Analysis-USDA's reputation suffers after massive revisions in US corn acres

A view shows short stature corn growing next to regular corn at Bayer research farm in Jerseyville, Illinois, U.S., August 11, 2022. REUTERS/Karl Plume · Reuters

By Tom Polansek
Tue, February 10, 2026 
REUTERS 

CHICAGO, Feb 10 (Reuters) - The U.S. Department of Agriculture, long the world's gold standard for crop estimates, faces mounting doubts about the reliability of its data from farmers, grain traders and economists following deep staff losses and a sharp upward revision in how many acres of corn were harvested.

Farmers, traders and food manufacturers everywhere closely follow monthly USDA reports on production, supplies and demand ​so they can anticipate prices and inventories.

Thousands of employees left USDA last year as part of President Donald Trump's drive to shrink the federal government, and experts worry the shrinking staff hobbled the agency's ability ‌to produce accurate and timely data.

USDA's final estimates in January for how many corn acres farmers planted and harvested in 2025 represented unprecedented increases from initial estimates in June. Already-low grain prices sank more than 5%, at a time when growers were struggling to make money.

USDA data last month "appeared ‌to reflect an agency in disarray," said Arlan Suderman, chief commodities economist for consultancy StoneX, citing changes to acres and other estimates.

The revisions prompted USDA's National Agricultural Statistics Service, which releases acreage estimates, to launch an internal review, said Lance Honig, a top NASS official.

At the Farm Service Agency, another USDA branch, staffing reductions hampered employees from processing data on plantings last summer and feeding it to the statistics service, said Spiro Stefanou, a former acting USDA deputy undersecretary who resigned last fall. This delayed the statistics service from receiving a complete picture of acreage, he said.

"NASS had less information to go on," Stefanou said. "That was going to make their estimates less reliable."

Last summer, Trump fired a top Labor Department official following a weak scorecard of the U.S. ⁠job market, stoking concerns about the quality of federal government data.

MASSIVE CROP ADJUSTMENTS

Corn, America's ‌largest crop, is used to feed millions of farm animals, produce ethanol and sweeten foods including ketchup and ice cream.

Last month, farmers and analysts largely expected USDA would hardly adjust its estimate for harvested acres, already the largest since the 1930s. Instead, USDA hiked it to 91.3 million acres, up 1.3% from the previous estimate and 5.2% higher than in June.

"All of ‍a sudden we had acres popping up all over the place," said longtime analyst Sid Love.

Smaller revisions are common, often in the form of decreases, as poor weather can reduce acres that farmers harvest. Over the last 15 years, harvested acreage estimates on average slipped about 0.7% from June to January, according to a Reuters analysis.

Last month's increase unexpectedly raised USDA's corn production estimate and sank futures prices by 5.4%.

INTERNAL REVIEW

USDA based June acreage estimates on surveys of nearly 68,000 farmers, who have grown increasingly reluctant to participate. It ​used the results to estimate harvested acres until surveying farmers again in December and then published the updated results in January, Honig said.

As part of its review, USDA will confirm its procedures worked as they should, Honig said. ‌The agency is also exploring options for improving harvested acreage estimates, most likely without more farmer surveys, he said.

In January, it made sense to increase the number of acres harvested for grain because poor weather had not hindered farmers, Honig said. Also, plantings were larger than previous years, and the number of acres harvested for silage, a form of livestock feed made from the whole corn plant, stays relatively unchanged annually, he said.

The USDA in June estimated that farmers planted 95.2 million acres, up 5% from the previous year. At the time, plantings were nearly complete, raising confidence in the estimate among traders and farmers. Many farmers delayed crop sales due to low grain prices and did not know that plantings were even larger than they thought.

USDA raised its estimate by more than 2% in August, lowering corn prices 3%, and again in September. By January, USDA estimated plantings were 98.8 million acres, up 3.8% from its initial estimate.

Some farmers said they did ⁠not understand why USDA could not produce a better assessment in June.

"Given the turmoil and turnover at the USDA at the time, ​there were already concerns about data quality, with the miss from June to final doing everything to reinforce those fears," said Angie Setzer, partner ​at advisory firm Consus Ag Consulting.

"A swing of this size from June to final plantings has never happened before, making many feel it is more difficult to adequately manage risk."

STAFFING CUTS HAMPER AGENCY

Honig said it was not clear why USDA's initial plantings estimate fell short.

In August and September, when USDA mostly increased the plantings estimate, the statistics service incorporated Farm Service Agency data as ‍part of its typical procedures.

Farmers are required to report plantings ⁠to the Farm Service Agency to be eligible for loan and revenue programs that cover a vast majority of acres.

In the first half of last year, Farm Service Agency lost about 24% of its employees while the statistics service lost 34% as USDA employees resigned, retired and were terminated, according to government data.

With fewer workers, Farm Service Agency focused on providing money to farmers, its primary function, not on processing and reporting plantings ⁠data to be incorporated into acreage estimates, said Stefanou, former administrator of USDA's Economic Research Service.

"It's the cascading effect of the deferred resignation program," he said.

Honig said FSA reported and processed plantings data a little slower but that he could not speak to the reason or about staffing ‌in general.

Analysts said farmers' reluctance to respond to surveys and last year's increased plantings may have also made it difficult to estimate acres.

For Bill Lapp, president of consultancy Advanced Economic Solutions, USDA needs ‌to do better.

"They blew the coverage here on this one."

(Reporting by Tom Polansek. Editing by Emily Schmall and David Gregorio)

Crypto Bros Rage at Trump as Market Collapses

Donald Trump has made more than $1.4 billion from his crypto projects, alone 

Ewan Palmer
Mon, February 9, 2026
DAILY BEAST

Crypto bros have turned on President Donald Trump after billions of dollars were wiped out of the volatile cryptocurrency market.

As noted by Axios, the male-dominated world of crypto investing is the latest group to rage against the president during his erratic second term, with many regretting supporting the 79-year-old.

Before returning to office, Trump vowed to make the U.S. “the crypto capital of the world,” a promise that sent the price of flagship cryptocurrency bitcoin surging after the 2024 election and eventually to record highs late last year.
The crptocrash has since Bitcoin erase all the gains it made following Donald Trump's 2024 election victory. / Google

Those gains have since been obliterated. Bitcoin is now hovering around $68,000, down sharply from roughly $125,000 in October 2025. Ether, the second-largest cryptocurrency, has also been hammered, losing more than 35 percent of its value in just the past month.

A growing number of crypto bros are now venting their fury at Trump as it becomes increasingly clear that his much-hyped crypto strategy is failing. The backlash has coincided with viral reports that Trump-aligned crypto venture World Liberty Financial quietly sold $5 million worth of bitcoin last week, helping send prices tumbling even further.

“I voted for the first time in 2024 as a single-issue voter. Crypto president? How can I not vote for that! Sounds great!” one crypto user posted to his 169,000 followers on X. “Not even a year later & he has destroyed the single issue I cared about. F--- you Trump.”

Crypto influencer Carl Runefelt also conceded in a reply to one of his 1.5 million followers that Trump was “bad for crypto” and a “big mistake” to have as president.

