Benson Says Michigan Can “Get Around” Trump’s Canada Tariffs — But a Governor Cannot Override Federal Trade Law

The Democratic nominee for Michigan governor is promising Canadian “carve-outs.” The Constitution raises a much harder question: Where exactly would a Michigan governor get the authority to bypass a federal tariff?

Michigan Secretary of State and Democratic gubernatorial nominee Jocelyn Benson has made an extraordinary promise to Michigan voters: if elected governor, she says she can negotiate directly with Canada to protect Michigan from President Donald Trump’s tariffs.

There is just one enormous problem with that promise.

The governor of Michigan does not control United States tariff policy.

Benson has repeatedly promoted what she calls “subnational agreements” between Michigan and Canada. Her campaign has described them as “carve-outs” that could protect Michigan businesses, consumers and the auto industry from federal tariffs.

On September 30, Benson said she would negotiate agreements “simply between Michigan and our neighbor to the north” to find ways to protect Michigan border crossings from federal tariff policies. Her campaign has made similar statements repeatedly. (jocelynbenson)

But Benson has gone considerably further than simply promising better relations with Canada.

During a September 6 appearance on CBS's Face the Nation, Benson said that as governor she could meet Canadian officials and find ways to ensure Michigan-Canada trade “gets around these tariffs.” 

That wording matters.

Because governors can negotiate, cooperate and advocate.

They cannot rewrite federal tariff law.

CBS Immediately Asked the Obvious Question

CBS moderator Margaret Brennan challenged Benson directly.

If the tariffs are being imposed by the federal government, Brennan essentially asked, how could Michigan possibly cancel out those costs at the state level?

Benson did not identify a federal statute giving Michigan an exemption. She did not identify presidential authority allowing Michigan to establish its own tariff schedule. And she did not explain how an agreement between Michigan and Canadian officials could legally eliminate a tariff imposed under federal authority.

Instead, she returned to the idea of subnational agreements and said Michigan could find ways for trade with Canada to “get around” the tariffs. 

That isn't a minor detail in her proposal.

It is the central legal question.

If Benson is merely proposing cooperation with Canada to reduce other costs associated with trade, she should say precisely that.

If she is claiming that Michigan can negotiate a Canadian “carve-out” that exempts goods from a valid federal tariff, she needs to explain where that authority exists.

Tariffs Are Federal Policy, Not Michigan Policy

The Constitution did not create 50 separate American trade policies.

Article I gives Congress authority over commerce with foreign nations. The Constitution also sharply restricts states' authority over imports and exports.

And Article I, Section 10 specifically restricts states from entering agreements or compacts with foreign powers without congressional consent in circumstances covered by the Compact Clause. The Constitution Annotated published by Congress notes these explicit restrictions on state power. 

Then there is the Supremacy Clause.

Valid federal law is the supreme law of the land. A state cannot simply enact a conflicting policy because its governor believes Washington made a bad decision.

That principle applies whether the governor is a Republican fighting a Democratic president or a Democrat fighting a Republican president.

Michigan does not get a constitutional veto over Washington simply because federal policy disproportionately affects Michigan.

Imagine the Reverse Situation

The constitutional problem becomes obvious if the political parties are reversed.

Suppose a Democratic president imposed federal environmental restrictions on imports from another country.

Then imagine a Republican Michigan governor announcing:

I disagree with Washington, so I'm negotiating directly with that foreign country to create a Michigan carve-out that gets around the federal restrictions.

Would Democrats accept that?

Would Benson?

Almost certainly, the immediate question would be whether a governor was attempting to nullify federal law.

That is precisely why constitutional limits cannot depend upon which party controls Washington.

Michigan Can Work With Canada. That's Not the Same Thing.

None of this means Michigan's governor must sit silently while federal trade policy damages the state.

Michigan and Canada share enormous economic interests. A governor absolutely can maintain relationships with Canadian officials, promote Michigan exports, encourage Canadian investment, coordinate infrastructure projects, work on supply-chain problems and lobby Washington for exemptions or changes in federal policy.

A governor could also pursue lawful state policies designed to offset some economic consequences of tariffs.

