President Trump put Ottawa on notice Monday, declaring he will not allow the Gordie Howe International Bridge to open until the United States receives what he called fair compensation and equal treatment on trade, Fox News reported.

The bridge, named after the legendary Canadian hockey player who suited up for the Detroit Red Wings, connects Detroit and Windsor, Ontario, and is nearing the end of construction. Trump's threat, delivered in a lengthy Truth Social post, framed the entire project as a symbol of a lopsided relationship that has favored Canada for far too long.

"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 didn't stop at leverage. He went further — arguing the U.S. should hold a direct ownership stake in the infrastructure itself:

"We will start negotiations, IMMEDIATELY. With all that we have given them, we should own, perhaps, at least one half of this asset."

The Buy American Loophole

At the core of Trump's complaint is a straightforward claim: the bridge was built with "virtually no U.S. content." Think about that. A multibillion-dollar crossing that lands on American soil — built without American materials.

Trump laid the blame on the Obama administration, accusing the former president of giving Canada a waiver to circumvent the Buy American Act. That's the federal law mandating that agencies purchase materials manufactured in the U.S. and made mostly from American-produced components. Trump's word for Obama's decision: "stupidly."

The broader pattern is familiar to anyone who's watched American trade policy over the last two decades. Washington writes rules meant to protect American workers. Then Washington finds ways around them. The workers notice. The politicians who helped don't.

A bridge connecting two nations, built overwhelmingly without American steel or American labor, while manufacturers sit just across the river — that's not a policy abstraction. That's a provocation.

Ontario's Shelf Ban and the China Gambit

Trump broadened his indictment well beyond the bridge.

He singled out Ontario's decision to yank American spirits, beverages, and alcoholic products from the shelves of provincial liquor stores — a retaliatory move after Washington imposed tariffs on Canadian goods:

"Ontario won't even put U.S. spirits, beverages, and other alcoholic products, on their shelves, they are absolutely prohibited from doing so and now, on top of everything else, Prime Minister Carney wants to make a deal with China — which will eat Canada alive. We'll just get the leftovers! I don't think so."

That last point carries the most geopolitical weight.

Prime Minister Carney's outreach to Beijing — reportedly culminating in a new "strategic partnership" after a meeting with Xi Jinping — puts Canada in an impossible position. You cannot simultaneously claim to be America's closest ally and court the one nation most actively working to displace American economic power.

Ottawa is seeking access to the American market, U.S. security guarantees, and the advantages that come with continental integration, while at the same time keeping its options open with Beijing. That approach is not responsible alliance management. It amounts to trying to benefit from both sides at once.

Hockey, Hyperbole, and the Underlying Point

Trump being Trump, the post closed with a rhetorical haymaker aimed squarely at Canadian identity:

"The first thing China will do is terminate ALL Ice Hockey being played in Canada, and permanently eliminate The Stanley Cup."

Nobody expects the People's Liberation Army to confiscate Lord Stanley's trophy.

But underneath the showmanship sits a serious point that critics miss when they fixate on tone: economic entanglement with China comes with strings. Beijing doesn't do partnerships — it does dependencies. Ask Australia. Ask the Philippines.

The idea that Canada can deepen ties with China without consequences to its sovereignty isn't sophistication. It's naivety.

What Leverage Looks Like

The legal mechanism for blocking the bridge's opening remains an open question. The presidential permit authorizing construction was issued back in 2013, and executive authority over land transportation crossings at the U.S. border gives the president significant say over what opens and what doesn't.

But forget the legal fine print for a moment. The political leverage is unmistakable.

Canada funded the vast majority of this project. A bridge that can't open on the American side is a bridge to nowhere — an expensive monument to a negotiation Ottawa thought it could skip.

Canada has enjoyed a comfortable arrangement for decades: preferential access, light obligations, and the unspoken assumption that America would never actually use its leverage. That assumption just ran headfirst into a concrete pylon on the Detroit River.