In a lengthy X post, another disillusioned crypto bro wrote: “The crypto market is in freefall right now, and while broader macro factors like tariff threats, geopolitical uncertainty, and deleveraging play a role, a significant chunk of the damage—and the eroded trust—stems directly from patterns tied to Trump himself.”

“He pioneered market-moving tweets long ago, perfectly timing negative statements to tank sentiment and allow insiders (and potentially himself) to buy the dip cheaply, then switching to positive hype to pump euphoria and sell into retail FOMO. Rinse and repeat,” they added.

Trump—whose own memecoin has lost nearly all its value since its launch last January—has not been hit nearly as hard by the crypto crash. World Liberty Financial has earned Trump and his family around $1.2 billion in cash since its launch, along with an additional $2.25 billion from various crypto holdings, according to The Wall Street Journal.

Analysis from Bloomberg in January also estimated that cryptocurrency ventures have added $1.4 billion to the Trump family’s wealth over the past year.

The White House said in a statement to the Daily Beast that the Trump administration was committed to crypto.

“Volatility in a free market in which the government does not set prices is not going to change the Trump administration’s commitment to ensuring American dominance in cryptocurrency and other cutting-edge technologies of the future,” White House spokesman Kush Desai said.

Trump’s Grip on Billions of Taxpayer Dollars Loosened by Courts

Zoe Tillman
Tue, February 10, 2026 
BLOOMBERG

(Bloomberg) -- President Donald Trump’s expansive efforts to use federal funding as a cudgel against political opponents and programs he considers "woke" remain mired in court more a year since his return to the White House.

By the start of 2026, US judges had halted his funding cuts and limits, or the government took steps to resolve issues after being sued, in more than half of 167 spending fights reviewed by Bloomberg News as of Jan. 16. The Justice Department is pressing dozens of appeals, including over a judge’s order unfreezing funds for the $16 billion Gateway rail tunnel between Democrat-led New York and New Jersey.

The rulings against the government underscore how the legal system has persisted as a road block — or at the very least a speed bump — to Trump’s second-term agenda. The administration has faced more than 700 lawsuits so far, according to Bloomberg's review. The grind of court process has at times slowed officials’ pace and pried loose information. Some judicial blocks have been temporary or narrow, while others are sweeping in scope.

In January alone, judges lifted a freeze on $10 billion for child care and aid for low-income families, restored roughly $12 million to the American Academy of Pediatrics, and struck down a cap on National Institutes of Health reimbursements to research institutions for facilities, security and other “indirect” costs, a move the administration said was worth at least $4 billion.

New legal fronts are on the horizon: Trump recently said he would pull federal dollars from Democrat-led states and cities that won’t cooperate with his immigration crackdown, a move that would be sure to face court challenges.

The rail project fight in New York unfolded at a rapid clip over the last week. A Manhattan federal judge on Monday agreed to temporarily pause her ruling requiring the Trump administration to release funds -- up to $200 million to start, the government says -- while the Justice Department urges an appeals court to keep it on hold long-term as the litigation plays out.

“Litigation seems to be the only language that’s understood right now,” said Sara Churgin, executive director of the Eastern Rhode Island Conservation District.

The nonprofit got an injunction from a Rhode Island judge last year ordering the government to restore a multiyear grant worth about $200,000 to work with farmers on best management practices, but Churgin said they’re still figuring out how to operate amid other federal cuts and more grant competition.

The administration’s funding cuts and threats of future disruptions have left state and city governments that rely on federal dollars in limbo. Even when judges rule against the administration, local officials say it's challenging to budget if there are appeals pending or unresolved legal questions.

“Cities and towns do a good job at planning ahead for capital projects, but that planning ahead requires assurances,” said Fidel Maltez, city manager of Chelsea, Massachusetts. Chelsea stands to potentially benefit from a court ruling restoring a cancelled disaster mitigation program, but Maltez said it’s still not clear they’ll get the money they’ve been counting on.

The Republican majority in Congress – which controls federal spending under the Constitution – hasn’t stood in the way of the administration’s cuts, which have spanned scientific research, clean energy measures, foreign aid and diversity inclusion and equality initiatives, among other programs. The Department of Government Efficiency said it saved $215 billion during the last fiscal year, although overall spending by the federal government rose.

The sums clawed back in court by states or other entities represent a fraction of that. Some Democratic state attorneys general have calculated amounts they’ve shielded from cuts or returned to constituents, including $866 million in New Mexico, $3 billion in Massachusetts and $15 billion in Washington state.

The Illinois attorney general's office estimated they had "protected" about $6.6 billion for state residents through legal fights over the past year, but Governor JB Pritzker's budget office also recently warned that the Trump administration's policy changes had created "unprecedented" pressures.

The administration has touted key wins at the US Supreme Court last year that narrowed legal options for local officials, nonprofits and businesses that get government money.

But those rulings were at early stages on an emergency basis, instead of final opinions after a fulsome review. Lower court judges in some instances have explained as they ruled against the administration that they don’t see those Supreme Court orders as directly on-point to the cases before them.

The White House and Justice Department did not respond to requests for comment.

The administration has chipped away at district court losses before appeals courts, mirroring its progress against hundreds of other lawsuits challenging Trump’s policies ramping up deportations, slashing the federal workforce, shuttering US agencies and more. It's a process that can take months. Justice Department lawyers haven't asked appellate judges to intervene on an emergency basis in all of these cases, including those that involve broader challenges to grant conditions, as opposed to specific cuts.

But the US has also dropped a few appeals, including recently in a fight brought by Democratic state officials over an effort to condition billions of dollars in federal transportation grants to immigration enforcement cooperation.

The Justice Department is appealing a judge’s ruling in San Francisco last year blocking the administration’s effort to strip funding from more than four dozen so-called “sanctuary” cities and counties that have policies against aiding US immigration authorities.

Trump said in mid-January that the administration would stop “making any payments” to sanctuary jurisdictions, but US officials haven’t announced details. A White House official told Bloomberg that the Office of Management and Budget is coordinating with agencies on a report on how federal funds are being spent, with a focus on investigating potential fraud.

“If there are threats to critical funding for our city, litigation is on the table,” Seattle City Attorney Erika Evans said in a statement to Bloomberg. Seattle is a plaintiff in the San Francisco sanctuary jurisdictions fight, and is defending a separate funding win on appeal.

“We are always looking for every opportunity to advocate until we can’t,” Evans said.

The Supreme Court’s conservative majority changed the landscape for spending fights in three cases. In April, the justices let the Education Department withhold teacher training grants over DEI-related concerns. In August, the court greenlit potentially hundreds of millions of dollars in National Institute of Health cuts. In September, the justices let the administration withhold $4 billion in expiring foreign aid.

Photographer: Kent Nishimura/Bloomberg

Although the justices issued those orders on an emergency basis, they made it clear that lawsuits resembling breach-of-contract claims seeking unpaid federal funds belong in a specialized tribunal – the US Court of Federal Claims – considered favorable to the government, according to legal experts following the litigation.

