Tag: Michigan

Trump Threatens to Block Opening of Key U.S.–Canada Border Bridge
President Donald Trump is once again putting America First by leveraging his negotiating prowess to demand fair treatment from our northern neighbor, threatening to halt the opening of the Gordie Howe International Bridge between Detroit, Michigan, and Windsor, Ontario. In a bold Truth Social post on Monday, Trump declared he “will not allow” the $4.7 billion project to proceed until Canada compensates the U.S. for decades of what he calls “very unfair” dealings. This move exemplifies Trump’s unapologetic style: using economic pressure to secure better deals for American workers, taxpayers, and industries long shortchanged in lopsided trade relationships.
The bridge, a six-lane span named after Canadian hockey legend Gordie Howe, has been under construction since 2018 and is slated for an early 2026 opening, according to the Windsor-Detroit Bridge Authority (WDBA). Financed primarily by the Canadian government but publicly owned by both Canada and Michigan under a 2012 Crossing Agreement, it’s touted as a “once-in-a-generation undertaking” to boost cross-border commerce. With U.S. and Canadian entry ports and connections to Michigan’s road network, the project promises to ease congestion at the busy Ambassador Bridge, facilitating the $700 billion annual trade between the two nations.
Yet, Trump sees an opportunity to rectify imbalances. “I will not allow this bridge to open until the United States is fully compensated for everything we have given them, and also, importantly, Canada treats the United States with the Fairness and Respect that we deserve,” he wrote. “We will start negotiations, IMMEDIATELY. With all that we have given them, we should own, perhaps, at least one half of this asset.” From a conservative, America First lens, this is spot-on: Why should American steel—used on the Michigan side—and U.S. infrastructure support a project that benefits Canada disproportionately? Trump’s stance echoes his successful renegotiation of NAFTA into the USMCA, which leveled the playing field for American manufacturers and farmers.
Critics on the left, like Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin (D), decried it as “punishing Michiganders for a trade war he started,” claiming Trump’s actions pushed Canada toward a trade deal with China. But conservatives counter that Democratic appeasement has allowed allies like Canada to freeload on U.S. security and markets while pursuing deals with adversaries. Windsor Mayor Drew Dilkens called the post “insane,” hoping for midterm changes, but such reactions ignore the real issue: Canada’s history of dairy protections, softwood lumber disputes, and now cozying up to China amid U.S. tariffs.
Spanning the Detroit River, the Gordie Howe International Bridge will connect southern Detroit, Michigan, and Windsor, Ontario, when completed. ( Dominic Gwinn/Middle East Images via AFP via Getty Images)
The Gordie Howe International Bridge under construction in Windsor, Ontario, earlier this month. (Carlos Osorio/Reuters)
Spanning the Detroit River, the Gordie Howe International Bridge will be the longest cable-stayed bridge in North America. (Business Wire/AP)
The Gordie Howe Bridge between Windsor, Ont., and Detroit, seen here on May 10, 2024, is expected to open sometime this year after almost a decade of construction. (Radio-Canada / Patrick Morrell)

Candace Laing, president and CEO of the Canadian Chamber of Commerce, labeled blocking bridges “self-defeating,” urging to “build bridges” instead. Yet, from an America First viewpoint, Trump’s threat is a masterclass in leverage—much like his tariffs on Canadian aircraft last month, which addressed unfair subsidies and protected U.S. aviation jobs. That salvo followed clashes at Davos, where Trump traded barbs with Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney and revoked Canada’s invitation to the “Board of Peace,” his initiative for global conflict resolution.
The White House, Canadian government, and WDBA did not immediately respond to requests for comment, leaving unclear how Trump might enforce a delay—perhaps through federal permits, border controls, or negotiations. But legal experts note the president’s broad authority over international commerce and security, especially given the bridge’s role in trade flows vulnerable to exploitation.
This isn’t isolated antagonism; it’s strategic recalibration. Under Trump, the U.S. has demanded reciprocity from allies, yielding wins like increased NATO spending and fairer trade pacts. Canada, despite being a key partner, has faced scrutiny for policies that disadvantage American exporters. Trump’s approach may ruffle feathers, but it prioritizes U.S. interests—boosting domestic manufacturing, securing borders, and ensuring allies pull their weight.
