By Fen Osler Hampson

August 12, 2025

We should know by now that Donald Trump does not really negotiate trade deals; he stages shakedowns in broad daylight. His “buy‑down” approach is less about the painstaking give‑and‑take of traditional diplomacy and more about extracting imperial tribute under the glare of klieg lights. Tariffs are his weapon of choice, aimed even at America’s closest allies, and relief only comes when they pay up with splashy pledges, investment promises, and market concessions.

This is not simply bravado, but a deliberate strategy of which Commerce Secretary Howard Lutnick is one of its chief architects and most ardent champions.

In his podcasts and media commentary, Lutnick has laid out Trump’s game plan in plain view. Tariffs are the stick. The carrot is the relief that comes with agreeing to billions in new investment in the US, energy purchases, and trade access for American goods and services. Instead of nuanced dialogue about integrated supply chains or pursuing joint gains, Trump “negotiations” are high-stakes theater.

The new rules of the game are evident in Trump’s recent negotiations with South Korea, Japan, and the European Union. Faced with the prospect of crippling tariffs, South Korea chose to play along with Trump, securing a 15% tariff rate in exchange for its commitment to invest $350 billion in US industries, thus avoiding a crippling 25% tariff rate. Much of this investment reflects long-term ambitions or previously planned ones, not necessarily “new” money. But the quid pro quos garnered headlines, allowing Trump to declare victory.

Similarly, Japan’s response to Trump’s shakedown is promises of massive, multiyear investments and loans in sectors Trump favors, such as semiconductors, autos, and energy, along with promises to open Japan’s highly restricted agricultural sector to rice and other agricultural imports. Given the political peril of the deal, there was a lot of fudging by the Japanese government after the agreement was announced. Tokyo has stressed that the agreement is flexible and conditional, guided by market realities and the interests of Japanese businesses. But that has not stopped Trump from crowing victory yet again.

The same is true of the EU’s agreement with Trump and its promises of $750b in energy, along with a pledge to invest $600 billion in the US. More political theatre that is sharply at odds with what supply chains, infrastructure, markets, price realities, and Europe’s cumbersome regulatory environment and bureaucracy can realistically support or deliver.

And it is not just governments that get the Trump shakedown treatment. When Apple’s CEO, Tim Cook, appeared with Trump at a White House event to announce what was billed as billions in new U.S. investments, the move was widely seen as helping Apple secure relief from China‑related import tariffs. Apple was already planning significant new investments in its US facilities. Still, by repackaging these plans for maximum political impact—and letting Trump take the victory lap—Cook provided just the kind of deference that Trump relishes.

In every case, the optics matter more than the fine print. Lutnick has repeatedly emphasized that the goal is to open markets abroad, reduce barriers for American companies, and create jobs at home; it is also, crucially, about obliterating the norms of American global leadership by forging deals that flatter an autocratic president.

As Canada struggles in its talks with Washington, it confronts a genuine conundrum. Do we follow the lead of Europeans and other countries that have humored Trump and give him what he wants in his “shake-em-on-down” game? Do we retaliate with “elbows up” as some, like Ontario’s Premier Doug Ford, argue by imposing further sanctions and countervailing tariffs of our own? Do we simply rag the puck, hoping that circumstances will change in our favor, like a court ruling that forces Trump to put his tariffs on hold? Or do we try to entice Trump with an even bigger prize, a comprehensive “grand bargain” encompassing the entire bilateral relationship, as some are suggesting?

Prime Minister Mark Carney is finding himself squeezed on many fronts: from provincial premiers, the leader of the opposition and newspaper editorials, to start showing results and consummate a deal soon; from Trump to capitulate and give him what he wants; and from key industry and labour leaders in those sectors most affected by Trump’s tariffs who say that the only viable deal is one that takes us back to the status quo ante, i.e., zero-tariff trade.

In exceptional times, high-stakes negotiations with volatile and unpredictable leaders require more than blunt retaliation, particularly if they are more powerful. And in the absence of any diplomatic precedent, one useful model for best practices in such conditions may be the award-winning and critically acclaimed series The Sopranos. David Chase’s masterpiece — a morality tale that was always larger than its New Jersey Mob subculture —   may be relevant to current circumstances for what it reveals about human nature, power asymmetries, negotiation under extreme duress (the proverbial barrel of a gun,) and how to contend with powerful rivals who specialize in intimidation.