Those are legitimate exercises of state leadership.

But Benson's rhetoric repeatedly goes further.

Her own campaign said on September 14 that she would negotiate agreements so Michigan-Canada trade could “get around these tariffs.” (jocelynbenson)

More recently, her campaign quoted her describing “carve-outs” between Michigan and Canada designed to protect Michigan from the tariffs. (jocelynbenson)

Those claims deserve scrutiny.

Where Is the Legal Authority?

Benson is running to become governor of Michigan, not president of the United States and not the United States Trade Representative.

So there are straightforward questions she should answer:

1. What specific legal authority allows a Michigan governor to negotiate a tariff “carve-out” with Canada?

2. Would the agreement require approval from Congress or the federal executive branch?

3. Would U.S. Customs and Border Protection still collect the federal tariff when Canadian goods enter Michigan?

4. If the federal tariff remains payable, what exactly does “get around these tariffs” mean?

5. If Benson isn't claiming Michigan can override the tariff itself, why repeatedly describe the proposal as a way to “get around” federal tariffs?

Those aren't partisan questions.

They are constitutional ones.

A Governor Cannot Create Her Own Foreign-Trade Policy

There is an important distinction Benson's campaign appears determined to blur.

A governor can oppose federal policy.

A governor can lobby to change federal policy.

A governor can challenge federal action in court when there is a legitimate legal basis.

A governor can cooperate with Canadian officials on matters within state authority.

But a governor cannot simply declare that Michigan has negotiated its way out of federal law.

If Washington has imposed a valid tariff under federal law, Michigan cannot erase that tariff through an agreement negotiated in Lansing or Toronto.

That's federal supremacy.

And no campaign slogan changes it.

Benson Owes Michigan More Than a Promise

Perhaps Benson has something narrower in mind.

Perhaps “get around” doesn't mean circumventing the tariff legally. Perhaps she means finding efficiencies, subsidies, procurement arrangements, supply-chain changes or other policies that reduce the economic impact of tariffs without eliminating them.

If that's the proposal, Benson should explain it.

Because telling Michigan voters that their governor can negotiate “carve-outs” with another country and “get around” federal tariffs creates an impression of gubernatorial authority that simply does not exist if she is talking about overriding the tariff itself.

Michigan voters deserve specifics before Election Day.

Benson is free to argue that Trump's tariffs are economically destructive. She is free to campaign against them. She is free to demand that Congress repeal them or that the president withdraw them.

What she cannot credibly promise is something the Constitution does not give a Michigan governor the power to deliver.

Michigan is a state, not a sovereign nation with its own tariff policy.

And whoever occupies the governor's office remains bound by the same Constitution and federal laws as everyone else.

John James Once Called Trump “Not Fit to Lead.” Now He Wants Voters to Forget

LANSING, Mich. — Michigan Republican gubernatorial candidate John James has spent much of his political career presenting himself as a loyal ally of President Donald Trump. Today, James praises Trump as a transformational leader, highlights Trump’s endorsement of his campaign and tells Republican voters that the two men have stood together through “thick and thin.”

But James’ political record includes a sharply different assessment of Trump — one that raises questions about conviction, consistency and political expediency. Is John James j7dt an opportunist?

In December 2022, John James publicly declared that Donald Trump could not be trusted and was “not fit to lead.”

“A man who would suspend the Constitution can’t be trusted,” James said. “Anyone who will put their egos over people is not fit to lead.”

Those were not the words of a Democrat, a liberal commentator or a member of the anti-Trump resistance. They came from a Republican who had already received Trump’s endorsement in two Michigan Senate campaigns and who was preparing to take office in the U.S. House of Representatives.

Yet within months, James abandoned that position and endorsed the same man he had described as untrustworthy and unfit for leadership.

What Prompted James’ Condemnation?

The controversy began on December 3, 2022, when Trump posted a statement on Truth Social responding to claims that social-media companies and Democratic political figures had worked to suppress reporting about Hunter Biden before the 2020 presidential election.

Trump asked whether the 2020 election results should be thrown out or whether a new election should be held. He then wrote that alleged election fraud permitted the “termination” of constitutional rules, regulations and articles.

