Washington is right about the Gordie Howe Bridge

Years of delays and billions in added costs have changed the project’s economic reality

Canadians have heard plenty about the Gordie Howe International Bridge, but largely from one perspective. Much of the public debate has focused on allegations that the owner of the Ambassador Bridge, a prominent Republican donor, has been lobbying the White House to delay the bridge’s opening to protect his commercial interests. That narrative has dominated headlines in Canada.

After speaking with U.S. Ambassador Pete Hoekstra on my podcast, however, one thing became clear: Washington believes there is much more to the story.

While Ambassador Hoekstra did not directly assign blame for the current impasse, he implicitly argued that anti-American political rhetoric from Canadian leaders, including remarks made by Ontario Premier Doug Ford during last fall’s trade tensions, helped erode the trust needed for productive negotiations between Canada and the United States.

If that assessment reflects the thinking in Washington, it also helps explain why discussions surrounding both the bridge and the upcoming review of the Canada-United States-Mexico Agreement (CUSMA) have become far more complicated than many Canadians realize.

The Gordie Howe International Bridge, built to provide a publicly owned alternative to the privately owned Ambassador Bridge at one of North America’s busiest trade crossings, is far more than another infrastructure project. It is one of the continent’s most important trade corridors, particularly for agri-food. The Detroit-Windsor gateway carries roughly one-quarter of all merchandise trade between Canada and the U.S., representing well over $300 billion annually. And the bridge, of course, connects the U.S. with Ontario, Doug Ford’s province. Not a coincidence.

Every day, trucks loaded with beef, pork, dairy ingredients, grains, processed foods, fresh produce, beverages and food packaging move across the border. Many of the products found on grocery store shelves cross this corridor multiple times before reaching consumers. North America’s food economy no longer operates within national borders: it functions as one highly integrated supply chain.

Contrary to what many assume, the bridge was never expected to generate a dramatic increase in cross-border traffic. Its real value lies in improving reliability and resilience.

Today, too much trade depends on a single privately owned crossing that has served the region for nearly a century. A serious accident, customs disruption or maintenance issue can delay thousands of shipments within hours. For highly perishable food products and just-in-time manufacturing, predictability is often more valuable than speed. The Gordie Howe Bridge’s direct highway connections, expanded customs plazas and additional capacity will strengthen North America’s supply chains and reduce costly bottlenecks.

The project’s economics have also evolved dramatically. When it was announced in 2012, the bridge was expected to cost roughly $2.1 billion and open by 2020. Today, construction costs are approaching $6.7 billion, and the opening has been delayed by several years.

Canada assumed virtually all of the upfront construction costs with the expectation that toll revenues collected over decades would eventually recover the investment. Since a significant portion of those tolls will ultimately be paid by American trucking companies, manufacturers and retailers, it is understandable that Washington may want to revisit elements of an agreement negotiated under very different economic circumstances. Every additional month of delay, however, carries a cost for businesses and consumers on both sides of the border.

Americans have seen their share of delayed infrastructure projects, but they happen far more frequently in Canada. In the case of the Gordie Howe Bridge, the delays and cost overruns have fundamentally changed the project’s business model.

Washington’s concerns about the bridge’s financial realities are not only understandable—they are economically rational.

The lesson from my conversation with Ambassador Hoekstra extends well beyond one bridge. Infrastructure projects do not exist in a political vacuum. They depend on trust, credibility and constructive relationships between governments. If Washington genuinely believes that recent political rhetoric has weakened that trust, Canada cannot simply dismiss those concerns. Rebuilding that trust begins by recognizing that the American concerns deserve serious consideration.

Refusing to acknowledge the economic realities behind the bridge dispute risks delaying one of North America’s most important trade corridors even longer. Getting the Gordie Howe International Bridge open should not be viewed as a political victory for one side or the other—it is an economic necessity for both countries.

Dr. Sylvain Charlebois is senior director of the Agri-Food Analytics Lab at Dalhousie University, co-host of The Food Professor Podcast and visiting scholar at McGill University.