Michigan Republicans like Rep. Tim Walberg have echoed support, noting the bridge could enhance trade if terms are fair. “President Trump is right to demand compensation—America has subsidized too much for too long,” Walberg said in a statement. As midterms loom, this could rally the base, reminding voters of Trump’s deal-making that puts jobs and security first.
While Democrats decry division, conservatives see strength: A president unafraid to negotiate hard for America’s benefit. If Canada comes to the table, both nations win; if not, Trump ensures no more one-sided deals.
February 10, 2026
Trump Urges End to ‘Epidemic of Violence’ Following Mormon Church Shooting
Firefighters work, September 28, 2025, to put out a fire at The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Grand Blanc, Michigan, after a gunman shot multiple people, according to police. © Constance Deming
President Donald Trump on Sunday called for an end to an “epidemic of violence” across the United States following a shooting that left casualties at a Mormon church in Michigan, calling it a “targeted attack” against Christians.
Trump said in a post on Truth Social that he was “briefed on the horrendous shooting” and that the FBI was “immediately” on the scene after the shooting.
“This appears to be yet another targeted attack on Christians in the United States of America,” Trump wrote in the post. “The Trump Administration will keep the Public posted, as we always do. In the meantime, PRAY for the victims, and their families.”
The president added in all caps that “this epidemic of violence in our country must end, immediately.”
Trump appeared to reference recent high-profile shootings, including a mass shooting at a Catholic church last month, the assassination of conservative commentator Charlie Kirk earlier this month, and a shooting that left one person dead at an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) building in Dallas several days ago. A shooting at a North Carolina marina on Saturday night also left three people dead and eight others injured.
Hundreds of people were inside The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints in Grand Blanc Township when a 40-year-old man rammed his vehicle into the front door, exited the vehicle, and started shooting, Police Chief William Renye told reporters in a news conference.
The suspect is believed to have also set the church on fire, Renye said. Flames and smoke could be seen for hours before the blaze was put out. First responders were then seen sifting through the wreckage.
“We do believe we will find some additional victims once we find the area where the fire was,” Renye said.
The suspect used an assault rifle in the shooting, Renye said.
An assault rifle generally refers to a select-fire, fully automatic rifle. Machine guns were effectively banned in a 1986 measure called the Firearm Owners Protection Act, only allowing machine guns that were made before 1986 available to civilians and generally making them rare and expensive to obtain.
Police said they did not yet have a motive for the fire or shooting. The church, encircled by a parking lot and a large lawn, is located near residential areas and a Jehovah’s Witness hall.
President Donald Trump speaks to reporters as he departs for the Ryder Cup golf competition in New York, from the White House on Sept. 26, 2025. © Madalina Kilroy/The Epoch Times
The Church of Jesus Christ of Latter-day Saints, also known as the Mormons, said that Sunday’s shooting left “multiple individuals” injured in a “tragic act of violence.”
“The Church is in communication with local law enforcement as the investigation continues and as we receive updates on the condition of those affected,” the statement from church spokesperson Doug Andersen reads. “We offer thanks to the emergency responders who are assisting victims and families.”
“Places of worship are meant to be sanctuaries of peacemaking, prayer and connection,” Andersen added.
Other officials at the state and federal level issued a statement in the wake of the shooting, including FBI Director Kash Patel and Attorney General Pam Bondi.
Patel, who said that FBI officials are currently responding to the shooting, wrote in a post on X that “violence in a place of worship is a cowardly and criminal act” and added that “our prayers are with the victims and their families during this terrible tragedy.”
“Such violence at a place of worship is heartbreaking and chilling,” Bondi wrote. “Please join me in praying for the victims of this terrible tragedy.” She added that she has been receiving briefings on the incident.
Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer said in a statement that she was grateful to the first responders who arrived on the scene and said that violence at place of worship “is unacceptable.”
September 28, 2025
Why aren’t the democrats fighting harder against Trumps trade problems?
This has been the mealymouthed critique of President Donald Trump’s trade wars from many Democrats this past week. They awkwardly triangulate between bashing Trump’s catastrophic ideas and touting support for their own similarly spirited, if scaled-down, ideas. No wonder their message is falling flat.
Trump’s current tariff regime — including “only” 10 percent levies on 70 countries, plus 145 percent on China — will devastate the U.S. economy. His tariffs imposed so far are estimated to raise a typical household’s annual costs by $2,700, with lower-income Americans shouldering the biggest burden. That’s only a subset of the damage. Recession risks have surged, companies have begun furloughing workers, and our once-close allies are flipping us the bird.