Unlike in district courts, Federal Claims judges can’t order early relief to challengers while a case is pending.

“That may give the executive branch more de facto latitude to make changes, even if it has to pay some cost down the road,” said Zachary Price, a professor at University of California College of the Law San Francisco.

Disputes over grant conditions, how agencies vet funding applications and alleged constitutional violations appear to remain fair game, experts say. Judges are realizing “that’s the way to thread the needle,” said Gregory Sisk, a law professor at the University of St. Thomas School of Law.

In one recent opinion ordering Education Department officials to reconsider at least $3 million in denied grants, a judge in Washington wrote that the claims fell within a “gray area” of the justices’ guidance so far.

The Justice Department appealed at least 61 district court losses in funding fights by mid-January, while the administration’s challengers appealed 10 rulings for the government.

The administration has prevailed on appeal more than half of the time so far, including preliminary orders pausing a district judge’s injunction or preserving a lower court win. Several of those cases boosted the government’s efforts to link funding to compliance with Trump’s hard-line stance against DEI and services for transgender individuals.

Even when judges agreed with the administration's legal stance, they’ve sometimes expressed concern about its broader approach. In a Feb. 6 ruling for the government in a fight over DEI-related cuts, a member of the US Court of Appeals for the 4th Circuit wrote that the evidence “suggests a more sinister story” of “valuable grants gutted in the dark” and “worthy efforts to uplift and empower denigrated.”

In more than a dozen cases, appeals courts ruled against the government.

Most court orders against the administration have been temporary while lawsuits go forward. Many restored funding access only to challengers who sued, an offshoot of the administration’s success last year arguing for the Supreme Court to rein in nationwide, or universal, injunctions.

“Courts have been able to fashion remedies when necessary to protect people,” said Skye Perryman, president of Democracy Forward, a liberal-leaning organization that has been active in suing the administration, including over funding cuts.

States that sue sometimes benefit more than those on the sidelines. When the administration last year froze a $5 billion Federal Highway Administration program to build electric vehicle charging infrastructure, a group of Democrat-led states sued.

In June, a Seattle judge said the US couldn’t withhold access to more than $856 million from 14 states, while more than $1.8 billion remained inaccessible in the rest of the country. That allowed Francis Energy to resume a “significant number” of the 125 projects it had paused, Chief Executive Officer David Jankowsky said.

Francis Energy, based in Oklahoma, is on track to finish earlier projects and start new ones, but the delays have made them more expensive, Jankowsky said. The administration has since largely unfrozen the program but the judge recently ruled again for the states, citing uncertainty about how US officials would administer funding in the future.

“While we’re still working out of it, we’re optimistic on the ultimate success of the program,” Jankowsky said.

The AIDS Foundation of Chicago is part of a funding lawsuit related to Trump’s anti-DEI and “gender ideology” executive actions, and lost a request for a preliminary injunction last year.

The organization’s president John Peller said they’ve been able to hold onto major federal funding, but have had to stop collecting information on whether clients are transgender, making it harder to tailor services. They’re still pursuing the lawsuit.

“The court process is a long one and we knew that,” he said. “We’re going to continue with that case as long as we possibly can.”

--With assistance from Skylar Woodhouse, Christopher Cannon and Steve Stroth.

(Updates with details on the fight over Gateway funding.)

DEREGULATION

Trump administration's changes to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) cost Americans $19B, a new report says

KEN SWEET
Mon, February 9, 2026 


A security officer works inside of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau (CFPB) building headquarters, Feb. 10, 2025, in Washington. (AP Photo/Jacquelyn Martin, File)(ASSOCIATED PRESS)More

NEW YORK (AP) — One year after the Trump administration took control of the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau, the consumer watchdog has largely retreated from enforcement and regulatory work, changes that consumer advocates and Democrats now estimate have cost Americans at least $19 billion in financial relief.

In a report provided to The Associated Press ahead of its release by the office of Sen. Elizabeth Warren on Monday, the authors say the CFPB harmed consumers by abandoning major consumer protections, stalling investigation and dismissing a number of lawsuits.

“Trump’s attempt to sideline the CFPB has cost families billions of dollars over the last year alone,” said Warren, the top Democrat on the Senate Banking Committee, as well as one of the bureau’s fiercest defenders in Congress.

The administration and congressional Republicans have argued that the bureau needed to be downsized and reined in because it had grown too large and overreaching.

The administration assumed control of the CFPB in February 2025 after Rohit Chopra, the bureau’s director under President Joe Biden, resigned, leaving White House budget director Russell Vought as acting director. Since then, few new investigations have been opened, many employees have been ordered not to work and several pending enforcement actions against financial companies have been dropped.

The White House announced in April that it wanted to reduce the Bureau’s staff from 1,689 positions to 207 positions, but that move has been blocked by courts. Even if the employees’ union does succeed in its lawsuit against Vought, Congress cut the bureau’s budget by roughly half in Trump’s One Big Beautiful Bill Act. It’s unlikely that all of those employees will still have their jobs once all litigation is settled.

“The CFPB may still be standing, but it’s essentially on life support,” said Chuck Bell, advocacy program director at Consumer Reports, in a statement. Consumer Reports put out its own data Monday that arrives at similar conclusions as Warren's office.

A spokeswoman for the CFPB did not respond to a request for comment.

One form of relief the report said consumers were denied was a limit on overdraft fees, which the Biden CFPB finalized in 2024 but the Republican-led Congress overturned last year. That would have saved consumers $5 billion a year, according to the Bureau’s estimates at the time.

The bureau also tried to cap the amount of money consumers pay to credit card companies when they pay their bills late. That would have saved Americans roughly $10 billion, according to Bureau estimates when the rule was proposed. The regulation was blocked by a federal court last year, and the bureau, under the control of the Trump administration, decided not to fight the lawsuit in court.

Another roughly $4 billion in consumer relief would have come from a series of lawsuits or settlements that were dismissed by the bureau under Acting Director Vought. For example, the bureau sued Capital One in January 2025 for $2 billion, days before President Trump was to be sworn into office, alleging that Capital One has misrepresented the interest rate paid on its savings accounts to customers. That lawsuit was dismissed.

The bureau also sued Early Warning Systems, the company that runs the money transfer service Zelle, in December 2024 for $870 million alleging that the EWS and the banks that operate Zelle were negligent in protecting consumers from fraud and scams. That lawsuit was also dismissed last year.

There's also been a slowdown in the number of complaints resolved by the bureau as well. The CFPB runs its own consumer complaint database, where a consumer can allege wrongdoing by their bank or financial services company and the bureau will act as intermediary between the consumer and financial company to resolve the complaint. Under the Biden CFPB, roughly half of all consumer complaints were resolved with relief for the consumer, whereas under the Trump CFPB, that figure has dwindled to less than 5%.

The independent Government Accountability Office made public a separate report Monday outlining its attempts to keep track of the Trump administration’s reorganization and restructuring of the CFPB. The GAO said it received no cooperation from the White House or the bureau, and the GAO needed to rely on mostly public records to produce its report. In a response to the GAO, the CFPB cited ongoing litigation between its employees and management as the primary reason why it could not cooperate.