Tony Soprano succeeds not simply by resorting to force, but by knowing when to hold back, when to show respect, when to work his network, and, most importantly, how to control outcomes. Here are five rules of negotiation, extracted from The Sopranos, which are relevant to Canada’s current circumstances:

• Don’t Escalate: Just as Tony avoided all-out war with bigger Mafia bosses, negotiators facing punitive tariff threats should respond with calculated restraint, rather than engaging in tit-for-tat escalation which may be hard to control with a bigger and more powerful adversary. This protects options and keeps negotiations moving along. In the Canada–US trade relationship, especially under President Trump’s rolling, volatile threats, the dangers of escalation are profound, particularly if Trump were to — in the Armageddon scenario described by Lawrence L. Herman in the Globe and Mail — completely abrogate the Canada–United States–Mexico Agreement (CUSMA), which currently shields a vast swath of Canadian exports from steep US tariffs. CUSMA compliance has been a “lifeline” for Canadian exporters: anywhere from 85-95% of Canadian goods imported into the US are exempt from tariffs under this agreement.
• Show Respect Without Groveling: Tony routinely acknowledged the authority of other Mafia bosses, especially Uncle Junior, but he never grovelled or gave them what they wanted up front because he knew they would simply come back for more. He always understood his own interests and bottom line. Similarly, recognizing a trading partner’s status and leverage but standing firm by not conceding too much or too quickly gets you respect without weakening your own position.
• Negotiate Specifics, Not Principles: Tony Soprano pulled opponents away from rigid principles and into bargaining over concrete terms. When Carmine Lupertazzi demanded a hefty cut of a construction deal, Tony ignored his assertions about fairness and haggled the percentage down from 40% to 15%, letting Carmine save face while cutting his real losses. In trade talks, the same rule applies. Arguing whether tariffs are “fair” or “efficient” rarely shifts an entrenched position. It is more effective to focus on numbers, timelines, quotas, carve‑outs, and exemptions—measurable terms that protect national interests while allowing the other side to claim a win. The real victory lies in reshaping what is being decided, not in winning the abstract argument.
• Use Intermediaries to Deliver Threats: Another lesson from Tony Soprano is that using trusted proxies to deliver threats can often be more effective than issuing them directly yourself. Intermediaries not only provide plausible deniability and buffer the primary leader from a potential backlash, but they can also tailor the message for maximum psychological effect. In the context of Canada-US trade talks, Mark Carney should apply this strategy by leveraging Premier Doug Ford as messenger. Well-regarded by conservative American media outlets like Fox News, Ford can credibly threaten countermeasures, such as restrictions on electricity sales, if the US pushes hostile terms. This approach amplifies the seriousness of Canada’s position, making it clear that Canada does have leverage and is willing to use it, signaling resolve while fortifying our negotiating stance.
• Leverage Connections: Tony’s most significant assets were often those outside of his immediate family circle, such as his business contacts, political allies, and friends whom he could mobilize in his favor. As the damaging effects of Trump’s tariffs now begin to bite into American industry and consumers’ pocketbooks, activating industry and union voices in the US even more vigorously than we have up to now, along with Congressional leaders, heavy hitters on Wall Street, and other key stakeholders who are sympathetic to our cause (and there are many), will bring meaningful pressure to bear on the White House.

The overall lesson from The Sopranos is that when navigating fraught relations with a stronger, ruthless, and unpredictable adversary, it is best not to match their aggressive tactics with your own. Tony’s success hinged on restraint, strategic patience, and his ability to protect his long-term interests by picking his battles carefully, leveraging his networks, and not reacting impulsively to provocation.

For Canada, this means crafting a response that is resolute yet measured, blending tactical countermeasures with broader coalition-building efforts. And never forgetting the words of the man himself: “You don’t have to love me, but you will respect me.”

Policy Contributing Writer Fen Osler Hampson, FRSC, is the Chancellor’s Professor and Professor of International Affairs at Carleton University, and President of the World Refugee & Migration Council. He is Co-Chair of the Expert Group on Canada-US Relations.