logo
Michiganders split on Trump tariffs, but almost nobody sees immediate benefit

Michiganders split on Trump tariffs, but almost nobody sees immediate benefit

Yahoo01-05-2025

Michiganders are split on the value of tariffs as a long-term economic strategy but almost nobody says they are seeing short-term benefits from President Donald Trump's signature policy, 100 days into his second term.
That's a major takeaway from 100 Michigan residents interviewed over the last several weeks by reporters from the Detroit Free Press, Lansing State Journal and Center for Community Journalism — Michigan, who fanned out across the state to seek Michiganders' views on Trump's first 100 days back in office.
Trump has imposed a wide range of tariffs of at least 10% on most countries around the world — and as high as 145% on China — in a series of moves that have caused massive stock market swings and provoked retaliatory tariffs from other nations. He has also delayed the implementation of some tariffs and granted exemptions for certain products, such as smartphones, computers, semiconductors and other electronics. On April 29, while en route to Michigan aboard Air Force One, Trump signed executive orders that ease some tariffs that impact automakers in a move that was welcomed by industry leaders but that analysts said will still result in higher vehicle prices.
Nearly half of the Michigan residents recently interviewed about Trump's performance mentioned tariffs as a significant factor in their assessments.
Of those, nearly half blasted tariffs or the way Trump has implemented them, while a roughly equal number said they favor the policies, adding in some cases that Michiganders will need to endure some short-term pain before the benefit of tariffs are evident.
Views on Trump's tariff policies were split along party lines, with Republicans mostly favoring Trump's tariffs and Democrats and independent voters mostly opposed.
More: We asked 100 Michiganders about Trump's first 100 days: Here's what they said
Republican voter Perry Blackwell, 32, a Port Huron factory worker, said the tariffs should help wean Americans off of foreign products.
"We need more factories here and the only way to do that is to jack up the prices," said Blackwell, who said he voted for Trump in November.
More: It's been 100 days. How is Trump doing? Have your say in a letter to the editor | Letters
But Democratic voter Jim Clair, 72, of Ortonville, who said he voted for then-Vice President Kamala Harris, said Trump's tariff have been a "disaster" that have cost him more than $100,000 in retirement savings as stock market indexes have reacted negatively.
"He should've never been brought back,' Clair said of Trump.
Clair was one of several Michiganders interviewed who said they are already experiencing negative impacts from Trump's tariffs.
Mark Lewis, 68, of Madison Heights, who receives food assistance through the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP), said he's noticed prices of groceries and other items, such as batteries, continuing to rise under Trump, and he blames tariffs.
'I don't think we Americans are taking it as seriously as we should,' Lewis said. 'A recession, I think, is around the corner.'
Garrett Ellis, 52, of Detroit, who considers himself an independent and said he did not vote in November, said tariffs are "killing the world."
Ellis worked as a machine operator in automotive manufacturing but said he's out of work and looking for a job. He said the industry is slow due to difficulties in acquiring materials. "He's cutting everything out," Ellis said. "How are people going to live?"
Several Republican voters acknowledged inflation remains a problem and tariffs are not helping but said it will take some time before Michiganders see the value of Trump's tariff policies.
Ruby Meekhof, 66, of Cadillac, said that as a retired dairy farmer she has firsthand experience with unfair trade policies directed at the U.S. from Canada and Europe with respect to milk. She said she supports what Trump is trying to do.
"I realize that we have to go through some pain before things get reset," Meekhof said.
Some Michiganders said tariffs are not so much the problem, as the way Trump implemented them.
Warren Holloway, 43, of Sterling Heights, a onetime Democrat who now is less sure of his political leanings, said he is hopeful that the chaos Trump has generated in his first 100 days will end up benefitting Americans and believes the aim is to improve the country's global standing.
"The hot button issue is the tariffs — tariffs could have had a much more positive spin if done with a scalpel rather than a sledgehammer," Holloway said.
Not everyone's views on tariffs aligned with their partisan leanings.
Amy Barbieri, 45, of Warren, a small business owner who said she voted for Trump in 2020 and 2024, said the president has lost her support over tariffs.
Barbieri, who sells metaphysical goods like tarot cards on TikTok Shop, said she was more of a Democrat before 2020 but this year displayed a large Trump flag in her yard. But her views have changed."I've made good money selling on TikTok, but I import from China," she said. "So now I just lost my small business."
Evan Ellis, 33, of Ferndale, who identifies as a Democrat or independent, said many of Trump's actions are undermining the rule of law and have him worried about the future of democracy in the U.S.
Yet Ellis said he sees a rare bright spot in Trump's tariff policies.
He believes tariffs could help inhibit the country from manufacturing and selling cheap products that end up in landfills.
Reporters Dana Afana, Jackie Charniga, Johnathan Hogan, Darcie Moran, Adrienne Roberts, Andrea May Sahouri and Beki San Martin contributed to this story.
Contact Paul Egan: 517-372-8660 or pegan@freepress.com.
This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Michiganders split on Trump tariffs, but few see immediate benefit