If this is a curse to the U.S. economy, it should be a windfall for Democratic politicians. Instead, Democrats are blowing their good fortune.
Rather than shouting from the rooftops that trade wars are bad, Democrats babble in “yes, buts.” Yes, these particular tariffs are costly and regressive, they say, but when Democrats impose tariffs, somehow they present no such downsides.
The most obvious cognitive dissonance relates to Trump’s first-term tariffs. Democrats assailed these policies in the 2018 midterms and 2020 presidential election — shortly before adopting them as their own.
For instance, in 2019, then-presidential candidate Joe Biden said Trump’s China tariffs led to “American farmers, manufacturers and consumers losing and paying more.” The 2020 Democratic platformsaid Trump had “launched reckless, politically-motivated tariff wars that have punished American workers, antagonized our allies, and benefited our adversaries.” They were right!
But as president, Biden extended (nearly) all of Trump’s existing tariffs. In some cases, he expanded them or replaced them with slightly different trade barriers. He did so with vigorous support from his party.
Given this checkered record, it’s no wonder Democrats struggle to articulate a clear, credible critique of Trump’s (now much worse) tariff policy.
In a social media video this month, House Democrats opened with an awkward defense of protectionism: “I think a wrong-for-decades consensus on ‘free trade’ has been a race to the bottom,” Rep. Chris Deluzio (D-Pennsylvania) said, adding that we need “a better trade approach” that is “pro-worker.”
Deluzio clarified that he didn’t mean Trump’s trade approach, per se — even though Republicans likewise claim Trump’s approach is “pro-worker.”
On Wednesday, Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer (D) gave a speech criticizing Trump for wielding tariffs like a “hammer.” When asked how she would deploy tariffs differently, Whitmer could not answer. “I don’t know how I would have enacted them differently,” she said. “I haven’t really thought about that. What I have thought about, though, is, you know, tariffs are, need to be used like a scalpel, not a hammer.”
Other Democrats, such as Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren, assert that the real problem with Trump’s tariffs is that companies will use them as an excuse for “price gouging” and profiteering. The stock market massacre suggests investors don’t agree tariffs will be profitable. But even if Warren’s critique were true, the same logic should apply to the Biden-née-Trump tariffs Warren backed.
Elsewhere, lefty populist thinkers explain that Trump’s tariffs are bad but tariffs could be good if only the resulting revenue were used for things Democrats like. (Never mind that whole poor-people-bear-the-costs problem.) Both they and their horseshoe-theory-demonstrating conservative counterparts contend that Trump’s execution might be lousy, but the underlying premise — that America must build higher economic walls — remains correct.
Real trade wars, it seems, have never been tried.
To be clear, there are some limited circumstances in which tariffs (or sanctions) could be an appropriate way to build U.S. capacity or punish bad behavior. For example, if an adversarial country has a stranglehold on some technology critical to national defense. Or if an exporter is using slave labor.
But that’s not what either party has endorsed. Both Trump and his Democratic critics have supported broad tariffs on our allies and on random consumer goods (tiki torches, guitars, toothbrushes) with no plausible security or “resiliency” justification.
How did Democrats back themselves into this corner? Partly they’re pandering to pro-tariff constituencies (i.e., unions, once reliable Democratic allies). Populist, anti-“neoliberal” think tanks have also overtaken the party. These often employ political operatives churning out pseudo-scholarly research, which the media then credulously cites. (Republicans invented and perfected this model more than a decade earlier, though it doesn’t seem to have served Democrats as well politically.)
That’s how you end up with Democratic leaders embracing such quackery as “greedflation” and price controls — both of which, by the way, the Trump administration is also now flirting with. This Trump blunder should be yet another layup for Democrats, but they can’t really dunk on it now, can they?
The political calculus on all this is changing. Aggressive trade barriers, no longer abstract hypotheticals, are proving as disastrous as “neoliberal” economists predicted. Americans hate Trump’s tariffs. Even most manufacturing workers think they’re a bad idea, according to a Post poll.
Democrats should stop pulling their punches. What the country needs is an unequivocal, full-throated condemnation of pandering protectionism. Let this be the moment that liberates the Democratic Party from the populists tying them to the same mercantilist, regressive, costly command-and-control economic policies that so often drive Trump’s agenda.
April 13, 2025