The Detroit Lions are set to take on the Chicago Bears on Thanksgiving in Week 13 and the team hopes to have the services of running back David Montgomery for the divisional contest. Montgomery suffered a shoulder injury in the second half of the Week 12 contest against the Indianapolis Colts , which forced his early exit from the game. According to the Lions' injury report , Montgomery did not practice on Monday, was limited on Tuesday and then turned in a full practice on Wednesday. Despite closing out the week with a full session, Montgomery has drawn a questionable tag, which means he isn't fully guaranteed to play. However, there are reasons for optimism that he will suit up against the Bears. Here's the latest update on Montgomery's status for Week 13. David Montgomery injury update Per the team's final injury report, Montgomery was upgraded to full participation on Wednesday but is questionable. The fact that he was able to turn in a full practice means he has a better chance to play than not. #CHIvsDET injury report presented by Henry Ford Health. pic.twitter.com/1UdPbZz9hh Is David Montgomery playing in Week 13? All signs point to Montgomery playing on Thursday. Not only was he able to log a full practice on Wednesday, head coach Dan Campbell expressed optimism earlier in the week that Montgomery will play. "Dan Campbell says he feels good about David Montgomery playing Thursday," Dannie Rogers of the team's official website reported on Tuesday. Adding to that, Montgomery revealed after the win over the Colts that he was held out of the rest of that contest as a precaution and he expects to suit up for the Bears game. Asked David Montgomery if he could've gone back in the game if needed. He said yes, but Dan Campbell pulled him aside and told him, "There's bigger fish to fry." Said it was a smart decision and he'll be ready to go Thursday. At this point, it would be surprising to see Montgomery inactive. We fully expect him to play and have a normal workload against his former team. Even still, keep an eye out for the inactives list an hour and a half before kickoff on Thursday just to make sure. MORE DETROIT LIONS NEWS Kerby Joseph says Lions should be "America's Team" Dan Campbell appears to call out NFL over Jameson Williams fine Two Lions stars ineligible for 2025 Pro Bowl votingBy JOSH BOAK WASHINGTON (AP) — Donald Trump loved to use tariffs on foreign goods during his first presidency. But their impact was barely noticeable in the overall economy, even if their aftershocks were clear in specific industries. The data show they never fully delivered on his promised factory jobs. Nor did they provoke the avalanche of inflation that critics feared. This time, though, his tariff threats might be different . The president-elect is talking about going much bigger — on a potential scale that creates more uncertainty about whether he’ll do what he says and what the consequences could be. “There’s going to be a lot more tariffs, I mean, he’s pretty clear,” said Michael Stumo, the CEO of Coalition for a Prosperous America, a group that has supported import taxes to help domestic manufacturing. The president-elect posted on social media Monday that on his first day in office he would impose 25% tariffs on all goods imported from Mexico and Canada until those countries satisfactorily stop illegal immigration and the flow of illegal drugs such as fentanyl into the United States. Those tariffs could essentially blow up the North American trade pact that Trump’s team negotiated during his initial term. Chinese imports would face additional tariffs of 10% until Beijing cracks down on the production of materials used in making fentanyl, Trump posted. Business groups were quick to warn about rapidly escalating inflation , while Mexican President Claudia Sheinbaum said she would counter the move with tariffs on U.S. products. House Democrats put together legislation to strip a president’s ability to unilaterally apply tariffs this drastic, warning that they would likely lead to higher prices for autos, shoes, housing and groceries. Sheinbaum said Wednesday that her administration is already working up a list of possible retaliatory tariffs “if the situation comes to that.” “The economy department is preparing it,” Sheinbaum said. “If there are tariffs, Mexico would increase tariffs, it is a technical task about what would also benefit Mexico,” she said, suggesting her country would impose targeted import duties on U.S. goods in sensitive areas. Related Articles House Democrats on Tuesday introduced a bill that would require congressional approval for a president to impose tariffs due to claims of a national emergency, a largely symbolic action given Republicans’ coming control of both the House and Senate. “This legislation would enable Congress to limit this sweeping emergency authority and put in place the necessary Congressional oversight before any president – Democrat or Republican – could indiscriminately raise costs on the American people through tariffs,” said Rep. Suzan DelBene, D-Wash. But for Trump, tariffs are now a tested tool that seems less politically controversial even if the mandate he received in November’s election largely involved restraining inflation. The tariffs he imposed on China in his first term were continued by President Joe Biden, a Democrat who even expanded tariffs and restrictions on the world’s second largest economy. Biden administration officials looked at removing Trump’s tariffs in order to bring down inflationary pressures, only to find they were unlikely to help significantly. Tariffs were “so new and unique that it freaked everybody out in 2017,” said Stumo, but they were ultimately somewhat modest. Trump imposed tariffs on solar panels and washing machines at the start of 2018, moves that might have pushed up prices in those sectors even though they also overlapped with plans to open washing machine plants in Tennessee and South Carolina. His administration also levied tariffs on steel and aluminum, including against allies. He then increased tariffs on China, leading to a trade conflict and a limited 2020 agreement that failed to produce the promised Chinese purchases of U.S. goods. Still, the dispute changed relations with China as more U.S. companies looked for alternative suppliers in other countries. Economic research also found the United States may have sacrificed some of its “soft power” as the Chinese population began to watch fewer American movies. The Federal Reserve kept inflation roughly on target, but factory construction spending never jumped in a way that suggested a lasting gain in manufacturing jobs. Separate economic research found the tariff war with China did nothing economically for the communities hurt by offshoring, but it did help Trump and Republicans in those communities politically. When Trump first became president in 2017, the federal government collected $34.6 billion in