Editor’s note: This post was updated on September 18, 2026 to reflect the Presidential Memorandum discussed below.
Introduction
As part of a “trade war” raging between Canada and the United States, on September 8, 2026 President Trump announced on his “Truth Social” platform that he would direct that Canadian-origin products be removed from the U.S. government’s leading catalogue contract. But on September 16, 2026, the White House changed course and announced a broader review of Canadian access to U.S. government procurement — a new approach, focused on civilian agency procurements, which appeared to fold procurement issues into broader negotiations between the two nations. This updated post reviews those developments.
The Truth Social Post
On September 8, 2026, President Donald Trump posted to his “Truth Social” page that he would direct the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) to remove Canadian-origin products from GSA’s Multiple Award Schedule contracts:
Source. President Trump’s declaration came in the midst of a bitter “trade war” between Canada and the United States. Among other measures, Trump has issued executive orders sharply increasing U.S. tariffs on a range of Canadian products. (CSIS analysis.)
The WTO Government Procurement Agreement and the GSA Contracts
The General Services Administration’s Multiple Award Schedule (MAS) contracts have revenues of approximately US$50 billion per year. They are standing catalogue contracts, similar to “framework agreements” used around the world, and analogous to “Standing Offer” contracts in the Canadian government. GSA hosts an online catalogue which allows users to research the country of origin for each product offered under the MAS contracts.
The GSA MAS solicitation recognizes that the MAS contracts are covered by the United States’ trade agreements, including the World Trade Organization’s Government Procurement Agreement (GPA), per standard clause FAR 52.225-5. Both Canada and the United States are members of the GPA, which generally opens member nations’ public procurement markets to vendors from other members.
An open question is whether, per Canada’s general “Buy Canada” policy framework, Canada’s interim policy on reciprocal public procurement access will be implicated by the Trump administration’s actions against Canadian vendors. (Fasken analysis of the policy)
The Trump administration has expressed frustration with the GPA (see below), which the administration argues affords foreign vendors unfair access to U.S. public procurement markets.
President Trump’s Memorandum on Canadian Reciprocity
On September 16, 2026, President Trump followed up on his earlier Truth Social message. He issued a presidential memorandum directing actions against Canadian-origin products being bought by the U.S. government. Although a White House fact sheet suggested that Trump was taking sweeping measures to end Canadian vendors’ access to U.S. government procurement (and some in the business press read it as such), in fact the Trump administration may be taking a more cautious approach.
Basis for Action: Trump’s memorandum said the United States was taking action because Canada (both the national government and the provinces) have imposed Canadian preferences that impair U.S. access to Canadian public procurement. Trump’s memorandum pointed out that Canadian companies have access to the U.S. federal procurement market under the WTO Government Procurement Agreement (GPA).
Putting Dollars to Trade Access: Notably, Trump’s memorandum put a value on that access under the GPA : US$280 billion annually. It is not clear how that figure was derived, but it is – in gross terms – only 1/3 of the roughly US$800 billion U.S. federal procurement spend. But the U.S. Defense Department’s procurement spend is approximately 2/3 of federal procurement. For the reasons detailed below, the White House calculation thus appeared to assume that Canada will continue to have access to the U.S. defense procurement market under a separate reciprocal defense procurement agreement between Canada and the United States. The Canadian Commercial Corporation (a government agency in Ottawa) facilitates U.S. Defense Department purchases of Canadian goods and services through a special arrangement between the two countries.
Launching an Administrative Process Focused on Civilian Agency Procurement and Which Honors the Government Procurement Agreement: Trump’s memorandum then directed that U.S. trade officials and federal procurement officials (including those who write the Federal Acquisition Regulation), “to the extent appropriate and consistent with law, identify and take all steps permitted by applicable law with respect to Canadian origin items in the Federal civil procurement system that can, where warranted, be removed or made non-available for purchase.” (Emphasis added.) (ExecutiveGov analysis) The memorandum, read carefully, thus seems to confirm that the Trump administration’s focus is on civilian procurement – and will leave defense procurement alone.
Equally importantly, by its terms Trump’s memorandum deferred to existing U.S. law which incorporates the WTO Government Procurement Agreement, the most important trade agreement internationally for opening public procurement markets. As noted, both the United States and Canada are members of the Government Procurement Agreement, which gives Canadian vendors access to the U.S. federal procurement market. In an interesting twist, the Trump memorandum thus may reinforce the Government Procurement Agreement’s role in U.S. procurement – although some had feared the Trump administration might try to demolish it (see above).