Orange background

Try Our AI Features

Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:

Comments

No comments yet...

Related Articles

Elon Musk Claims Trump's Name Is On The Epstein List, Taco Trump Threatens To End Phony Stark's Government Contracts
Elon Musk Claims Trump's Name Is On The Epstein List, Taco Trump Threatens To End Phony Stark's Government Contracts

Black America Web

time32 minutes ago

  • Black America Web

Elon Musk Claims Trump's Name Is On The Epstein List, Taco Trump Threatens To End Phony Stark's Government Contracts

Source: The Washington Post / Getty / Elon Musk / Donald Trump It should come as no surprise that the bromance between these two ego maniacs would have come to a fiery end. We knew this day would come, but no one had Musk and Trump beefing with each other so soon on their bingo cards. The alleged ketamine abuser couldn't keep his disdain for Trump's 'one big beautiful bill,' calling it a 'disgusting abomination.' 'I'm sorry, but I just can't stand it anymore,' Musk began. 'This massive, outrageous, pork-filled Congressional spending bill is a disgusting abomination. Shame on those who voted for it: you know you did wrong. You know it.' Trump was uncharacteristically quiet following Musk's initial comments about his legislative centerpiece of his second presidency, the 'one big beautiful bill.' That all changed when Trump finally 'clapped back' at Musk while taking questions during his meeting with German Chancellor Friedrich Merz. Trump said he was 'very surprised' and 'disappointed' by his former financier's comments about his stupid bill, claiming the Tesla chief saw the bill and understood its inner workings better than anybody, while suggesting that Musk was mad because of the removal of subsidies and mandates for electric vehicles. Elon Musk Had Time For Donald Trump Musk responded in real time via his 'former platform,' X, formerly Twitter, with a flurry of posts on X accusing Trump of 'ingratitude' and 'Without me, Trump would have lost the election,' while refuting the orange menace's claims. 'Keep the EV/solar incentive cuts in the bill, even though no oil & gas subsidies are touched (very unfair!!), but ditch the MOUNTAIN of DISGUSTING PORK in the bill,' Musk wrote. Oh, and he wasn't done. Musk then hit the president with a low blow, writing, 'Time to drop the really big bomb: @realDonaldTrump is in the Epstein files. That is the real reason they have not been made public. Have a nice day, DJT!' Donald Trump Claps Back Trump finally fired back on his platform, Truth Social, by threatening to cut Musk's government contracts. 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions and Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts. I was always surprised that Biden didn't do it.' Felon 47 wrote. Musk replied by threatening to decommission SpaceX's Dragon spacecraft, which could be detrimental to the International Space Station and NASA, as it is described as 'the only spacecraft currently flying that is capable of returning significant amounts of cargo to Earth' and can seat seven passengers. Musk also agreed with a post stating that Trump should be impeached and replaced by JD Vance. Oh, this is getting spicy. While all of this was going on, CNN reports that Tesla stocks took a hit and Musk's net worth shrank. Per CNN : Tesla shares plummeted 15% this afternoon as Elon Musk's battle with President Donald Trump intensified. Trump threatened in a social media post to target Musk's business empire. 'The easiest way to save money in our Budget, Billions of Dollars, is to terminate Elon's Governmental Subsidies and Contracts,' Trump wrote on Truth Social. The Tesla selloff has wiped off more than $150 billion off the market value of Telsa, which started the day worth nearly $1.1 trillion. It has also erased a chunk off the net worth of Musk, the world's richest person. Social media has pulled up all the seats, grabbed some popcorn and are currently watching Musk go at with Trump and his supporters, you can see those reactions in the gallery below. Elon Musk Claims Trump's Name Is On The Epstein List, Taco Trump Threatens To End Phony Stark's Government Contracts was originally published on Black America Web Featured Video CLOSE

