Six hours after President Trump said its products "aren't good enough" and should no longer be sold in America, Bombardier, the Canadian manufacturer of business jets, answered with a press release that opens by saying, "The American aerospace industry is a clear winner on trade and exports." The release never mentions Trump, tariffs, Canada's government, Gulfstream, or the word "ban," and it doesn't dispute "not good enough." What it does do is count its extensive investment in the US: 3,500 direct employees across ten US states, a supply chain of "approximately 2,800 American companies across 47 states,” "over $2.5 billion spent with suppliers each year." The wings for "the world's fastest business jet" made by about 600 people in Red Oak, Texas; flight controls made near Los Angeles; a new facility coming in Fort Wayne, Indiana; a defense unit headquartered in Wichita that modifies Global jets for the US Army. It almost reads like an economic impact study because that's what it is, and the audience it's written for is not consumers but politicians who need supporting talking points.

The IAM labor union who represents machinists and aerospace workers said on Tuesday, "The war on workers in the United States, Canada and elsewhere must come to an end."

And three days later, Bombardier is still the only large company on either side of the border I can find with a public statement of its own. More on that in a minute.

But for Bombardier, detailing the investment in the US seems to be doing what it intended to do. Sen. Jerry Moran of Kansas posted on X at 6:47 Monday evening that "the presence of Bombardier in Wichita supports a local workforce of more than a thousand employees," and that "this afternoon, I reached out to the Trump administration to make certain the President is aware of the significant contributions of Bombardier to Kansas." Sen. Roger Marshall followed with "over 1,200 Kansas jobs," and Congressman Ron Estes with the supply chain and the military.

Bombardier's release came two hours after Moran's post, and the Wichita headcounts the senators used aren't in it. So those numbers were already sitting on their desks, which tells you this communication and coordination existed long before Monday.

And it should have, since Trump first named Bombardier on January 29, threatening to decertify its jets until Canada certified Gulfstream's. So Monday was the second time Bombardier’s name came up and a six-hour turnaround on a document that reads like a study is what preparation looks like. By Tuesday the story in most outlets was Kansas jobs, not "not good enough." The stock opened down 6.4 percent in Toronto and had clawed back half of that by lunch, per Reuters.

How are brands pricing their silence

Silence can be strategic. And in this instance, Harley-Davidson's silence is entirely rational. Its bikes now carry Canada's 50 percent tariff, and its only public statement so far was that it had no comment. But let’s dig in Harley’s scar tissue here.

In June 2018, Harley said that it would move some production for European customers to Thailand to get around the EU's retaliatory tariffs. Trump spent a week going after them saying, they were "the first to wave the White Flag." "The beginning of the end, they surrendered." A boycott against Harley, he said, would be "great." So Harley learned what it costs to be named by President Trump.

Now look at where the business sits today: a fourth straight year of declining sales, down 32 percent from the 2021 peak, $67 million in tariff costs last year, and a CEO, Artie Starrs, new since October with a turnaround built on dealer health and cheaper bikes for younger riders. Canada isn't broken out in Harley's reporting, it sits inside a North America number that's overwhelmingly US. So the calculus being done here is that this is a small market, we have a president who has personally attacked you before, and a turnaround that can't afford a week on Truth Social. I'd price the strategic silence the same way.

Diageo's silence is protecting an ambiguity, which is different but perhaps more interesting. Crown Royal is the brand keeping Diageo's US business afloat, so the exposure is certainly material. But technically, the ban is on packaged alcohol, and bulk whisky gets the 50 percent tariff instead. Diageo has spent the past year closing its Amherstburg, Ontario bottling plant and moving US-bound volume, in its own words, "closer to consumers in the US." So if a meaningful share of Crown Royal now crosses the border in bulk and gets bottled south of it, the ban barely touches the brand. So saying anything outloud just ends up costing Diageo far more.

Molson Coors and Labatt are rounding error cases. Their US brands are overwhelmingly brewed in the US, the cross-border volume that's on the list is small, and there's very little to say, so they don't say it. That's a response proportionate to the business.

So if you have exposure here, the way I’d think about a response strategy is to understand how material the market is, how likely you are to get called out by name if you speak, and what speaking reveals. Against this framework, Bombardier's statement was actually the low risk move, because the risk of being called out had already happened.

Who's on your watch list this week that isn't on mine? Drop me a line: [email protected]