The GAO’s report largely matches what has been documented in news reports that the bureau has cancelled dozens of enforcement actions against alleged wrongdoers, unwound rules and regulations that previous bureau management said would protect consumers or bring them financial relief. There have been even rules and regulations enacted during President Trump’s first term that have been targeted by the bureau’s current management.

Trump’s push to have donors fund his $400 million White House ballroom might cost him the whole project

Isabel Keane
Tue, February 10, 2026
THE INDEPENDENT


A federal judge will soon decide whether President Trump can rely on private donations to fund a $400 million White House ballroom project, with critics questioning the lack of transparency in the arrangement.

President Donald Trump’s plan to have private donors fund his new $400 million White House ballroom may cost him the entire project, as a federal judge will soon decide whether the administration is allowed to rely on fundraising to bypass congressional approval.

U.S. District Judge Ricard Leon says he may rule this month on a lawsuit filed by the National Trust for Historic Preservation in December to halt the ballroom’s construction, according to the Washington Post.

Trump has argued that using private donations to pay for the project keeps the burden off taxpayers, but critics say the plan highlights a lack of transparency about how the expansion is being funded.

Democrats and watchdog groups have raised questions about the arrangement, which relies on donations from big corporations and businesses. The donations are then routed through a nonprofit intermediary, which also profits, having received millions of dollars in fees, according to the Post.

The Trump administration has already found a lengthy list of donors, including Big Tech giants Amazon, Apple, Google, HP and Microsoft — as well as other well-known companies like Coinbase, Lockheed Martin, Palantir Technologies and T-Mobile.

A federal judge will soon decide whether President Donald Trump’s administration is allowed to rely on private donations to fund its new $400 million ballroom expansion, according to a report (Getty Images)More

Trump has previously said that using donations to fund the project keeps taxpayers from fronting the bill (AFP via Getty Images)

Most of the donors have declined to say how much they’ve given. However, the watchdog group CREW (Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington) says at least 22 companies involved in the project failed to disclose their donations in lobbying filings.

During a hearing for the lawsuit brought by the National Trust for Historic Preservation held in January, Leon shared his reservations about proceeding without congressional approval. He also questioned whether Trump possessed the statutory power to dismantle the East Wing and build a ballroom in its place without explicit oversight or authorization from Congress.

Sen. Elizabeth Warren, a Democrat from Massachusetts, is urging the Trust for the National Mall, a nonprofit managing the project’s donations, to clarify its role and share information about the donations it has received.

The organization declined to provide details to the Post about the gifts, but said it collects between 2 and 2.5 percent of each donation as part of a management fee. A spokesperson said the fee is standard practice.

The White House has declined to specify how much money has been raised for the project, which has doubled in cost from its initial estimate of $200 million last summer.

Soon after plans for the ballroom were announced, the East Wing was demolished without and public review process. (Copyright 2024 The Associated Press. All rights reserved.)

“President Trump is generously donating his time and resources to build a beautiful White House ballroom, a project which past presidents only dreamed about,” White House spokesman Davis Ingle said. “Since announcing this historic plan, the White House has been inundated with calls from generous Americans and American companies wishing to contribute.”

In October, Trump hosted an opulent gala dinner for some of his sponsors in the East Room of the White House — which coincided with the longest government shutdown in U.S. history, lasting 43 days.

Soon after plans to replace the East Wing with a new ballroom were announced, demolition began without any extensive public review process. The ballroom is projected to be approximately 90,000 square feet, and the attached “New East Wing” complex will include a new office for the First Lady, a movie theater and commercial kitchen.

“No president is legally allowed to tear down portions of the White House without any review whatsoever — not President Trump, not President Joe Biden, and not anyone else,” the lawsuit filed in December says.

However, in December Leon declined to immediately pause construction of the project, and Trump’s Department of Justice is moving to ensure that doesn’t change.

Trump was sued in December by the National Trust for Historic Preservation, which is challenging the legality of the project (Getty Images)

A DOJ filing asked a federal judge overseeing the lawsuit to stay any injunction on the construction over alleged “national security” concerns, ABC News reported.

"[A]s the Secret Service attested, halting construction would imperil the President and others who live and work in the White House," the administration argues in the filing.

The Trump administration said it will also be submitting a second classified statement from the Secret Service to further support its argument that stopping construction at the site will "endanger national security and therefore impair the public interest."

The filing claims that leaving the project incomplete would be a risk to national security. The DOJ filing comes after Judge Leon first made it clear he was skeptical of Trump’s claim that he could use private donations to fund the ballroom’s construction.


White House press secretary contradicts Trump and says it was president’s idea to rename Penn Station after himself

Mike Bedigan
Tue, February 10, 2026 
THE INDEPENDENT



White House press secretary contradicts Trump and says it was president’s idea to rename Penn Station after himself

Key takeaways

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt contradicted Donald Trump's claim that he did not ask to rename New York's Penn Station after himself.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt appeared to contradict claims by Donald Trump that he had not asked to rename New York’s Penn Station after himself.

“It was something the president floated in his conversation with Chuck Schumer,” Leavitt said Tuesday, in response to a question about why the president was interested in changing the name of the building. “Why not?”

Her remarks come following reports last week that Trump said he would unfreeze millions of dollars in federal funds for a $16 billion New York infrastructure project if Senator Schumer agreed to rename New York's Penn Station and Virginia's Dulles International Airport after him.

On Friday, Trump claimed that it had in fact been the Senate Minority Leader’s idea to rename the two buildings.

White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt appeared to contradict claims by Donald Trump that he had not asked to rename New York’s Penn Station after himself (REUTERS)

“He suggested that to me,” the president told reporters on his way to Mar-a-Lago for the weekend. “Chuck Schumer suggested that to me, about changing the name of Penn Station to Trump Station. Dulles Airport is really separate.”

Shortly after the exchange was reported Schumer posted an angry rebuttal online.

"Absolute lie. He knows it. Everyone knows it," Schumer wrote. "Only one man can restart the project and he can restart it with the snap of his fingers."

As of Tuesday night, Schumer has not yet responded to Leavitt’s claims online. The Independent has contacted the New York senator’s office for comment.

Trump froze $200 million in federal funding for the project, the Gateway Tunnel Project in New York City, in October, even though the funds had already been approved by Congress.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer reacted angrily to a suggestion by Donald Trump that he had suggested renaming the station after the president (Getty Images)

Work on the tunnel, which would join New York and New Jersey and ultimately replace other aging infrastructure linking the states, now cannot continue due to Trump's refusal to unfreeze the federal funding.

The Gateway Development Commission, which is overseeing the project, sued the federal government over the funding freeze last week. Judge Jeannette Vargas in Manhattan ruled against the Trump administration and ordered it to release the funding on Friday, the same day as Trump made his comments about Schumer.

But soon after, the Department for Transport applied for a temporary restraining order against the ruling while it appealed, arguing that there would be no “obvious mechanism” for recovering the money if it was forced to do so. Work on the project had not been restarted as of Tuesday and a hearing is set for Wednesday to determine the next steps.

