President Donald Trump is threatening to slap a steeper 35% tariff on products from Canada beginning August 1 unless steps are taken to curb the flow of fentanyl over its shared border with the United States.

Trump warned Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney in a letter on Thursday that the United States would hike the rate up from 25% – and possibly more. Still, Canada could avoid some or all of the added tariff, he suggested.

“If Canada works with me to stop the flow of Fentanyl, we will, perhaps, consider an adjustment to this letter. These Tariffs may be modified, upward or downward, depending on our relationship with your country,” the president wrote.

A White House official told The Wall Street Journal that goods in compliance with the U.S.-Mexico-Canada Agreement would at least for now be exempt from the 35% tariff rate — as they had been with the 25% penalty Trump implemented earlier this year.

Canadian goods that are “transshipped,” or products sent to the United States via another country first to evade the tariff on Canada, would still be subject to the heightened rate.

Trump, who noted the larger penalty would be “separate from all Sectoral Tariffs,” railed against Canada’s trade policies. He said they “cause unsustainable trade deficits against the United States” and placed a focus on dairy farmers.

“Canada charges extraordinary Tariffs to our Dairy Farmers — up to 400% — and that is even assuming our Dairy Farmers even have access to sell their products to the people of Canada. The Trade Deficit is a major threat to our Economy, and, indeed, our National Security!” the president wrote.

Trump also mentioned in his letter how Canada previously “retaliated” with its own tariffs rather than “working with” the United States.

The escalation in the tariff fight with the United States’ neighbor to the north comes as the president has prepared an increased blanket tariff for a slate of countries that have either not been notified of increased tariffs yet or have already agreed to a framework of a trade deal with the United States.

“We’re just going to say all of the remaining countries are going to pay, whether it’s 20% or 15%. We’ll work that out now,” Trump told NBC News on Thursday.

“I’d like to do it today,” Trump said of his plan to send letters laying out new tariff schedules. “I’m talking European Union, which is, as you know, many countries, and Canada. We’ll be putting them out over the next couple of hours.”

In recent days, Trump has posted a number of letters warning of new tariff rates.

On Wednesday, Trump posted one of his steepest threats, warning Brazilian President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva that Brazilian products could face a 50% jump in tariffs over the government’s treatment of former Brazilian President Jair Bolsonaro, who is facing charges related to the 2022 election.

“This is nothing more, or less, than an attack on a Political Opponent — Something I know much about!” Trump wrote in a Truth Social post defending Bolsonaro.

“The Great People of Brazil will not stand for what they are doing to their former President. I’ll be watching the WITCH HUNT of Jair Bolsonaro, his family, and thousands of his supporters, very closely. The only Trial that should be happening is a Trial by the Voters of Brazil — It’s called an Election. LEAVE BOLSONARO ALONE!” he wrote.

Supreme Court Justice Ketanji Brown Jackson’s latest opinion pitted her against her fellow liberals on the bench and revealed her to be far less prepared for her weighty role than her peers, according to a legal expert.

Hans von Spakovsky, a senior legal fellow at The Heritage Foundation’s Edwin Meese III Center for Legal and Judicial Studies, said Jackson’s dissent in a Wednesday court opinion showed her as unserious and unfit for the role of Supreme Court justice.

“What it tells me is that Brown Jackson is really at the far end of the spectrum and that the other justices are getting tired of her,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Wire.

Jackson was the lone dissenter in a court opinion that cleared the way for the Trump administration to begin crafting plans to downsize the federal workforce. The junior justice wrote that the majority opinion is “not only truly unfortunate but also hubristic and senseless.”

Justice Sonia Sotomayor, another liberal on the high court, wrote a concurrence siding with the majority

“I agree with Justice Jackson that the President cannot restructure federal agencies in a manner inconsistent with congressional mandates,” wrote Sotomayor. “Here, however, the relevant Executive Order directs agencies to plan reorganizations and reductions in force ‘consistent with applicable law’ … and the resulting joint memorandum from the Office of Management and Budget and Office of Personnel Management reiterates as much.”

The court opinion and the split on the bench suggests that Jackson is ill-equipped to handle the intellectual rigors of the Supreme Court, according to von Spakovsky.

“This case was eight-to-one. Even justices Sotomayor and [Elena] Kagan joined with the majority because they didn’t want a dissent in this particular case,” von Spakovsky told The Daily Wire. “Only the lone dissenter, Brown Jackson, was once again, you know, engaging in an emotional tirade about the idea that — horror, shock — federal employees might actually lose their jobs.”

Jackson has been singled out in other cases as well. In a court decision last month over “birthright citizenship,” Justice Amy Coney Barrett suggested that Jackson’s dissenting argument was vacuous, or at least not motivated by any serious legal theory.

“The principal dissent focuses on conventional legal terrain, like the Judiciary Act of 1789 and our cases on equity,” wrote Barrett. “JUSTICE JACKSON, however, chooses a startling line of attack that is tethered neither to these sources nor, frankly, to any doctrine whatsoever. Waving away attention to the limits on judicial power as a ‘mind-numbingly technical query … she offers a vision of the judicial role that would make even the most ardent defender of judicial supremacy blush.”

“I disagree often with what Justice Kagan and Sotomayor put in their decisions, but they at least try to have a legal basis for what they’re saying,” von Spakovsky said.

Jackson claims Trump’s plans to downsize the federal government is “needless” and “there’s no need for getting rid of federal employees,” von Spakovsky added. “That’s a policy decision. That’s got nothing to do with the law. That’s got nothing to do with the constitutional authority of the president to run the executive branch.”

“I think it’s just another sign that, frankly, she was a big mistake getting put on the court, and that she just doesn’t have the legal acumen to be on the court,” von Spakovsky said. “Sotomayor, Kagan, they do, even though I think they’re often wrong, but I don’t think [Jackson] does.”