How a Supreme Court decision backing the NRA is thwarting Trump's retribution campaign
How a Supreme Court decision backing the NRA is thwarting Trump's retribution campaign

CNN

time32 minutes ago

  • CNN

How a Supreme Court decision backing the NRA is thwarting Trump's retribution campaign

As Harvard University, elite law firms and perceived political enemies of President Donald Trump fight back against his efforts to use government power to punish them, they're winning thanks in part to the National Rifle Association. Last May, the Supreme Court unanimously sided with the gun rights group in a First Amendment case concerning a New York official's alleged efforts to pressure insurance companies in the state to sever ties with the group following the deadly 2018 school shooting in Parkland, Florida. A government official, liberal Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote for the nine, 'cannot … use the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression.' A year later, the court's decision in National Rifle Association of America v. Vullo has been cited repeatedly by federal judges in rulings striking down a series of executive orders that targeted law firms. Lawyers representing Harvard, faculty at Columbia University and others are also leaning on the decision in cases challenging Trump's attacks on them. 'Going into court with a decision that is freshly minted, that clearly reflects the unanimous views of the currently sitting Supreme Court justices, is a very powerful tool,' said Eugene Volokh, a conservative First Amendment expert who represented the NRA in the 2024 case. For free speech advocates, the application of the NRA decision in cases pushing back against Trump's retribution campaign is a welcome sign that lower courts are applying key First Amendment principles equally, particularly in politically fraught disputes. In the NRA case, the group claimed that Maria Vullo, the former superintendent of the New York State Department of Financial Services, had threatened enforcement actions against the insurance firms if they failed to comply with her demands to help with the campaign against gun groups. The NRA's claims centered around a meeting Vullo had with an insurance market in 2018 in which the group says she offered to not prosecute other violations as long as the company helped with her campaign. 'The great hope of a principled application of the First Amendment is that it protects everybody,' said Alex Abdo, the litigation director of the Knight First Amendment Institute. 'Some people have criticized free speech advocates as being naive for hoping that'll be the case, but hopefully that's what we're seeing now,' he added. 'We're seeing courts apply that principle where the politics are very different than the NRA case.' The impact of Vullo can be seen most clearly in the cases challenging Trump's attempts to use executive power to exact revenge on law firms that have employed his perceived political enemies or represented clients who have challenged his initiatives. A central pillar of Trump's retribution crusade has been to pressure firms to bend to his political will, including through issuing executive orders targeting four major law firms: Perkins Coie, Jenner & Block, WilmerHale and Susman Godfrey. Among other things, the orders denied the firms' attorneys access to federal buildings, retaliated against their clients with government contracts and suspended security clearances for lawyers at the firms. (Other firms were hit with similar executive orders but they haven't taken Trump to court over them.) The organizations individually sued the administration over the orders and the three judges overseeing the Perkins Coie, WilmerHale and Jenner & Block suits have all issued rulings permanently blocking enforcement of the edicts. (The Susman case is still pending.) Across more than 200-pages of writing, the judges – all sitting at the federal trial-level court in Washington, DC – cited Vullo 30 times to conclude that the orders were unconstitutional because they sought to punish the firms over their legal work. The judges all lifted Sotomayor's line about using 'the power of the State to punish or suppress disfavored expression,' while also seizing on other language in her opinion to buttress their own decisions. Two of them – US district judges Beryl Howell, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, and Richard Leon, who was named to the bench by former President George W. Bush – incorporated Sotomayor's statement that government discrimination based on a speaker's viewpoint 'is uniquely harmful to a free and democratic society.' The third judge, John Bates, said Vullo and an earlier Supreme Court case dealing with impermissible government coercion 'govern – and defeat' the administration's arguments in defense of a section of the Jenner & Block order that sought to end all contractual relationships that might have allowed taxpayer dollars to flow to the firm. 