The Independent has contacted the White House and the Department of Transport for comment.

Construction on the Gateway Tunnel Project may have to pause this week as funding runs out (Getty Images)

The Trump administration never offered any specific reason for why it froze the funds and blamed Democrats for refusing to negotiate to get the project restarted.

New Jersey Governor Mikie Sherrill hit out at the administration’s delays.

"I took the president to court on Friday, and I won. The court demanded release that money, and he has yet to do so," Sherrill said Monday, per CBS. "Here we are, all this equipment waiting to be put to work, all of you not on the job, because the president of the United States cares more about politics than he does about working men and women in this country."

Sherrill said that delays to the New Jersey Transit system were tied to her funding demands.

Senator Kirsten Gillibrand of New York also reacted angrily to the reported naming deal in a post on X.

ANOTHER GRIFT

Potential conflicts over celebrating America's 250th anniversary spill out in congressional hearing

GARY FIELDS and SEAN MURPHY
Tue, February 10, 2026


Demonstrators gather to protest removal of explanatory panels that were part of an exhibit on slavery at the President's House Site in Philadelphia, Tuesday, Feb. 10, 2026. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke)(ASSOCIATED PRESS)

Shown are posted signs on the locations of the now removed explanatory panels that were part of an exhibit on slavery at President's House Site in Philadelphia, Friday, Jan. 23, 2026. (AP Photo/Matt Rourke)(ASSOCIATED PRESS)

WASHINGTON (AP) — Congressional Democrats on Tuesday accused the Trump administration of trying to hijack plans to celebrate America’s 250th anniversary and using the nonprofit National Park Foundation to solicit money from private donors for some of the president’s pet projects, including the massive arch he wants to build in the nation’s capital.

During a hearing on the 250th anniversary commemoration, U.S. Rep. Jared Huffman said President Donald Trump and his allies are attempting to use the celebration to “promote an alternate reality.”

The California Democrat accused Republican members of the committee of letting the administration “hijack the country’s 250th anniversary and sell access, hide his donors and rewrite history. You let him clean house and put loyalists on the board of the National Park Foundation, open the door to foreign, dark money donors to buy influence with zero oversight.”

Democratic Rep. Maxine Dexter of Oregon voiced concern that a White House-led initiative, called Freedom 250, is using public money earmarked for a separate, congressionally chartered commission, America250, and is co-mingling it with private donations.

Dexter said the structure of the organization created by the White House makes it difficult to tell who is donating to it.

“This leaves us all guessing which one of Donald Trump’s billionaire buddies and which foreign interests are buying access,” she said.

Danielle Alvarez, spokeswoman for Freedom 250, said it has received no funding from foreign donors. The park foundation, which typically raises money to help the national parks, must grant anonymity if a donor asks for it, the foundation's president and CEO, Jeff Reinbold, said when asked during the hearing.

Davis Ingle, a White House spokesman, responded to the hearing by saying the president wants to ensure that the country gets “the spectacular birthday it deserves.

“The celebration of America’s 250th anniversary is going to display great patriotism in our nation’s capital and throughout the country,” he said in a statement. “President Trump’s bold vision will be imprinted upon the fabric of America and be felt by generations to come.”

Democrats raise concerns about history being erased

The three-hour hearing, before a subcommittee of the House Committee on Natural Resources, was promoted as an explanation of public and private partnerships supporting America's 250th anniversary on public lands, but it veered into an airing of numerous Democratic concerns.

Democrats raised questions about national park sites where exhibits and displays have been sanitized or removed altogether as part of the administration's efforts to quash diversity, equity and inclusion, as well as questions over funding and transparency. Rep. James Clyburn of South Carolina gave an impassioned address about seeing the darker parts of U.S. history as part of the nation's strength.

Alan Spears, senior director at the National Parks Conservation Association, testified that when “you begin picking at words to soften and sanitize, to erase the history, that is a dangerous precipice to be on. Because I think the quickest way that you can disappear people is to disappear their story or to soften it.”
‘We deserve to know where our money is going’

In 2016, Congress formed America250, the U.S. Semiquincentennial Commission, to lead planning for the anniversary that commemorates the signing of the Declaration of Independence in July 1776.

The commission was initially expecting to receive $100 million of the $150 million appropriated for the anniversary in the Republicans' tax and spending bill, which they called the One Big Beautiful Bill Act. The money went to the U.S. Department of the Interior and was intended for activities surrounding the commemoration.

A source familiar with the funding for America250, who was not authorized to speak publicly about it, said that the anticipated amount dropped to $50 million and that so far the organization has received just $25 million. Federal funding cuts last year already had led some communities to begin scaling back their plans for celebrating the anniversary.

Tim Whitehouse, executive director of Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility, testified that the funding question is tantamount.

“The American people are paying for this commemoration. We deserve to know where our money is going,” he said, adding that he sent a letter to Interior Secretary Doug Burgum seeking answers.

A spokeswoman with the Interior Department said in a recent email that a portion of the funding was being provided to the U.S. Semiquincentennial Commission through an interagency agreement with the National Park Service. The Interior Department did not respond to requests after the hearing for comment on the distribution of federal money to America250.

One celebration, two entities putting it on

Republicans were relatively silent in responding to the Democrats' lines of questioning, except North Carolina Rep. Addison McDowell, who defended the celebration being planned as a reminder of how far the nation has come.

“As I sat here and listened to the other side’s remarks, what I heard was a deeply misguided and dark vision of America,” he said. “If you didn’t know any better, you might believe from their remarks that the United States is not the greatest experiment in human history, but an ongoing crime scene.”

Rep. Val Hoyle, an Oregon Democrat, countered immediately: “Yes, we need to celebrate how far America has come, but how the hell do we know how far we’ve come if we erase the history? How is that patriotic?”

America250 is focused on commemorations around the country, including a national volunteer effort and creating an audio-visual archive of stories from everyday Americans. One initiative, “America’s Field Trip,” asks students from around the country to share stories on what America means to them, with a chance to get field trips to historic sites and landmarks. One initiative, America Gives, aims to significantly increase the number of Americans who volunteer with nonprofits with support from companies like Walmart and Coca-Cola and nonprofits like Points of Light.

So far, the organization has said it has had enough money, including from donations, to continue with its original programming.

Much of the programming from the White House group has so far appeared to focus on splashy events, including a planned UFC fighting competition at the White House, athletic events involving high school athletes it's calling The Patriot Games and a “Great American State Fair” on the National Mall. Freedom 250 was responsible for the striking birthday lighting of the Washington Monument coming into the New Year.

___ Murphy reported from Oklahoma City.

Trump Friendly Pollster Stuns With Survey Comparing Biden And Trump’s Job Performance

A Rasmussen survey released this week shows that 56% of likely U.S. voters disapprove of President Donald Trump’s performance in the White House.