The statement immediately generated criticism because the Constitution does not contain a mechanism allowing a defeated presidential candidate to suspend it or discard election results based on allegations posted on social media.

Trump’s remarks came only weeks after he had formally announced another campaign for president. As a result, Republicans were confronted with a direct question: Could they support a candidate who appeared willing to set aside constitutional safeguards to return himself to power?

John James initially answered that question forcefully.

On December 6, James said that a person willing to suspend the Constitution “can’t be trusted” and was “not fit to lead.”

It was one of the strongest condemnations James had ever issued against Trump.

James Did Not Merely Disagree on Policy

James’ language is important.

He did not simply say Trump had chosen the wrong words. He did not characterize the statement as an unfortunate distraction. He did not say that Trump needed to clarify his position.

James questioned Trump’s trustworthiness and fitness for leadership.

For a politician who frequently emphasizes his military service and oath to the Constitution, the statement appeared to establish a clear red line. James seemed to be saying that constitutional government must take priority over loyalty to any political leader.

But that red line did not last.

Seven Months Later, James Endorsed Trump

In July 2023, James endorsed Trump’s campaign to return to the White House.

The endorsement came approximately seven months after James had said Trump could not be trusted and was not fit to lead. James did not identify any major apology, constitutional clarification or change in behavior that had caused him to reverse his judgment.

Instead, he joined Michigan’s other Republican members of Congress in supporting Trump.

The reversal attracted national attention because James had moved from declaring Trump unfit for leadership to actively helping him regain the presidency.

James’ decision demonstrated that his December 2022 denunciation was not the beginning of an organized effort to oppose Trump. He did not launch a constitutional accountability campaign. He did not endorse one of Trump’s Republican primary opponents. He did not make Trump’s constitutional statement a central issue in Congress.

He simply moved on.

Did James “Pursue” His Opposition to Trump?

There is little evidence that James pursued the matter beyond issuing the original statement.

He did not introduce a congressional resolution censuring Trump over the remarks. He did not lead a Republican coalition arguing that Trump should be disqualified from the party’s nomination. He did not continue publicly describing Trump as untrustworthy or unfit.

Instead, James reversed course and endorsed him.

That distinction matters. Political candidates occasionally disagree with members of their own party. But James’ original criticism concerned the Constitution itself and a candidate’s basic fitness to hold power.

If James sincerely believed Trump was unfit to lead in December 2022, voters are entitled to ask what changed by July 2023.

Did James conclude that Trump had withdrawn or corrected the position? Did James decide the constitutional issue was no longer important? Or did Trump’s continued dominance of the Republican Party make opposition politically inconvenient?

James has never provided a detailed public explanation that fully reconciles those two positions.

A Longer History of Shifting Language

The 2022 reversal was not the first time James had attempted to balance criticism of Trump with political loyalty to him.

During his 2018 Senate campaign, James declared that he would support Trump “2,000%.” Trump endorsed James in the Republican primary and later campaigned for him.

During the 2020 election, however, leaked audio revealed James discussing areas in which he disagreed with Trump. James cited issues including proposed Great Lakes funding cuts, Trump’s vulgar description of certain countries and Trump’s criticism of deceased political figures.

James also explained why he did not criticize Trump more aggressively in public. He argued that remaining publicly quiet could give him access and influence inside the administration.

“Donald Trump doesn’t need less Black folks around him, he needs more,” James said during the private discussion.

That explanation suggested James was willing to mute public disagreements as a political strategy. His approach was not necessarily unconditional approval of Trump, but a calculation that access and influence were more valuable than public confrontation.

The December 2022 statement temporarily broke that pattern. James’ words were direct, public and personal: Trump could not be trusted and was not fit to lead.

The break proved temporary.

James Rebrands Himself as Trump’s Partner

When James announced his campaign for Michigan governor in April 2025, he portrayed his relationship with Trump very differently.

“President Trump and I have been in each other’s corner through thick and thin for eight years — no reason that will end now,” James said in his gubernatorial announcement.

That claim omitted the fact that James had once publicly declared Trump unfit for leadership.

