Opinion: If Trump Can Tariff Canada, Cities Should Tariff the Suburbs

Let’s take a moment to appreciate the bravado of Donald J. Trump’s trade and tariff logic. Okay, moment is over, let’s not get carried away. During his presidency, Trump launched a global trade war based on a simple—albeit deeply flawed if not completely wrong—idea: if the United States imports more from a country than it exports to it, then it’s being “ripped off.” Never mind the complexities of global trade, supply chains, or foreign exchange. If there’s a trade deficit, then America is losing. And in Trump’s world, the solution was obvious—tariffs. Big ones. On steel, on aluminum, on washing machines, on Canadian maple syrup if need be.

Okay, have you fun. But, let’s take this bold (if wildly simplistic) approach and apply it closer to home. Let’s bring it down to the municipal level—to cities such as Toronto or New York—and ask: if trade deficits between countries are cause for tariffs, what about the one-sided relationship between cities and their surrounding suburbs and bedroom communities?

Because make no mistake: there is a trade imbalance, and it’s been going on for decades. Every weekday morning, highways and transit systems are flooded with suburban commuters pouring into city cores. They come for work, for entertainment, for opportunity. They drive on city streets, park in city lots, use city services, contribute to urban congestion and pollution—and then, at the end of the day, they head back home to their detached homes, bigger yards, generous taxation levels, and local politicians who treat bike lanes like existential threats to freedom.

They are ripping us off!

If we borrow from the Trumpian worldview, this is an unfair deal. One that needs correcting. And if Trump can slap a 25% tariff on Canadian steel because of some imagined slight, then surely it’s time for cities to slap a massive “suburban surcharge” on commuters who treat urban centres like drive-thru job depots.

Urban Tariffs: The Congestion Charge and Beyond

Let’s start with congestion pricing—a very real, very practical idea that cities such as London, England and Stockholm, Sweden have already implemented to great effect. New York City joined them, with a congestion charge for vehicles entering Manhattan below 60th Street. The purpose? Reduce traffic, cut emissions, and—crucially—raise revenue to reinvest in transit infrastructure. Sure, Trump could sign yet another executive order of some sort and bypass local democracy to end it all at any point. But facts are facts.

Is it working? Yes, in a big way. Tens of thousands fewer cars enter Manhattan every day. Delays are down, complaints are down, it’s quieter, it’s better.

And just like that, a city tariff is born.

Opponents, predictably, are crying foul. Suburban drivers, delivery companies, and outer-borough commuters have all weighed in. But here’s the thing: city residents already pay more to live in cities—higher rents and property taxes amongst other things. We deal with denser living, noise, and constant construction. And we do it because cities offer something no suburb can—vibrant, walkable communities, cultural diversity, a rich tapestry of daily life. The least suburban drivers can do is chip in for the privilege of accessing all that. Call it an import tax on the urban experience.

But why stop at congestion pricing? We should toll all highways running into major urban centres during rush hour. Or, better yet carve car-free or car-flight zones in these areas like what’s happening in Paris.

The days of the car running things in cities should have ended decades ago, but city tariffs can put a nail in the coffin.

This is how we level the playing field, Trump-style.

In Toronto, they are especially familiar with this lopsided arrangement. The city is the economic engine of the province—and arguably the country—but when it comes to governance, funding, and transit planning, Queen’s Park often has the final say, and often doesn’t seem to care at all about the well-being of the residents of the city. The province has downloaded responsibilities onto the city without commensurate funding. Meanwhile, cities in outlying areas benefit from Toronto’s magnetic pull while resisting the kinds of investments—public transit, density, social infrastructure—that make city life work.

Suburban residents commute to Toronto for work, make their money here, then drive it back home to spend in communities with fewer people per square kilometre, lower housing costs, and municipal councils that act like they’re at war with urbanism.

In Trump terms: they’re taking our jobs, our money, and not paying their fair share. It’s a rip off!

What Makes a Livable City?

Livability isn’t just about parks and bike lanes—it’s about dignity, accessibility, equity and a shared investment in place. A livable city ensures that people can get around without owning a car. That they have access to good transit, affordable housing, cultural spaces, and essential services. It’s about communities designed for people, not just vehicles.

But all of this costs money. Bike lanes don’t build themselves. Neither do subways or daycares or community housing. And while city dwellers pay the taxes and live the density required to make all this viable, they’re often left subsidizing the very people who gripe the loudest about paying for it—namely, the suburbanites.

Toronto, for example, is facing a dire fiscal situation. The city is staring down a multi-billion-dollar budget shortfall in the coming years, exacerbated by years of provincial cuts and a lack of reliable revenue tools. Yet the same people who oppose a vehicle registration tax or parking levies—tools that would fall heavily on suburban drivers—are happy to clog our roads and then protest on social media about how long it takes to get downtown.

This isn’t just bad economics. It’s bad urbanism.

The Moral Case for an Urban Tariff

Yes, this is a tongue-in-cheek argument. But there’s a serious point here. Cities are shouldering an increasing burden with fewer tools and more resistance. The notion that everyone should have equal access to the benefits of the city without contributing to its upkeep is not only unfair—it’s unsustainable.

If we want livable, resilient cities, we need new revenue models, new tools, and new policies. We need to rethink the free ride that the suburbs, and more specifically car culture, have been getting for decades.

After all, if a tariff is good enough for Trump to protect America’s interests, surely cities can borrow a page from the same playbook to protect their own.

So the next time someone from the suburbs complains about a $15 congestion charge, remind them: it’s not a tax—it’s a tariff.