Zachary Leeman
Tue, February 10, 2026 

MEDIAITE

President Donald Trump arrives for the premiere of first lady Melania Trump’s movie “Melania” at The John F. Kennedy Memorial Center For The Performing Arts, Thursday, Jan. 29, 2026, in Washington. (AP Photo/Allison Robbert)

President Donald Trump was hit with some very negative numbers this week from a polling firm that is typically considered far more favorable to the president.

According to a Rasmussen survey released on Tuesday, 56% of likely U.S. voters disapprove of Trump’s performance thus far in the White House. The numbers got worse from there, especially when his performance was compared to that of former President Joe Biden.

When asked who did a better job as president, 48% answered with Biden and 40% answered Trump. Another 8% say they have performed about the same. The survey was conducted between February 2-4 among more than 1,000 likely voters. It carries a margin of error of 3%.

Rasmussen is widely considered a conservative polling outlet favorable to the president, and he’s often cited them to talk up his approval among voters. Rasmussen’s social media accounts regularly boost conservative talking points and culture war issues, while slamming Democrats and the left as out of touch.

According to the latest numbers, 29% strongly approve of Trump’s job performance, while 46% strongly disapprove.

Trump critics on social media were shocked to see the Rasmussen numbers for the president.

“Even Rasmussen, Trump’s favorite pollster, just dropped a brutal number,” political strategist Chris D. Jackson wrote.

Others also took the numbers and their polling origin as a win for the former president.

Rasmussen also released survey numbers that showed 58% of likely U.S. voters do not believe they are living in Trump’s “golden age” as he pledged would happen when first coming into office. Only 27% believed they are living in that era, and 15% were unsure. In January 2025, the pollster found that 52% agreed with Trump’s vow that a new “golden age” was coming for the country.

Rasmussen Reports head pollster Mark Mitchell argued that while he would likely not agree with voters who would choose Biden over Trump today, the numbers are undeniable.

“If an election were held TODAY between Trump and Biden, Biden would win,” he wrote on Tuesday on X. “There are a million valid arguments you can make that explain why that’s retarded, and I would agree with most of them. But that doesn’t change the fact Biden would win.”

The post Trump Friendly Pollster Stuns With Survey Comparing Biden And Trump’s Job Performance first appeared on Mediaite.

It turns out that Joe Biden really did crush Americans’ dreams for the future. Just look at how the vibe changed 5 years ago

Jake Angelo
Tue, February 10, 2026

FORTUNE


President Joe Biden delivers remarks during the CNN presidential debate at the CNN Studios on June 27, 2024, in Atlanta.(Justin Sullivan/Getty Images)More


President Donald Trump rode Americans’ gloom about inflation and the economy to a surprising reelection in 2024. Then, a year later, upstart Democrats including New York Mayor Zohran Mamdani rode concerns about “affordability” to an even more surprising sweep.

It turns out the inflation wave of 2021–23 was a really big deal, according to the mother of American opinion polling.

A long-running Gallup poll found the percentage of U.S. adults who anticipate a high-quality life within the next five years slumped to 59.2%, its lowest share since the organization began asking this question nearly two decades ago.

The poll—based on data collected over four quarterly measurements in 2025 among 22,125 U.S. adults—revealed a notable decline in sentiment, measuring a 3.5-percentage-point drop-off from 2024.

“If you look at the optimism metric for future life, that really came down a lot from 2021 to 2023, and that corresponds really closely with the worst of the inflation crisis,” Dan Witters, research director of the Gallup national health and well-being index, told Fortune. “The economic pressures of being able to afford things like food and fuel and gas and health care—that really can have a deleterious effect.”

Moreover, the study found the number of Americans who rate both their current and future lives high enough to be characterized as “thriving” dropped to 48%, down more than 11 points from a high in June 2021, and the sixth-lowest rating out of all 176 measurements taken since 2008. The last time the rating dropped below its current level was in April 2020, the month after the COVID pandemic first hit the U.S.

The results come as a confluence of factors have impeded the American way of life. Over the last several years, inflation, domestic conflict, economic uncertainty, and political upheaval have made many Americans feel more pessimistic about the future. Americans’ confidence in finding a job has hit rock-bottom, and homeownership has grown increasingly unattainable for younger generations. All this as the expanding K-shaped economy is leaving millions of Americans in the dust.

“Their optimism for the future is now eroding,” Witters said. “[It’s] eroding at a rate that’s kind of significantly greater than what we find with how they evaluate their current lives.”
Inflation and politics spurring pessimism

Yet even as inflation cooled in 2024, dropping to 2.5% year over year that August, Americans remained pessimistic. Witters attributed that persistent pessimism to political partisanship.

“In 2025, the steep drop among Democrats coupled with no change this time among Republicans don’t cancel each other out. And so you have that real net negative in the overall U.S. total.”

Witters mentions it’s common for life ratings to swing dramatically among political parties when control of the White House changes. Still, expectations for a high-quality life dropped off significantly among Democrats, a 7.6 percentage point decline in future life ratings from 2024. For context, Republicans’ sentiment dropped 5.9 percentage points after Biden assumed office in 2021 while Democrats’ optimism rose 4.4 points.

Yet even among Republicans, optimism rose just 0.9 points last year. And Independents’ optimism fell 1.5 points.

“I think that to the extent that that kind of partisanship can kind of influence the overall national numbers, clearly that’s happening here,” Witters said.

Gallup asked respondents to choose a step on a ladder numbered from zero to 10 that best represented their quality of life, where zero indicated the worst possible life and 10 indicated the best possible life.

By race and ethnicity, Hispanic adults saw the steepest drop-off in optimism from the year prior, falling six points. White adults also saw a notable decline of 4.6 points, while sentiment among Black Americans fell 2.2 points.

Annual governors' gathering with White House unraveling after Trump excludes Democrats

JOEY CAPPELLETTI, STEVE PEOPLES and STEVEN SLOAN
Tue, February 10, 2026 

WASHINGTON (AP) — An annual meeting of the nation’s governors that has long served as a rare bipartisan gathering is unraveling after President Donald Trump excluded Democratic governors from White House events.

The National Governors Association said it will no longer hold a formal meeting with Trump when governors are scheduled to convene in Washington later this month, after the White House planned to invite only Republican governors. On Tuesday, 18 Democratic governors also announced they would boycott a traditional dinner at the White House.

“If the reports are true that not all governors are invited to these events, which have historically been productive and bipartisan opportunities for collaboration, we will not be attending the White House dinner this year,” the Democrats wrote. “Democratic governors remain united and will never stop fighting to protect and make life better for people in our states.”

Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, a Republican who chairs the NGA, told fellow governors in a letter on Monday that the White House intended to limit invitations to the association’s annual business meeting, scheduled for Feb. 20, to Republican governors only.

“Because NGA’s mission is to represent all 55 governors, the Association is no longer serving as the facilitator for that event, and it is no longer included in our official program,” Stitt wrote in the letter, which was obtained by The Associated Press.

The governors’ group, which is scheduled to meet from Feb. 19-21, is one of the few remaining venues where political leaders from both major parties gather to discuss the top issues facing their communities. White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt said on Tuesday that Trump has “discretion to invite anyone he wants to the White House.”