President Trump’s memorandum calls for U.S. agencies to stop federal agencies’ access to Canadian-origin items only if that is lawful and “warranted,” but does not explain when removal might be warranted. Perhaps because of the costs and potential legal challenges to removing Canadian access, and the possible disruption to a vitally important U.S.-Canada relationship in defense, the Trump memorandum hints that federal procurement officials could reserve action unless the U.S. Trade Representative signals that cutting Canadian access is indeed warranted. What is clear is that the Trump memorandum explicitly states the converse – that Canadian access might be restored if “in the Trade Representative’s opinion” the Canadian government has reversed its protectionist policies. All this suggests that government procurement is being folded into the broader U.S.-Canada trade negotiations, coordinated by the U.S. Trade Representative.
Open Question: the GSA Schedule Contracts: What is left unresolved is whether the U.S. General Services Administration (GSA) will follow behind the agency action called for by President Trump’s memorandum, or will immediately implement Trump’s Truth Social call to eliminate Canadian-origin items from the GSA schedule contracts (see above). If GSA acts unilaterally, President Trump’s memorandum – which recognizes the WTO Government Procurement Agreement’s central role in U.S. procurement law – might bolster contractors’ claims that the agency should honor the GPA’s protections for Canadian-origin goods. The contractors further might argue that removing Canadian-origin items from the GSA schedule contracts would be inconsistent with Trump’s memorandum, because while the memorandum appears to target only Canadian vendors’ access to civilian agency procurements, removing items from the GSA schedule contracts also would affect Canadian vendors’ access to U.S. defense agencies since they too purchase from the GSA schedule contracts.
Conclusion: A More Measured Approach
Although President Trump originally called on Truth Social for the General Services Administration to eliminate Canadian-origin products from GSA’s schedule contracts, his subsequent memorandum seemed more tempered. Trump’s memorandum acknowledged the central role that the WTO Government Procurement Agreement plays in trade with Canada (and, by implication, in U.S. procurement law generally). The Trump memorandum suggested that his administration will try to use Canadian access to U.S. civilian – not defense – agencies as leverage to persuade the Canadian government to lower barriers to U.S. vendors. Ultimately, the Trump administration seemed to present a more measured approach to Canadian access to U.S. federal procurement, as part of broader U.S.-Canada trade negotiations.
Background for Researchers: Prior Court Decisions on Trade Agreements and Procurement
Should vendors challenge the Trump administration’s action in court, attention may turn to the enforceability of U.S. trade agreements regarding procurement. That issue was litigated in two separate lines of cases (Per Arsleff and Vectrus Services), both stemming from a prior U.S. agreement with the Danish government to limit procurements to Danish and Greenlandic firms at a U.S. Air Force base in northwestern Greenland (a Danish territory).
When the U.S. Air Force awarded a services contract at the Greenland base to a subsidiary of a U.S. firm, Danish and Greenlandic companies protested at the U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO). In its decision denying that initial protest, GAO focused on the eligibility terms of the Air Force solicitation, which GAO noted were strictly met by the awardee. Per Aarsleff A/S, Comp. Gen. B-410782 (Feb. 18, 2015). In sustaining a follow-on bid protest to the U.S. Court of Federal Claims, Per Aarsleff A/S v. United States, 121 Fed. Cl. 603, 622 (2015), the court held that the “treaty bar” of 28 U.S.C. § 1502, which bars the Court of Federal Claims from adjudicating claims under international treaties and agreements, did not apply because the court was merely using the U.S.-Danish agreement as a tool in interpreting the terms of the governing solicitation. 121 Fed. Cl. at 622. On appeal of that decision, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit reversed on the narrower ground that the solicitation’s description of eligible contractors was patently ambiguous, and so should have been protested before award. Per Aarsleff A/S v. United States, Fed. Cir. No. 2015-5111, 2016 WL 3869790 (June 23, 2016).
More recently, Vectrus Services A/S v. United States (U.S. Court of Federal Claims 2023), involved the same diplomatic agreement with Denmark and the same base in Greenland. The Court of Federal Claims, per Senior Judge Marian Blank Horn, ruled that the “treaty bar” did not exclude the Court of Federal Claims’ jurisdiction; instead, as in the Court of Federal Claims’ earlier decision in Per Arsleff (above), she used the prior agreement with Denmark as a “backdrop” to understand the Air Force’s actions.
For more information on U.S. trade agreements relating to procurement, see Christopher R. Yukins & Allen Green, International Trade Agreements and U.S. Procurement Law (2018), in The Contractor’s Guide to International Procurement (American Bar Association 2018) (Erin Loraine Felix & Marques Peterson, eds.), and Jean Heilman Grier, The International Procurement System: Liberalization & Protectionism (2022) (available on Amazon.com)
