The Trump administration’s use of tariffs on Mexico, Canada, and China was never solely about trade but was instead a broader strategy to curb the flow of fentanyl into the United States, according to National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett. In an interview on ABC News’ This Week, Hassett pushed back against claims that the administration was engaging in a traditional trade war, instead framing the tariffs as a tool to force foreign governments to take the opioid crisis more seriously.
“What happened was that we launched a drug war, not a trade war,” Hassett said, emphasizing that economic pressure was applied to ensure that neighboring countries stopped shipping fentanyl across American borders. He noted that as these nations began making progress in restricting the flow of the dangerous drug, the administration relaxed some of the tariffs in response. “That drug war is something that’s been going on since really the beginning of the Trump administration,” he added.
The impact of fentanyl on American communities has been catastrophic, with overdose deaths skyrocketing in recent years. The administration’s approach tied trade negotiations to this crisis, attempting to leverage economic penalties against countries that failed to take sufficient action. While critics often framed the tariffs as harmful to American businesses, Hassett argued that they were an essential tool in securing cooperation on an issue that has left countless American families devastated.
“We launched a drug war, not a trade war — and it was part of a negotiation to get Canada and Mexico to stop shipping fentanyl across our borders," Pres. Trump’s economic adviser Kevin Hassett says of the administration’s tariffs. https://t.co/vbFR5Md1S9 pic.twitter.com/C2qC94yDx2
— This Week (@ThisWeekABC) March 9, 2025
Hassett also pointed to an upcoming study, expected in April, that would highlight the damage inflicted on the U.S. economy by foreign nations imposing tariffs on American goods. This, he suggested, would further justify the administration’s approach to reciprocal tariffs. “Between now and then, we’ve got the drug war which we’re hopefully going to solve by the end of the month,” he said. He expressed optimism that authorities would be able to disrupt cartel operations and significantly reduce the fentanyl supply.
Beyond the immediate drug crisis, Hassett stressed that the administration was working to correct long-standing trade imbalances. “Just about every country on Earth charges a much higher tariff than we do,” he noted, explaining that the goal was to create an incentive for other nations to lower their tariffs rather than simply increasing America’s in retaliation.
The strategy revealed the administration’s belief that economic leverage could be a powerful tool not just in trade but in national security matters as well. Rather than viewing tariffs in isolation, the White House positioned them as part of a broader effort to address issues that have plagued the U.S. for years. The fentanyl crisis, fueled by lax enforcement abroad, required decisive action, and the administration’s approach sought to force foreign governments to take responsibility for their role in the epidemic.
The reality is that America has long been at a disadvantage in trade negotiations, often facing higher tariffs from other nations while offering low barriers in return. Meanwhile, the crisis at the border—whether in terms of drugs or illegal crossings—has continued to escalate. By linking economic pressure to security concerns, the administration underscored its commitment to putting American interests first. While some have criticized the method, it represented a clear acknowledgment that failing to act has only allowed these crises to deepen.