“It's the people's house,” she said. “It's also the president's home, so he can invite whomever he wants to dinners and events here at the White House.”

Representatives for Sitt and the NGA didn't comment on the letter. Brandon Tatum, the NGA's CEO, said in a statement last week that the White House meeting is an “important tradition” and said the organization was “disappointed in the administration's decision to make it a partisan occasion this year.”

In his letter to other governors, Stitt encouraged the group to unite around common goals.

“We cannot allow one divisive action to achieve its goal of dividing us,” he wrote. “The solution is not to respond in kind, but to rise above and to remain focused on our shared duty to the people we serve. America’s governors have always been models of pragmatic leadership, and that example is most important when Washington grows distracted by politics.”

Signs of partisan tensions emerged at the White House meeting last year, when Trump and Maine's Gov. Janet Mills traded barbs.

Trump singled out the Democratic governor over his push to bar transgender athletes from competing in girls’ and women’s sports, threatening to withhold federal funding from the state if she did not comply. Mills responded, “We’ll see you in court.”

Trump then predicted that Mills’ political career would be over for opposing the order. She is now running for U.S. Senate.

The back-and-forth had a lasting impact on last year’s conference and some Democratic governors did not renew their dues last year to the bipartisan group.
___

Peoples reported from New York.

Trump Aide Gives Jaw-Dropping Excuse for Humiliating Jobs Numbers

Janna Brancolini
Tue, February 10, 2026

DAILY BEAST

President Donald Trump’s trade adviser offered a bizarre pitch for why Americans should actually be happy about the administration’s terrible jobs numbers.

Since Trump returned to office, the economy has only been adding about 49,000 jobs per month on average, compared to about 168,000 jobs per month under former President Joe Biden.

That means Trump presided over the weakest year of jobs gains outside a recession since 2003, and more bad news is expected Wednesday when the Bureau of Labor Statistics is set to release its latest jobs report, according to CNN.

Economists say President Donald Trump's tariffs are partly to blame for a soft job market. / Chip Somodevilla/Getty Images

Apparently eager to get ahead of the report and try to prevent market fall-out, Trump’s trade adviser Peter Navarro insisted Tuesday that the poor jobs numbers were actually evidence that the administration is deporting “millions” of undocumented immigrants who were previously stealing jobs from Americans.

“We have to revise our expectations down significantly for what a monthly job number should look like,” Navarro told Fox Business host Maria Bartiromo. “When we were letting in 2 million illegal aliens, we had to produce 200,000 jobs a month for steady state.”

The jobs that were created during the Biden years were “going to illegals,” while “American were going to the employment lines,” he continued. Under Trump, that supposed trend has reversed, so really the country only needs to create about 50,000 jobs per month, he added.

“So, Wall Street, when this stuff comes out, they can’t rain on that parade, they have to adjust to the fact that we’re deporting millions of illegals out of our job market,” Navarro said.

The economy added about 168,000 jobs per month on average under Joe Biden, compared to 49,000 per month since President Trump returned to office. 

The administration has arrested about 393,000 immigrants since Trump took office last year, not “millions,” CBS News reported Monday.

Navarro’s “explanation” also ignores the fact that the U.S. unemployment rate ticked up during Trump’s first year back in office, hitting a four-year high of 4.6 percent in November 2025.

Last month, planned layoffs reached their highest level for January since the Great Recession.

Bartiromo was nevertheless keen to embrace Navarro’s framing of the economy.

“That’s a good point,” she said. “But it sounds like you’re expecting a weak number tomorrow.”

“No, not expecting a weak number,” Navarro insisted. “I’m just saying that going forward, when we see a number under 100,000, we don’t wring our hands. We say, ‘Yeah that’s going to be steady state.’”

Peter Navarro tried to argue that the poor jobs numbers are proof that President Trump's mass deportation operation is working. / Carlin Stiehl / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images

His argument echoed that of Kevin Hassett, Trump’s head of the National Economic Council, who last month insisted that the job numbers really weren’t that bad.

“The below 100 [thousand] thing isn’t as disturbing as it might be in the past,” he said.

Trump has also insisted this week that he’s “very proud” of his economy, even as large percentages of Americans say they’re worried about their ability to pay for good and other basics.

'We have to revise our expectations': White House downplays coming jobs report

Ben Werschkul · Washington Correspondent

YAHOO FINANCE
Tue, February 10, 2026


A much-anticipated labor market update isn't due out until Wednesday morning, but the White House is already working to temper expectations.

Members of President Trump's team have offered multiple warnings that employment gains may disappoint Wall Street and have tried to downplay what a miss might indicate about the state of the US economy.

"One shouldn't panic," National Economic Council Director Kevin Hassett told CNBC on Monday in a clear message to investors. "You should expect slightly smaller job numbers."

But he said the results may not be a sign of broader trouble, explaining the potentially smaller numbers as a combination of a "productivity boom" and "a pretty big decline in the labor force because of illegals leaving the country."

The president himself indirectly weighed in on the subject during an interview that aired Tuesday on the Fox Business Network.

During a discussion of government cuts, the president said "I've cut hundreds of thousands of jobs and we still have good employment numbers" before suggesting he could have "the greatest employment numbers you've ever seen" if he'd left government payrolls untouched or hired more.

President Trump steps off of Air Force One at Palm Beach International Airport on Feb. 6. (Samuel Corum/Getty Images) · Samuel Corum via Getty Images

The jobs report for the month of January — delayed five days due to the partial government shutdown — is set to be released on Wednesday at 8:30 a.m. ET.

Economists surveyed by Bloomberg expect about 70,000 nonfarm payroll jobs were created last month, but the estimates have varied widely. The highest saw 135,000 jobs added last month, while the lowest indicated a loss of 10,000 positions.

The unemployment rate is expected to remain steady at 4.4%.

'We have to revise our expectations down significantly'

The report comes amid a variety of signs that the US labor market could be on shaky ground. ADP reported last week that private employers added just 22,000 jobs in January, about half of what economists had expected.

The BLS's recent Job Openings and Labor Turnover Survey (JOLTS) showed job openings shrinking to the lowest level since 2020. Data from global outplacement firm Challenger, Gray & Christmas showed layoff announcements in January hit the highest level since 2009.

The economy added 50,000 jobs in December, capping off the worst year of hiring since 2020.

"We are seeing pressure," Manulife John Hancock Investments co-chief investment strategist Emily Roland told Yahoo Finance, noting three recent subpar jobs reports.

A career fair in Lake Forest, Calif., is seen in 2024. (Paul Bersebach/MediaNews Group/Orange County Register via Getty Images) · MediaNews Group/Orange County Register via Getty Images via Getty Images

The atmosphere has led to numerous warnings from the White House team with a variety of explanations, including from ongoing immigration operations to increased productivity from AI to government cutting efforts.

Trump's senior trade counselor, Peter Navarro, pushed the message on Tuesday and emphasized the immigration angle during a Fox Business appearance.

"We have to revise our expectations down significantly for what a monthly job number should look like," he said, suggesting that 50,000 jobs should be considered enough to keep up with population growth.