'Executive Order 14246 does precisely what the Supreme Court said just last year is forbidden: it engages in 'coercion against a third party to achieve the suppression of disfavored speech,'' wrote Bates, who was also appointed by Bush, in his May 23 ruling. For its part, the Justice Department has tried to draw a distinction between what the executive orders called for and the conduct rejected by the high court in Vullo. They told the three judges in written arguments that the orders at issue did not carry the 'force of the powers exhibited in Vullo' by the New York official. Will Creeley, the legal director at the Foundation for Individual Rights in Education, said the rulings underscore how 'Vullo has proved its utility almost immediately.' 'It is extremely useful to remind judges and government actors alike that just last year, the court warned against the kind of shakedowns and turns of the screw that we're now seeing from the administration,' he said. Justice Department lawyers have not yet appealed any of the three rulings issued last month. CNN has reached out to the department for comment. In separate cases brought in the DC courthouse and elsewhere, Trump's foes have leaned on Vullo as they've pressed judges to intervene in high-stakes disputes with the president. Among them is Mark Zaid, a prominent national security lawyer who has drawn Trump's ire for his representation of whistleblowers. Earlier this year, Trump yanked Zaid's security clearance, a decision, the attorney said in a lawsuit, that undermines his ability to 'zealously advocate on (his clients') behalf in the national security arena.' In court papers, Zaid's attorneys argued that the president's decision was a 'retaliatory directive,' invoking language from the Vullo decision to argue that the move violated his First Amendment rights. ''Government officials cannot attempt to coerce private parties in order to punish or suppress views that the government disfavors,'' they wrote, quoting from the 2024 ruling. 'And yet that is exactly what Defendants do here.' Timothy Zick, a constitutional law professor at William & Mary Law School, said the executive orders targeting private entities or individuals 'have relied heavily on pressure, intimidation, and the threat of adverse action to punish or suppress speakers' views and discourage others from engaging with regulated targets.' 'The unanimous holding in Vullo is tailor-made for litigants seeking to push back against the administration's coercive strategy,' Zick added. That notion was not lost on lawyers representing Harvard and faculty at Columbia University in several cases challenging Trump's attacks on the elite schools, including one brought by Harvard challenging Trump's efforts to ban the school from hosting international students. A federal judge has so far halted those efforts. In a separate case brought by Harvard over the administration's decision to freeze billions of dollars in federal funding for the nation's oldest university, the school's attorneys on Monday told a judge that Trump's decision to target it because of 'alleged antisemitism and ideological bias at Harvard' clearly ran afoul of the high court's decision last year. 'Although any governmental retaliation based on protected speech is an affront to the First Amendment, the retaliation here was especially unconstitutional because it was based on Harvard's 'particular views' – the balance of speech on its campus and its refusal to accede to the Government's unlawful demands,' the attorneys wrote.

DOWNLOAD THE APP

Get Started Now: Download the App

Ready to dive into the world of global news and events? Download our app today from your preferred app store and start exploring.
app-storeplay-store