Detroit, MI — New reporting has intensified scrutiny around President Donald Trump’s recent threat to block the opening of the Gordie Howe International Bridge, after it emerged that a senior Trump administration official met privately with the family that owns the competing Ambassador Bridge just hours before the president’s remarks.
According to The New York Times and reporting summarized by MLive, Matthew Moroun — whose family has controlled the Ambassador Bridge for decades — met in Washington with U.S. Secretary of Commerce Howard Lutnick on Monday, Feb. 9. Shortly after that meeting, Lutnick reportedly spoke with President Trump. Soon thereafter, Trump posted on Truth Social that the United States should own “at least half” of the Gordie Howe International Bridge and suggested the project had been mishandled, despite years of prior agreements and construction.
The timing has raised serious questions about whether private commercial interests influenced presidential threats against a publicly funded, binational infrastructure project critical to U.S.–Canada trade.
A bridge with high economic stakes
The Gordie Howe International Bridge, connecting Detroit to Windsor, Ontario, is one of the largest infrastructure projects in North America. The crossing is designed to relieve congestion at the Ambassador Bridge, which currently handles a significant share of cross-border truck traffic and generates substantial toll revenue for its private owners.
Under the 2012 Canada–Michigan Crossing Agreement, the Gordie Howe Bridge is owned jointly by the U.S. and Canada, with Canada fronting the multibillion-dollar construction cost. Those costs are expected to be repaid through future toll revenues once the bridge opens later this year. U.S. taxpayers were not required to finance construction.
For the Moroun family, the bridge represents long-standing competition. The family has repeatedly challenged the project in court and, during Trump’s first term, ran television ads urging the administration to intervene and stop the crossing.
Trump’s reversal draws attention
Trump’s latest comments mark a sharp reversal from his own past public statements. In 2017, Trump and then–Canadian Prime Minister Justin Trudeau jointly praised the Gordie Howe Bridge as a “vital economic link” between the two countries. No objections about ownership or fairness were raised at the time.
Now, however, Trump has framed the project as a symbol of broader grievances against Canada, mixing complaints about tariffs, trade with China, and past U.S. administrations — even though the legal framework for the bridge was negotiated and ratified years ago and reaffirmed throughout his first term.
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney reportedly contacted Trump shortly after the comments, emphasizing that the United States already benefits from the project and that American steel, labor, and suppliers were used extensively during construction.
Conflict of interest concerns
While no evidence has been presented that laws were broken, ethics experts note that the sequence of events raises red flags. A private bridge owner meeting with a cabinet secretary, followed almost immediately by a presidential threat targeting a competing public bridge, invites questions about influence, access, and favoritism.
Michigan leaders across party lines have expressed alarm, warning that political interference at this late stage could undermine international agreements, disrupt trade, and damage U.S. credibility with Canada — America’s largest trading partner.
What happens next
The Gordie Howe International Bridge is nearing completion, with testing already underway. Any attempt by the U.S. government to block or delay its opening would almost certainly trigger legal challenges, diplomatic fallout, and potential retaliation from Canada.
For now, the administration has not clarified whether Trump’s remarks reflect an official policy position or a negotiating tactic. But the reported meeting between the Ambassador Bridge owner and a top Trump official has ensured that questions about whose interests are being served — public or private — will not fade quietly.
As the bridge’s opening approaches, the controversy underscores a larger issue: whether critical infrastructure decisions are being driven by national economic needs or by the influence of powerful private stakeholders behind closed doors.
No comments:
Post a Comment