's imperviousness to Trump's box of trade tricks is not the only reason why administration gloating is premature. Trade agreements are usually complex, running to thousands of pages after exhaustive negotiations between trade lawyers. The superficial framework agreements released by the White House, by contrast, show that nettlesome disputes in deals with EU and other trade competitors are unresolved. Such skimpy agreements could easily fall apart. Trump might also react to foot-dragging on details by lashing out with tariffs. And recriminations boiling within Europe mean it's not certain that the agreement reached on Sunday in Scotland will survive. Trump's business, personal and political life has always existed in a perpetual cycle of postponing reckonings. It's therefore typical that while he's touting his winning streak on trade now, he has no idea what lies ahead. It will take time to judge how the almost-certain rises in consumer prices will impact the economy. And the shock of tariffs will take months to work through supply chains and procurement schedules drawn up years in advance. This explains why Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell is loath to slash interest rates despite Trump's fury. Tariffs may not kill economic growth and cause a recession, and businesses may adapt to the new certainty of duties between 15% and 20%. Higher costs could be shared by consumers, companies and suppliers in a way that eases some of the impact on voters ahead of next year's midterm elections. But while historically high, the tariffs probably aren't sufficiently punitive to force companies to undertake the massively expensive process of relocating production to the United States — an ostensible justification for Trump's trade wars. And Trump won't be in the Oval Office forever. CEOs may reason that his successor will likely temper protectionism, especially if the economy slows. Other difficulties also loom. Canada, unlike the EU, seems in no mood to sue for peace after Prime Minister Mark Carney won power on visceral anti-Americanism in the electorate. A prolonged trade conflict would hurt Canadians more than Americans, owing to the relative size of the neighbors' economies. But Carney can make things difficult for Trump. A sudden spurt of inflation early next year, perhaps triggered by the Federal Reserve chief Trump will appoint when Powell's term ends, could also undermine the fragile foundation on which the president's trade wins rest. This all explains why a real deal with China is so important. And Beijing knows it, so it's unlikely to fold.


CNN
an hour ago
- CNN
Analysis: Trump bludgeoned the EU on trade. Good luck doing the same to China
President Donald Trump isn't going to bulldoze China on trade like he did Europe. Two days after the EU agreed to a framework trade deal with the White House that some of the bloc's national leaders regard as a capitulation, Trump's negotiators left talks with Chinese President Xi Jinping's team in Sweden with no breakthrough. Following a flurry of trade deal announcements celebrated by the administration, China and the US are expected to carry on talking. But the lack of significant progress was a blunt reminder of China's power, the stakes it sees in standing up to Trump and how efforts to remake global trade will be incomplete without a deal with Beijing. Instead of another win, Trump's negotiators on Wednesday will present him with a proposal to extend a pause on historic mutual tariff hikes, which would otherwise hit on August 12. The president has a choice: either approve more time for more talks, which would suit Beijing, or revive a disastrous superpower trade war. It's hardly a choice at all. 'We're just going to give him the facts, and then he will decide,' Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, who along with US Trade Representative Jamieson Greer led the US delegation in Stockholm, told CNBC Tuesday. No one is denying Trump's on a roll with trade. He can justifiably claim significant political victories with a series of framework deals with the EU, the UK, Japan, Indonesia and the Philippines that favor the United States by imposing one-sided tariffs. Trump's bet that other nations and trading blocs would have no option but to, in his words, pay more for access to the mighty American market has paid off. And, in his trade deals, he successfully opened up some previously closed markets to American manufacturers. Trump has long regarded Europeans as freeloading off American power. He's made good on his promise to substantially reinvent the transatlantic relationship, securing a 15% tariff on the EU's exports while forcing NATO members to agree to steep increases in defense spending by 2035. His hunch that allies are so beholden to the US on security that they'd fold on trade was spot-on. Trump is also flouting the conventional wisdom of most economic experts, and he's fractured the global free trade and low tariff system in imposing some of the highest duties since the 1930s. And so far, the global economic disaster that many predicted has not materialized. Most remarkably, he's acted to impose a personal obsession he's nursed since the 1980s — tariffs. But it may only be halftime. Many of the expected consequences of this new radical US trade policy are yet to kick in, including higher prices for American consumers that could quickly sour voters on the president's approach. Goldman Sachs estimates that it could take up to eight months for price hikes to show up. Other consequences of Trump's trade romp will also take time to become obvious. That's not stopping the administration's triumphalism. 'No one's moved as fast as the world has moved with respect to Donald Trump. He has moved the world in a way that no one can imagine,' Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick told CBNC. 