Trump's Gordie Howe Shakedown: Another Classic Bully Move That Hits Taxpayers in the Wallet
President Trump loves to brag about cutting “great deals.” But let’s call this Gordie Howe International Bridge fiasco what it really is: raw government extortion dressed up as negotiation. Canada spent years and billions—$4.7 billion and climbing, all on their dime—to build a much-needed crossing between Windsor and Detroit. Michigan and the feds had their hands out or tied in bureaucracy, as usual. The bridge was ready to open, promising real economic activity and relief for overloaded border traffic. Then Trump stepped in and threatened to block the opening entirely. He publicly demanded that Canada turn over at least partial ownership of the bridge to the U.S. federal government, provide compensation for everything America had “given” them, and agree to treat the U.S. with the fairness and respect he insisted upon.
Only after Canada bent would he allow the project to proceed. The result? Canada got strong-armed into redirecting a chunk of future toll revenues into a U.S. government fund for 15 years, plus giving Uncle Sam veto power over major toll changes. This after Canada already footed the entire construction bill. Michigan was supposed to share revenues post-construction. Instead, Trump turned a bilateral infrastructure project into a federal cash grab and political trophy. This isn’t smart deal-making. It’s the predictable behavior of a politician who views every interaction as a zero-sum power play.
The Real Costs of Bully Tactics
Economic distortion: Delaying a critical trade link hurts auto manufacturing, supply chains, and workers on both sides of the border. Commerce doesn’t wait for photo-ops.
Crony undertones: Reports of Ambassador Bridge interests (the existing private crossing) hovering in the mix raise the familiar stench of protecting entrenched players at the expense of new competition and efficiency.
Precedent for more waste: Once government inserts itself this way, expect endless fights over tolls, “funds,” and who gets the skim. Taxpayers and businesses pay either way—through higher costs, delays, diverted revenues, and the inability to plan for the future with any certainty.
The deeper damage from Trump’s approach is far more insidious. Everybody knows that dealing with him is so impossibly unfair, laced with bully tactics, that the vast majority of positive deals that could be done never see the light of day. Only the most compelling opportunities proceed despite the nonsense he injects into negotiations. In the free market and world of business, no CEO with executive responsibility would operate this way, because they know it ultimately hurts their own constituents. Rational actors understand that deals must be win-win; if a deal is not win-win, it is a bad deal. When Trump boasts that he “wins” his deals, by definition he reveals ignorance—such outcomes mean the overall pie is smaller than it should be, possible only because one side wields overwhelming power to force suboptimal terms on the other. Property rights and voluntary agreements built this bridge. Political bullying undermines them. Free markets and clear contracts, not threats from Washington, should govern cross-border infrastructure.
Trump’s approach here exemplifies the worst of government overreach: using regulatory leverage as a club instead of letting projects serve their purpose. America doesn’t need more strongman theater that raises costs and breeds resentment with trading partners. We need policies rooted in economic reality, respect for agreements, and restraint on federal power. The Gordie Howe saga is a textbook case.
When you're a deal maker, everything looks like it's a deal just waiting for a deal maker's expertise. He's no different from bureaucrats thinking every problem can be solved by more bureaucracy. The result is the same: the last thing they want is to actually solve the problem and make themselves unnecessary. Every deal he makes requires constant tinkering, and he's just the tinkerer needed.