ProPublica reported on Thursday, July 30 that crossings at the Sault Ste. Marie International Bridge, which links Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan to Sault Ste. Marie, Ontario, fell by roughly 270,000 last year, a decline of nearly 24 percent from 2024. That exceeded the drop at Michigan’s other border crossings.
The bridge’s director estimates the two cities together lost at least $82.9 million in local spending over the year. The bridge is publicly owned and depends on tolls for maintenance and operations. Its five-year plan, issued in December, warned that border challenges affecting traffic, trade, and tourism could reduce revenue or raise costs beyond what operations can sustain.
The reporting arrives days before Michigan’s August 4 primary. Rep. Jack Bergman, who represents the Upper Peninsula and is endorsed by Trump in a contested primary, has said little publicly about the tariffs despite being pressed by constituents, according to ProPublica. In 2020, appointed to a group facilitating exchange between Canadian and American legislators, he had described the bridge as a place where millions cross annually to do business, shop, work, and enjoy what each country offers.
Background
The two Saults function in many respects as one community. Michigan Sault Mayor Don Gerrie told a crowd at the annual International Bridge Walk in late June, which drew nearly 1,100 people, that “We don’t like to say there’s a border there, because we’re twin cities.” He wore a cap given to him by his Ontario counterpart bearing both nations’ flags.
The decline began early in 2025 alongside the first round of tariffs and tariff threats. By August 2025 the bridge had recorded six consecutive months of falling traffic, with July 2025 crossings at 91,967, down 24 percent year over year. Ontario Sault Mayor Matthew Shoemaker said then that the lower volume looked like a new normal.
The effects run in both directions. Algoma Steel, the largest employer on the Ontario side, issued roughly 1,000 layoff notices in a move the company said was accelerated by U.S. steel tariffs. On the Michigan side, the losses are concentrated in retail, restaurants, fuel, and tourism that depended on Canadian visitors.
Michigan is not isolated in this. Houston Public Media reported Texas businesses navigating uncertainty over the future of the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade agreement.
What Different Sides Are Saying
The administration argues tariffs revive domestic manufacturing. Trump made this case directly in Michigan on July 27, speaking at General Motors’ Milford proving ground alongside Mary Barra. That argument is about manufacturing employment, and it is a different measurement than cross-border retail traffic. Both can be true simultaneously: a policy can support one sector while damaging another. Neither side benefits from pretending the trade-off does not exist.
Local officials describe the cost without uniformly blaming tariffs alone. ProPublica’s reporting identifies several contributing factors: the tariff dispute itself, Canadian “buy local” campaigns and emergency interventions, a weaker Canadian dollar reducing purchasing power in the United States, and a chilling effect from recurring Canadian news coverage of Canadians detained by U.S. immigration authorities. The tariffs are central to the account but are not presented as the sole cause, and any single-cause framing from either direction oversimplifies it.
Some Canadians describe the decision as political rather than economic. A resident named Sullivan, whose son works at Algoma Steel and was not among those laid off, told CBC that supporting the neighboring economy “doesn’t feel right” now, adding that she has no desire to support the U.S. and that the damage has been done. Other residents, including one named Cathy Hicks, disagree. That split is worth noting: the drop in crossings reflects individual choices, not only prices.
The trend line is disputed and both versions belong here. ProPublica’s July 30 story documents a sharp annual decline. A CBC report from roughly two weeks earlier found crossings between the two Saults rising substantially this summer, and a January CBC story quoted Michigan Sault businesses saying Canadian customers were slowly returning. These are not necessarily contradictory, since a partial recovery from a low base is compatible with a large year-over-year drop, but the difference in emphasis is real. A bridge official quoted by ProPublica captured the pattern, saying numbers had been recovering when “the federal tariff dispute occurred and we’ve fallen off.”
On Bergman’s silence. ProPublica reports he has been largely quiet on the tariffs and notes that the only Sault Ste. Marie references on his website during this term concern an infrastructure project and a February 2025 letter about an alleged Venezuelan gang member crossing the border. This is a factual description of a public record. It does not establish why, and a member of Congress does not comment on everything affecting their district.
Note on Scope
ProPublica does investigative reporting with an identifiable editorial perspective, and this piece is framed around costs rather than benefits. The underlying figures come from bridge authority data and named local officials and are checkable. We were not able to locate an equivalent local accounting of tariff benefits in the Upper Peninsula, which may reflect an absence of such gains in this specific region rather than an absence of reporting.
The $82.9 million figure is the bridge director’s estimate covering both cities and includes Canadian losses, so it is not a measure of Michigan losses alone.
Related Links
- Trump’s Canada tariffs decimate border crossings and business in Upper Michigan (ProPublica)
- Canada tariffs decimate border crossings in Upper Michigan (WKMJ, republishing ProPublica)
- Rising border crossings spark mixed reactions (CBC News, reporting an increase this summer)
- Michigan border town missing Canadian customers one year in (CBC News)
- Sault border crossings down for six straight months (SooToday, from the Ontario side)
- Texas businesses navigate choppy waters as USMCA future stays in limbo (Houston Public Media)
Discussion Questions
- Who should decide trade policy when the costs fall on one town and the benefits on another?
- Have prices or availability of anything you buy changed in the past year?
- Is a 24 percent drop in crossings mostly about money or about how people feel?
- Should a member of Congress speak publicly about a policy hurting their district?
- How would you measure whether a tariff worked?
- What does it mean for two cities in different countries to call themselves twins?
- Should a publicly owned bridge that depends on tolls get help when traffic falls?
- Why might a Canadian shopper stop crossing even if prices were unchanged?
- Is it possible for a policy to help manufacturing and hurt retail at the same time?
- Imagine you own a restaurant in Sault Ste. Marie, Michigan. What do you do this year?