The phrase “through thick and thin” suggests uninterrupted loyalty. The historical record shows something more complicated: strong support, private criticism, public condemnation and then renewed loyalty.

In June 2026, Trump endorsed James for governor. James responded by calling Trump “the greatest President of my lifetime” and thanking him for his “complete and total endorsement.”

The Trump endorsement became a major boost for James in the Republican primary and helped consolidate establishment support around his campaign. (AP News)

The Constitutional Question Never Went Away

James’ reversal is especially significant because the dispute was not primarily about taxes, spending, foreign policy or personality. It involved the constitutional transfer of presidential power.

James is a West Point graduate and former Army officer. Military officers swear an oath to support and defend the Constitution, not an individual president or political party.

That background gave his December 2022 statement additional weight. James appeared to be applying the principles associated with that oath when he said a man willing to suspend the Constitution could not be trusted.

The unanswered question is why the constitutional principle that made Trump unfit in December 2022 was apparently no longer disqualifying seven months later.

Trump’s dominance of the Republican electorate offers an obvious political explanation. Opposing Trump carried the risk of alienating the voters James would need for future campaigns, particularly a statewide Republican primary.

By endorsing Trump in 2023 and closely aligning himself with Trump afterward, James restored his standing with the party’s MAGA base and positioned himself for Trump’s eventual endorsement in the 2026 governor’s race.

That may have been politically effective. It does not resolve the contradiction.

James’ Record Gives His Opponents an Opening

James’ Republican opponents can use the episode to question whether his current loyalty to Trump is genuine or convenient.

A rival can argue that James condemned Trump when he believed the party might be moving in another direction, then returned to Trump once it became clear that Trump remained the Republican Party’s dominant figure.

Democrats can make a different argument. They can say James recognized the danger of Trump’s constitutional rhetoric, accurately described it, and then abandoned his own judgment to protect his political future.

Both attacks lead to the same underlying question: What does John James truly believe?

If Trump was not fit to lead in December 2022, why did James help him return to power?

If Trump was fit to lead by July 2023, why did James use such sweeping and definitive language only months earlier?

A Question of Judgment, Not Just Loyalty

The controversy is not simply about whether James is sufficiently loyal to Trump. It is also about James’ judgment.

One possibility is that James was correct in December 2022 and later sacrificed principle for political survival.

Another is that James issued an exaggerated condemnation in the heat of the moment and later reconsidered.

A third possibility is that both statements were shaped primarily by the political needs of the moment.

None of those explanations is particularly flattering.

Michigan voters may ultimately care more about the economy, roads, schools, taxes and public safety than a statement made several years earlier. But gubernatorial candidates also ask voters to trust their character and consistency.

James’ own words created a standard against which he can be measured.

“A man who would suspend the Constitution can’t be trusted,” James said.

Today, John James is asking Michigan Republicans to trust both Donald Trump and himself — while offering little explanation for why the man he once called untrustworthy and unfit to lead is now, in James’ words, the greatest president of his lifetime.

That contradiction deserves a direct answer before Michigan voters choose their next governor.

 

Mike Cox Exits Michigan Governor's Race, Leaving Perry Johnson as John James' Remaining GOP Challenger

LANSING, Mich. — Former Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox has suspended his campaign for governor, narrowing the Republican primary to a head-to-head contest between U.S. Rep. John James and businessman Perry Johnson.

Cox announced Friday that he was ending his campaign following President Donald Trump's endorsement of James, saying the endorsement significantly changed the dynamics of the race. He also said he intends to support James in the general election.

Cox's departure comes as Perry Johnson has continued to build support among many grassroots Republicans, positioning himself as the remaining outsider in the race. With the Republican field now consolidated, Johnson becomes the sole major challenger to James and will seek to capitalize on voters looking for an alternative to the establishment-backed campaign.

A successful entrepreneur and longtime advocate for government reform, Johnson has argued throughout the campaign that Michigan Republicans—not endorsements or political insiders—should ultimately decide the party's nominee at the ballot box. His campaign has focused on issues including reducing government spending, lowering taxes, supporting law enforcement, and expanding economic opportunity.