Wall Street will "have to adjust for the fact that we're deporting millions of illegals out of the job market," he added.

The political consequences of a mismatch between a growing economy and a stagnant labor market are also being acknowledged by Trump's team.

Hassett nodded to the dynamic in his Monday appearance, saying it remains an open question of "what's going to happen to jobs as productivity goes up?"

He didn't offer a firm prediction but said there remains a chance that "job creation lags."

This story has been updated with additional developments.

Ben Werschkul is a Washington correspondent for Yahoo Finance.

AMERIKA BREAKS ITS WORD, AGAIN

U.S.-Canada bridge brouhaha deepens as White House says Trump could amend a permit for the project

SEUNG MIN KIM
Tue, February 10, 2026 


FILE - The Saginaw passes construction on the Gordie Howe International Bridge connecting on the Detroit River connecting Windsor, Ontario and Detroit, Oct. 25, 2023. (AP Photo/Paul Sancya, File)(ASSOCIATED PRESS)More

WASHINGTON (AP) — The White House says President Donald Trump has the right to amend a permit for a new bridge between Canada and Michigan, prolonging the latest dispute between the U.S. and its northern neighbor hours after its prime minister signaled there could be a detente.

The Gordie Howe International Bridge, which would connect Ontario and Michigan and would be a vital economic artery between the two countries, is scheduled to open in early 2026. But Trump has now threatened to block the bridge from being opened, calling for Canada to agree to a litany of unspecified demands as the two nations prepare to renegotiate a sprawling trade pact later this year.

Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney said earlier Tuesday that he spoke with Trump and expressed confidence that the spat would be resolved. But a White House official later Tuesday said the ownership structure of the bridge remains unacceptable for the U.S. president.

Canada paid for the bridge, named after a Canadian-born Detroit Red Wings hockey star. Construction has been underway since 2018.

The official said that all international infrastructure projects require a presidential permit, and that Trump would be within his right to amend that permit. The person was granted anonymity because they did not have permission to speak publicly.

“The fact that Canada will control what crosses the Gordie Howe Bridge and owns the land on both sides is unacceptable to the president,” White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt told reporters on Tuesday. “It’s also unacceptable that more of this bridge isn’t being built with more American-made materials.”

The new fight over the bridge is the latest volley in an increasingly sour relationship between the United States and Canada, particularly over trade policy. Trump has also mused publicly about acquiring Canada as the 51st U.S. state, much to the dismay of Canadians.

Following his conversation with Trump, Carney said “this is going to be resolved” and noted that he told the U.S. president that the Canadian and Michigan governments shared ownership of the bridge. Michigan Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s office has also emphasized that the bridge will be operated under a joint ownership agreement between the state and Canada, even though the Canadian government paid for it.

Carney also added that U.S. steel was used in the project, which also employed U.S. workers. According to Carney, Trump told him he’ll ask the U.S. ambassador to Canada, former Michigan Rep. Pete Hoekstra, to “play a role in smoothing the conversation in and around the bridge.”

Hoekstra did not return an immediate request for comment.

“I look forward to it opening and what is particularly important is the commerce and the tourism of Canadians and Americans that go across that bridge,” Carney said.

The project was negotiated by former Michigan Republican Gov. Rick Snyder and paid for by the Canadian government to help ease congestion over the existing Ambassador Bridge and Detroit-Windsor tunnel.

Snyder wrote in an op-ed in The Detroit News on Tuesday that Trump was wrong in asserting that Canada owns both the U.S.- and Canadian sides of the Gordie Howe bridge.

“Canada and the state of Michigan are 50/50 owners of the new bridge," Snyder wrote. “Canada was wonderful and financed the entire bridge. They will get repaid with interest from the tolls. Michigan and the United States got their half-ownership with no investment.”

The former governor also emphasized that parts of the bridge construction were exempt from “Buy America” requirements for its steel because half of the project was outside the U.S. and subsequently, U.S. law should not apply to them.

“President Trump, I would encourage you to challenge your advisers and the sources for your post to correct the information they have provided,” Snyder wrote in the op-ed. He acknowledged some trade issues with Canada, but “picking this bridge as the leverage point doesn’t seem to make the most sense given your other tools."

——

Trump’s Canada bridge meltdown dismissed by UBS as an unlikely TACO trade ‘in the post–Heated Rivalry environment’

Eleanor Pringle
Tue, February 10, 2026 


Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney (left) and U.S. President Donald Trump on Dec. 5, 2025.(Brendan SMIALOWSKI—AFP/Getty Images)

A year ago, if the Oval Office had threatened to axe a major piece of infrastructure shared with Canada, markets would have been in disarray. But it’s February 2026, and investors barely batted an eye.

Overnight, President Trump made a series of threats against the Canadian government, including blocking the Gordie Howe International Bridge, which connects the state of Michigan with the Canadian province of Ontario and was expected to open this year.

The reason for the furor appears to be Canada’s plans to trade more closely with China, a key economic rival of the U.S. President Trump said the neighboring nation had “treated the United States very unfairly for decades”—a rhetoric now familiar to foreign governments, particularly since the Liberation Day tariffs announced in April 2025.

Writing on Truth Social, President Trump said that China “will eat Canada alive” if its trade links increase, and America will “just get the leftovers.”

Trump said the bridge will not be allowed 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.”

Negotiations were to start “immediately,” Trump said.

Writing on X, Michigan Democratic Sen. Elissa Slotkin wrote that canceling the opening of the bridge would have “serious repercussions” for the economy of her state. She said it would entail higher costs for Michigan businesses, leave supply chains less secure, and ultimately lead to fewer jobs.

“With this threat, the president is punishing Michiganders for a trade war he started,” the senator added. “The only reason Canada is on the verge of a trade deal with China is because President Trump has kicked them in the teeth for a year.”

The nosedive in relations between America and its neighbor had little impact on markets this morning. One could argue a spat over a bridge may not have ramifications large enough for Wall Street to take much notice, but analysts at this stage are also familiar with the “TACO” trade—the notion that Trump always chickens out.

As Paul Donovan of UBS noted this morning: “Despite the tone of the statements, markets are likely to discount this rhetoric (tariffs on U.S. importers of goods from Iranian trading partners, 100% tariffs on U.S. importers of Canadian goods, and 50% tariffs on U.S. importers of Canadian aircraft have yet to materialize).”
Trump claims China would end ice hockey

Trump also made an unusual claim about the nation’s national sport: “The first thing China will do is terminate all Ice Hockey being played in Canada, and permanently eliminate The Stanley Cup.

As one of Canada’s most popular sports in terms of participation and viewing figures, this seems unlikely, with Donovan joking even more so thanks to a recently popular TV show: Heated Rivalry. The show, created and produced in Canada and shot in Ontario, follows the forbidden love affair between two rival hockey stars.

Donovan mused that Trump’s suggestion that “a trade deal with China would result in ice hockey being banned in Canada … might perhaps underestimate the general Canadian support for ice hockey, particularly in the post–Heated Rivalry environment.”