customs, duties and fees. That sum more than doubled under Trump to $70.8 billion in 2019, according to Office of Management and Budget records. While that sum might seem meaningful, it was relatively small compared to the overall economy. America’s gross domestic product is now $29.3 trillion, according to the Bureau of Economic Analysis. The total tariffs collected in the United States would equal less than 0.3% of GDP. The new tariffs being floated by Trump now are dramatically larger and there could be far more significant impacts. If Mexico, Canada, and China faced the additional tariffs proposed by Trump on all goods imported to the United States, that could be roughly equal to $266 billion in tax collections, a number that does not assume any disruptions in trade or retaliatory moves by other countries. The cost of those taxes would likely be borne by U.S. families, importers and domestic and foreign companies in the form of higher prices or lower profits. Former Biden administration officials said they worried that companies could piggyback on Trump’s tariffs — if they’re imposed — as a rationale to raise their prices, just as many companies after Russia’s invasion of Ukraine in 2022 boosted food and energy costs and gave several major companies the space to raise prices, according to their own earnings calls with investors. But what Trump didn’t really spell out is what might cause him to back down on tariffs and declare a victory. What he is creating instead with his tariff threats is a sense of uncertainty as companies and countries await the details to figure out what all of this could mean. “We know the key economic policy priorities of the incoming Trump administration, but we don’t know how or when they will be addressed,” said Greg Daco, chief U.S. economist at EY-Parthenon. AP writer Mark Stevenson contributed to this report from Mexico City.The choice of a policy adviser for artificial intelligence (AI) in the next Trump administration has sparked widespread debate online over the H-1B visa program, which conservatives are calling out as “abusive” and designed precisely to undercut wages of white-collar Americans. “Sriram Krishnan will serve as Senior Policy Advisor for Artificial Intelligence at the White House Office of Science and Technology Policy,” President-elect Donald Trump wrote on Truth Social this week: Working closely with David Sacks, Sriram will focus on ensuring continued American leadership in A.I., and help shape and coordinate A.I. policy across Government, including working with the President’s Council of Advisors on Science and Technology. Sriram started his career at Microsoft as a founding member of Windows Azure. [Emphasis added] Krishnan’s appointment has sparked a widespread online debate over the H-1B visa program and employment-based green cards. For years, Breitbart News has chronicled the abuses against white-collar American professionals as a result of the H-1B visa program. There are about 650,000 H-1B visa foreign workers in the U.S. at any given moment. Americans are often laid off in the process and forced to train their foreign replacements, as highlighted by Breitbart News. One such major effort that Krishnan has backed is a green card giveaway, primarily to Indian nationals, where country caps for employment-based green cards would be eliminated. As a result, tech corporations would be massively rewarded for having imported mostly Indian nationals on H-1B visas to take white-collar American jobs. The push to end country caps has failed over and over again in Congress. Last month, in response to billionaire Elon Musk’s X post regarding the Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE), Krishnan replied that “anything to remove country caps for green cards / unlock skilled immigration would be huge.” In a clip from Krishnan’s podcast, he is seen laughing as a guest suggests that Indian nationals ought to “just get married to a U.S. citizen, just make that happen” to secure green cards. Vivek Ramaswamy chimed in on the debate, suggesting that American companies like hiring foreign visa workers over college-educated Americans because “American culture has venerated mediocrity over excellence for way too long...” In March Ramaswamy appeared on Krishnan’s podcast where he said legal immigration ought to center on filling “labor gaps” and “skills gaps.” “The sole objective of U.S. immigration policy should be to advance the interests of the U.S. citizens who are already here ... against that backdrop, what immigration policy makes sense?” Ramaswamy said: Great. Now, it becomes easy to implement — Where do we have labor gaps? Where do we have skills gaps? Where do we have people who can add to the productivity of the United States? People who bring a civic love of this country combined with skills and a work ethic and perhaps money and investment to be able to make that happen? That, I think, sets us up for a more rational path here. [Emphasis added] Conservatives and other dissenters online have fought back on the issue for days now. “The H-1B visa program is loved by tech companies because it helps hold down salaries of ultra high paid engineering jobs and foreign workers on these visas are way less likely to unionize or agitate for better work conditions,” journalist Lee Fang posted. “Both parties enable the abuse of the program.” Mike Cernovich and others have used online databases to debunk claims that the H-1B visa program brings only the “best and brightest” of geniuses to the United States to take jobs: As part of the online debate, many X users are reposting a Breitbart News interview with Vice President-elect J.D. Vance from 2022 when he was running for the open U.S. Senate seat for Ohio. In the interview, Vance made clear that Congress ought to prioritize overhauling the H-1B visa program to prevent corporations from enacting an outsourcing-offshoring scheme where Americans are laid off, forced to train their foreign replacements, and then those jobs eventually sent to countries like India altogether. “Generally speaking, a lot of the H-1B abuse we see is in the interests of the people hiring the [foreign visa] worker, who can undercut the wages of Americans, but is it in the interest of the 700 Ohioans who lost their jobs? Absolutely not,” Vance told Breitbart News at the time. “This is one of these issues where you actually need public policy to solve this problem because they’re taking advantage of a visa system that’s meant to ensure that American companies have the workers that they need — it’s not meant to undercut the wages of American workers in this country,” Vance said. “Unfortunately, that’s what the H-1B visa is just being used to do right now.” John Binder is a reporter for Breitbart News. Email him at jbinder@breitbart.com. Follow him on Twitter here .

Niger proposes N1.2tr for 2025 fiscal year

Jimmy Carter: Many evolutions for a centenarian ‘citizen of the world’