Trump and the Gordie Howe Bridge raise constitutional concerns

The article reports that President Trump said he would block the Gordie Howe International Bridge opening unless the United States is compensated, and that the bridge agreement gives Canada exclusive, perpetual tolling rights; the author argues this raises questions about executive spending authority and legislative control.

President Trump has said he will block the opening of the Gordie Howe International Bridge unless the United States is compensated, according to the article. The bridge links Detroit and Windsor and the agreement at issue gives Canada exclusive and perpetual authority to collect tolls. The article traces the deal’s origins to land acquisitions along the Detroit River, a legal fight by the private Ambassador Bridge owner, and a reimbursement arrangement with Canada. It raises constitutional concerns about executive spending power and possible routes for private or foreign funding to influence public projects. Key developments: - The article reports that President Trump said he would block the bridge opening unless the United States is fully compensated. - The author states that the Canada–Michigan agreement grants Canada exclusive, perpetual tolling rights on the Gordie Howe International Bridge. - The piece recounts that Michigan used eminent domain to acquire land, that private owner Manuel "Matty" Moroun challenged related actions, and that a 2020 Michigan Court of Appeals decision (DOT v. Riverview-Trenton R.R. Co.) allowed the Michigan DOT to proceed with spending when reimbursement was arranged. - The article cites the 2024 U.S. Supreme Court decision in CFPB v. Community Financial Services Association and recent reported examples of private or foreign funding as reasons for concern about executive discretion over funding. Summary: The article links the bridge dispute to broader constitutional questions about the separation of spending power and executive discretion, and it presents the bridge tolling arrangement and related court rulings as central examples. Undetermined at this time.