RedState91%

Canada Snubs U.S. at Bridge Opening, Trump Reminds Them Who Gets 50 Percent of the Revenue 57%

By Ben Smith50%

7/24/2026, 6:49:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 24 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Ambiguity (Equivocation), and Confirmation Bias, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 15.8% saturation with 94 hits. Analysis detected 982 faulty-reasoning hits from 594 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 54.1% and a BS Rank of 57% (9,460 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 56.80% of the article peer group.

Canada threw the United States out of Friday's opening ceremony for the Gordie Howe International Bridge. 
President Trump posted about winning the negotiation while they were still at the podium. 
He brushed off the snub and declared that his administration had already forced Canada to rewrite the financial terms governing the multibillion-dollar bridge. 
The ceremony was originally supposed to include officials from both countries, with the ribbon-cutting held near the international boundary between Detroit and Windsor, Ontario. 
Canada withdrew the American invitations and moved the event to its border inspection plaza after Trump announced 50 percent tariffs on a range of Canadian exports. 
The tariffs are expected to take effect in 30 days, leaving additional time for negotiations. 
The office of Canadian Infrastructure Minister Gregor Robertson explained the decision in a statement: 
"In light of trade action threatened by the United States earlier this week, it would be inappropriate to proceed with a celebratory event between the two countries. 
The Gordie Howe International Bridge remains a vital infrastructure project that reflects years of hard work and will be a major economic driver." 
Half the toll revenue says otherwise. 
Canadian officials went forward Friday with speeches and a ribbon-cutting attended only by Canadian representatives. 
The bridge itself is not expected to begin carrying cars and trucks until Monday. 
Trump made sure the American side of the story was heard. 
“Canada disinvited the United States of America to the opening of the Gordie Howe Bridge, which is fine, considering they are paying substantial TARIFFS to the United States, but the original Deal on the Bridge, which was terribly negotiated by a previous Administration, no longer stands. 
We changed the terms of the Deal so that the United States of America now gets 50% of the Profit. 
Thank you for your attention to this matter! 
President DONALD J. 
TRUMP” 
The bridge was negotiated in 2012, and financed by Canada at a cost of approximately 6.4 billion Canadian dollars, or about $4.5 billion. 
Under the original arrangement, Canada planned to use toll revenue to cover operating expenses and repay the construction costs, a process that was always going to take at least 50 years. 
Canada and Michigan would divide the profits after those costs were recovered. 
Trump threatened in February to prevent the bridge from opening unless the United States received a better deal. 
A ribbon-cutting event scheduled for June 12 was then abruptly postponed while the two countries worked through what officials called “outstanding issues.” 
The proposed agreement reached in July directs 50 percent of net toll revenue during the bridge's first 15 years to Canada. 
The remaining half will go into an economic development fund controlled solely by the United States. 
Canada split the money it was counting on keeping. 
Robertson disputed Trump's declaration that the original 2012 agreement "no longer stands." 
He insisted Canada will still be repaid for financing the project. 
Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney estimated the American-controlled fund could receive around 320 million Canadian dollars over 15 years, which is roughly 5 percent of what Canada spent building it. 
Canada got its American-free ceremony Friday, but Trump got America paid. 
Editor’s Note: Thanks to President Trump and his administration’s bold leadership, we are respected on the world stage, and our enemies are being put on notice. 
Help us continue to report on the administration’s peace through strength foreign policy and its successes. 
Join RedState VIP and use promo code FIGHT to receive 60% off your membership. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 10.4%Ben Smith: 2.8%RedState: 7.0%Confirmation Bias10.4%This article: 6.9%Ben Smith: 2.4%RedState: 0.8%Anchoring Bias6.9%This article: 5.1%Ben Smith: 2.8%RedState: 3.4%Availability Heuristic5.1%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.7%RedState: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.5%RedState: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 2.1%RedState: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 2.7%Ben Smith: 11.1%RedState: 9.2%Framing Effect2.7%This article: 3.9%Ben Smith: 1.5%RedState: 0.5%Loss Aversion3.9%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.4%RedState: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.3%RedState: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 4.4%Ben Smith: 0.8%RedState: 1.7%Optimism Bias4.4%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 1.0%RedState: 1.7%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 2.9%Ben Smith: 8.8%RedState: 13.9%Negativity Bias2.9%This article: 10.1%Ben Smith: 2.6%RedState: 1.8%Self-Serving Bias10.1%This article: 1.9%Ben Smith: 1.4%RedState: 2.0%Fundamental Attribution Error1.9%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.2%RedState: 0.3%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 1.8%RedState: 4.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 1.0%RedState: 3.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 4.4%Ben Smith: 1.0%RedState: 2.0%Halo Effect4.4%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.2%RedState: 0.8%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 4.4%Ben Smith: 1.1%RedState: 1.2%Recency Bias4.4%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.2%RedState: 0.5%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.0%RedState: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 7.7%Ben Smith: 4.2%RedState: 6.9%Ad Hominem7.7%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 1.1%RedState: 2.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 12.1%Ben Smith: 2.7%RedState: 3.3%Appeal to Authority12.1%This article: 3.7%Ben Smith: 1.6%RedState: 2.4%False Dilemma3.7%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.5%RedState: 1.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.1%RedState: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 5.7%Ben Smith: 5.1%RedState: 10.1%Hasty Generalization5.7%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.9%RedState: 0.7%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.4%RedState: 0.9%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 8.1%Ben Smith: 4.7%RedState: 8.5%Appeal to Emotion8.1%This article: 7.9%Ben Smith: 1.1%RedState: 1.8%Begging the Question7.9%This article: 7.4%Ben Smith: 2.6%RedState: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)7.4%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.5%RedState: 0.9%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.5%RedState: 1.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.0%RedState: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.3%RedState: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 1.5%RedState: 2.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.1%RedState: 0.3%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 11.1%Ben Smith: 1.5%RedState: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)11.1%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.0%RedState: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.1%RedState: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.0%RedState: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.1%RedState: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 4.5%Ben Smith: 1.7%RedState: 2.4%Unattributed Quote4.5%This article: 7.7%Ben Smith: 1.1%RedState: 1.8%Quote-first Misdirection7.7%This article: 15.8%Ben Smith: 10.1%RedState: 21.5%Biased Writer Voice15.8%This article: 7.1%Ben Smith: 2.8%RedState: 4.8%Indoctrination7.1%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 0.4%RedState: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ben Smith: 9.1%RedState: 15.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 9.4%Ben Smith: 2.6%RedState: 3.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…9.4%

594 words analyzed.

Speakers

4speakers33%attributed speech396writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageGregor Robertson • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 46 words • 100.0% coverageDonald Trump • 20 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 8 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 3 words • 0.0% coverageDonald Trump • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageGregor Robertson • 12 words • 100.0% coverageGregor Robertson • 11 words • 0.0% coverageMark Carney • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageRedState VIP • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageRedState VIP • 14 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Donald Trump

85%flagged-word coverage
78 attributed words39% of attributed speech53% writer coverage
0%30.0%60.0%Quote-first Misdirection+59.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Donald Trump: 59.0%59.0%Biased Writer Voice+49.9 ptsWriter: 9.1%Donald Trump: 59.0%59.0%Indoctrination-4.0 ptsWriter: 4.0%Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -4.0 ptsWriter: 4.0%Donald Trump: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.