'He's done this in six months; this is amazing.' But China is looming in the path of Trump's victory lap. And the president may have met his match in Xi. He faces none of the constraints that spiked the trade guns of Europe — which was wary of antagonizing Trump and risking its military umbrella and its need for US support on Ukraine. And China's resistance is grounded in economics, sovereignty and politics that are existential for its Communist Party regime. No Chinese leader — especially one like Xi, who built his power on nationalism and restoring what Beijing sees as its rightful dignity and respect — can capitulate to an American president in a trade negotiation. China's centralized political structure, unlike the often-fractious 27-nation EU, also gives it stability. It also has cards to play that can hold the US economy hostage — including its dominance of the production of rare earth elements used in the manufacture of smartphones, smart weapons, satellites and aviation engines. China reacted to Trump's initial declaration of a trade war by blocking the export of the vital elements. It has since reopened the market, but the Trump administration is still complaining that Beijing is taking too long to approve all rare earth applications for US companies. But the fact that rare earths are a Trump card for Xi is not lost on anyone. Decades ago, China's isolated leaders didn't understand US politics. That's no longer the case. And it would not be surprising if they've already concluded that if they stand up to Trump, he'll back down. Calling China's bluff in these circumstances would be a massive gamble. It's not that China wants a trade war or would not be hurt by one. Its economy is plagued by problems. But its authoritarian system means Xi can impose more pain on his people than Trump might risk inflicting on Americans. It was almost alone among global trading powers in ignoring Bessent's admonition not to retaliate after Trump's tariff outburst in April. Bruce Stokes, a visiting senior fellow at the German Marshall Fund, argued that Trump's desire to visit Beijing later this year for a summit with Xi could also be crucial. 'This is not just about economics. (Trump) wants to be tough on China, I think that's indisputable,' said Stokes. 'But I think he wants even more so to have the opportunity to go mano a mano in Beijing, both for the optics of it and he believes he's a dealmaker who can strike a deal.' Stokes added: 'The Chinese experts I talk to think that the Chinese think that this guy can be manipulated. 'This guy, you can play him, and we'll see what happens.'' Trump's zeal for one-on-one dealmaking is antithetical to the protocol-laden approach of the Chinese. Chinese negotiators seek to shield their leader by ironing out agreements at lower levels. Trump's team seeks to set up theirs for grand photo-ops that fuel his 'Art of the Deal' ego. There's zero chance that Xi would fly to a meeting with Trump and improvise an agreement, then dole out sycophantic praise for his dealmaking as top European official Ursula von der Leyen did at the weekend. Bessent told CNBC that there was extensive 'pregame' planning in Stockholm, starting with 75 Chinese officials, compared with the 15 in the US delegation. Eventually, the teams were whittled down for the nitty gritty involving Bessent, Greer and Chinese Vice Premier He Lifeng. The Treasury chief insisted that the talks had made 'good progress' toward the US position on a 'clunky' Chinese system of controls on rare earth exports. Vice Premier He said that the talks were constructive and that the two sides would continue to push for a 90-day extension of the pause on reciprocal tariffs. But Bessent cautioned that China had jumped the gun on the pause before Trump weighs in. Of course, presidents make the ultimate decision in foreign policy. But this may be mostly optics. Trump needs to be seen as the big guy. But it's also a measure of his chaotic volatility that nothing is for certain unless he signs off. China's imperviousness to Trump's box of trade tricks is not the only reason why administration gloating is premature. Trade agreements are usually complex, running to thousands of pages after exhaustive negotiations between trade lawyers. The superficial framework agreements released by the White House, by contrast, show that nettlesome disputes in deals with EU and other trade competitors are unresolved. Such skimpy agreements could easily fall apart. Trump might also react to foot-dragging on details by lashing out with tariffs. And recriminations boiling within Europe mean it's not certain that the agreement reached on Sunday in Scotland will survive. Trump's business, personal and political life has always existed in a perpetual cycle of postponing reckonings. It's therefore typical that while he's touting his winning streak on trade now, he has no idea what lies ahead. It will take time to judge how the almost-certain rises in consumer prices will impact the economy. And the shock of tariffs will take months to work through supply chains and procurement schedules drawn up years in advance. This explains why Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell is loath to slash interest rates despite Trump's fury. Tariffs may not kill economic growth and cause a recession, and businesses may adapt to the new certainty of duties between 15% and 20%. Higher costs could be shared by consumers, companies and suppliers in a way that eases some of the impact on voters ahead of next year's midterm elections. But while historically high, the tariffs probably aren't sufficiently punitive to force companies to undertake the massively expensive process of relocating production to the United States — an ostensible justification for Trump's trade wars. And Trump won't be in the Oval Office forever. CEOs may reason that his successor will likely temper protectionism, especially if the economy slows. Other difficulties also loom. Canada, unlike the EU, seems in no mood to sue for peace after Prime Minister Mark Carney won power on visceral anti-Americanism in the electorate. A prolonged trade conflict would hurt Canadians more than Americans, owing to the relative size of the neighbors' economies. But Carney can make things difficult for Trump. A sudden spurt of inflation early next year, perhaps triggered by the Federal Reserve chief Trump will appoint when Powell's term ends, could also undermine the fragile foundation on which the president's trade wins rest. This all explains why a real deal with China is so important. And Beijing knows it, so it's unlikely to fold.