Michigan-Canada Partnership Act

Bill Number

H.R. 7492

Origin Chamber

House

Congress

119th Congress, Session 2

Policy Area

International Affairs

Status

Introduced

Latest Action

2026-02-12: Referred to the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement.

Last Updated

2026-05-16T08:07:18Z

AI-Generated Summary

Purpose of the Legislation

The Michigan-Canada Partnership Act (H.R. 7492) aims to protect the opening and operation of the Gordie Howe International Bridge, a key cross-border infrastructure project connecting Detroit, Michigan, and Windsor, Ontario. It seeks to prevent any federal government interference that could disrupt this bridge, emphasizing its role in supporting U.S.-Canada trade, economic activity, and national security.

Key Provisions

• Findings Section: Outlines the bridge's importance as a vital link for transportation, commerce, and security. It highlights the Detroit-Windsor border as North America's busiest commercial crossing, the economic benefits of U.S.-Canada trade (especially in automotive, manufacturing, and agriculture), the 2012 bilateral agreement between Michigan and Canada for shared ownership and construction (financed by Canada), bipartisan historical support, ongoing construction since 2018, and the risks of federal interference to U.S. workers and supply chains.
• Prohibition on Interference: Federal officials, including the President, are barred from impeding the bridge's opening or attempting to close it (or its associated port of entry) unless authorized by an Act of Congress or requested by the Governor of Michigan. This applies "notwithstanding any other provision of law," meaning it overrides conflicting existing laws.
• Affirmative Duty for Federal Agencies: Agencies with oversight (e.g., those handling borders or trade) must take all necessary steps to ensure the bridge opens on time and operates continuously, following required staffing and operational standards, such as the U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP) Workforce Staffing Model (a federal guideline for border staffing needs).
• Ban on Delay Tactics: Federal officials cannot hinder, delay, or condition the bridge's use through actions or inactions, including failing to fulfill federal responsibilities promptly.
• Judicial Review: The State of Michigan or affected local governments can sue in U.S. District Court to enforce compliance with these rules.

Significant Changes to Existing Law

• Introduces a specific prohibition on federal interference with this particular infrastructure, which could limit executive branch discretion in border and trade matters.
• Imposes a mandatory duty on federal agencies to actively support the bridge's operation, shifting from permissive to required actions.
• Provides a new avenue for state and local enforcement through federal courts, potentially strengthening state authority over international projects.

Potential Impacts

• On Government Agencies: Agencies like CBP, Homeland Security, and those involved in trade (e.g., under Ways and Means jurisdiction) will face legal obligations to prioritize the bridge's timely operation, potentially requiring resource allocation for staffing and maintenance. Non-compliance could lead to court-ordered actions.
• On Citizens: U.S. workers, manufacturers, farmers, and consumers in Michigan and border regions could benefit from reduced congestion, more reliable supply chains, and enhanced economic activity (e.g., in automotive and agriculture sectors). Disruptions from interference could harm jobs and increase costs.
• On International Relations: Reinforces U.S.-Canada economic ties by protecting a jointly funded project, promoting stability in North American trade under agreements like the USMCA (United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement). It could prevent tensions if unilateral U.S. actions were attempted.

Main Stakeholders Affected

• Federal Government: Officials and agencies (e.g., President, CBP, Homeland Security) are directly restricted and obligated.
• State and Local Governments: Michigan's state government and local entities (e.g., in Detroit) gain enforcement rights and benefits from protected infrastructure.
• Economic Sectors: U.S. and Canadian businesses, workers, and industries reliant on cross-border trade, particularly automotive manufacturers, agriculture, and energy producers.
• Broader Public: Consumers and taxpayers in the U.S., who rely on efficient trade flows for lower costs and supply chain reliability.

Notable Legal, Constitutional, or Political Implications

• Legal: The "notwithstanding" clause gives this law precedence over other statutes, potentially setting a precedent for protecting specific international projects from administrative delays. Judicial review empowers states to challenge federal actions, which could lead to increased litigation over border infrastructure.
• Constitutional: Limits executive authority (e.g., presidential powers over foreign affairs and borders) by requiring congressional or state approval for interference, aligning with Congress's role in regulating commerce and appropriations but possibly raising separation-of-powers questions if challenged.
• Political: Highlights bipartisan historical support for the project (citing actions under both Republican and Democratic administrations) and underscores congressional oversight of U.S.-Canada relations, potentially influencing debates on trade policy and border security without favoring any party.

This summary was generated by AI and may contain inaccuracies. Refer to the official source document for the authoritative text.

Sponsor

Rep. Dingell, Debbie [D-MI-6]

Cosponsors (6)

Rep. Stevens, Haley M. [D-MI-11], Rep. Tlaib, Rashida [D-MI-12], Rep. Thanedar, Shri [D-MI-13], Rep. Scholten, Hillary J. [D-MI-3], Rep. McDonald Rivet, Kristen [D-MI-8], Rep. Kaptur, Marcy [D-OH-9]

Recent Actions

• 2026-02-12: Referred to the Subcommittee on Border Security and Enforcement.
• 2026-02-12: Referred to the Subcommittee on Transportation and Maritime Security.
• 2026-02-11: Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, and Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
• 2026-02-11: Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, and Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
• 2026-02-11: Referred to the Committee on Foreign Affairs, and in addition to the Committees on Ways and Means, and Homeland Security, for a period to be subsequently determined by the Speaker, in each case for consideration of such provisions as fall within the jurisdiction of the committee concerned.
• 2026-02-11: Introduced in House
• 2026-02-11: Introduced in House

Bill Versions

• Michigan-Canada Partnership Act — issued 2026-02-11 — PDF (5 pages)