From the perspective of U.S. trade negotiators, the primary goal is to ensure that trade agreements are enforced strictly and that market access is truly open. The argument here is that 'credit' is not a currency in international trade; rather, the focus must remain on whether the policy changes actually remove barriers for American businesses. If a trade irritant remains, even partially, the U.S. is obligated to maintain pressure until the issue is fully resolved.
Proponents of this view argue that the U.S. has a responsibility to its own industries, such as dairy farmers or lumber producers, to ensure they are not disadvantaged by foreign policies. When Canada makes a correction, it is often seen as simply fulfilling an existing obligation rather than doing a favor that requires extra praise. This approach is intended to maintain a high standard of compliance across all trade partners.
For American stakeholders, this firm stance is essential for protecting jobs and maintaining a level playing field. If the U.S. were to offer praise for partial measures, it might signal that less-than-full compliance is acceptable. By withholding credit, the U.S. maintains leverage, which is a standard tool in high-stakes international negotiations.
Ultimately, this strategy is about accountability. The U.S. government must demonstrate to its domestic constituents that it is actively fighting for their interests. By focusing on tangible results rather than diplomatic pleasantries, the U.S. ensures that trade agreements remain effective and that the rules of the road are followed by all parties involved.