Cox, who served two terms as Michigan attorney general and previously sought the governorship in 2010, thanked Michigan voters for allowing him to serve as a Marine, prosecutor and attorney general, describing public service as the most rewarding experience of his career.

Johnson, who narrowly missed qualifying for the 2022 Republican gubernatorial primary after thousands of petition signatures submitted by multiple campaigns were ruled invalid, has since rebuilt a statewide political organization and returned to the campaign trail with renewed support from many Republican activists.

With absentee voting underway and the Republican primary drawing closer, the race now becomes a direct contest between James, backed by President Trump's endorsement, and Johnson, who is betting that a strong grassroots organization and outsider message can resonate with Republican voters across Michigan.

Donald Trump Is Holding the Gordie Howe Bridge Hostage While Michigan Waits

For years Michigan residents, Canadian neighbors, businesses, truckers, and taxpayers have watched the Gordie Howe International Bridge rise over the Detroit River. The massive $5 billion project was billed as a game-changing piece of infrastructure that would strengthen trade, create jobs, reduce congestion, and connect two nations more efficiently than ever before.

Today, the bridge is essentially complete.

And yet it remains closed.

Why?

Increasingly, critics point to one man: President Donald Trump.

The Gordie Howe International Bridge was expected to open in the spring of 2026. Construction is largely finished. Border facilities are in place. Local leaders on both sides of the border say they are ready. Businesses are ready. Residents are ready. Detroit is ready. Windsor is ready.

The only thing missing is the political green light.

Instead of celebrating a once-in-a-generation infrastructure achievement, Michigan finds itself trapped in another episode of political brinkmanship.

Trump has openly suggested that the bridge's opening could be delayed until the United States receives what he considers adequate compensation for its role in the project. The bridge has effectively become a bargaining chip in broader negotiations between Washington and Ottawa.

That may make for dramatic political theater. It makes terrible public policy.

The bridge was never intended to be a hostage in an international negotiation. It was intended to serve the public.

Every day the bridge sits unused represents lost economic opportunity. Businesses that planned around the new crossing continue waiting. Truck traffic remains concentrated at existing crossings. Communities on both sides of the border are denied the benefits they were promised years ago.

The delay is especially frustrating because Canadian taxpayers largely financed the bridge's construction, with the expectation that toll revenues would eventually repay the costs. Windsor Mayor Drew Dilkens has publicly warned against forcing Canada into a bad deal simply to satisfy Trump's demands.

Meanwhile, Michigan Democrats have accused Trump and Republicans of "playing political games" with a project that should already be serving the public. Whether one agrees with that characterization or not, the reality remains that no firm opening date has been announced despite repeated expectations that the bridge would be operational by now.

This is not merely a local issue.

The Detroit-Windsor corridor handles hundreds of billions of dollars in trade. It is one of the most important commercial crossings in North America. Auto manufacturing, agriculture, logistics, and countless other industries depend on smooth movement between the United States and Canada.

When politics delays infrastructure, workers pay the price.

Small businesses pay the price.

Consumers pay the price.

Michigan pays the price.

Trump's supporters argue that he is protecting American interests and negotiating from a position of strength. They point to his "America First" agenda and insist that the delay is part of a broader strategy to secure favorable terms for the United States.

But there is a difference between tough negotiation and unnecessary obstruction.

A completed bridge that sits empty benefits nobody.

The Gordie Howe International Bridge was supposed to symbolize cooperation between two longtime allies. Instead, it has become another example of how political disputes can derail practical solutions.

The people of Michigan do not need another political stunt.

They need the bridge opened.

The truck drivers waiting in line at existing crossings do not care about political leverage.

The businesses planning shipments do not care about partisan talking points.

The families hoping to visit friends and relatives across the border do not care about negotiation tactics.

They care about results.

After years of construction, billions of dollars in investment, and countless promises, the public deserves better than endless delays and political gamesmanship.

The bridge is built.

The infrastructure is ready.

The communities are ready.

The only question remaining is whether Donald Trump is willing to stop using the Gordie Howe International Bridge as a bargaining chip and finally allow it to fulfill the purpose for which it was built.

M