Driving the vote: How do Michigan voters feel after Trump's first 100 days?
NewsNation's The Hill Sunday with Chris Stirewalt Brian Entin is hitting the road and catching up with voters who spoke with us before the 2024 presidential election to see where they stand ahead of President Donald Trump's first 100 days in office. #Michigan
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
2 hours ago
- The Hill
Trump says Rand Paul invited to picnic while Massie slams him over invites
President Trump on Thursday said that Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) is, in fact, invited to the White House for the Congressional Picnic after the GOP senator and Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.) both said they were 'uninvited' from the event amid their opposition to Trump's tax cut and spending package. Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) said late Wednesday he planned to attend the picnic with his wife, son, daughter-in-law and 6-month-old grandson, but he was informed on Wednesday that he was no longer welcome. But Trump disputed that account, saying 'of course' Paul and his 'beautiful wife' were invited in part because he is one of the hold outs on voting for Trump's tax cut and spending package. 'He's the toughest vote in the history of the U.S. Senate, but why wouldn't he be? Besides, it gives me more time to get his Vote on the Great, Big, Beautiful Bill, one of the greatest and most important pieces of legislation ever put before our Senators & Congressmen/women,' Trump said in a Truth Social Post. Meanwhile, Rep. Thomas Massie (R-Ky.), another critic of the president's 'big, beautiful bill,' said that the White House had also declined to give him tickets to the picnic. 'Incredibly petty & shortsighted of Trump's staff to exclude Republicans from the annual White House picnic while inviting Pelosi and every Democrat,' Massie said in a post on X early Thursday morning. Trump did not address Massie's remarks in his Truth Social post on Thursday. The Hill has reached out to the White House about whether Massie and his family are invited. The picnic is set to take place on the White House's south lawn at 7 p.m. on Thursday and is hosted by Trump and first lady Melania Trump. The White House, under both Democratic and Republican presidents, has been hosting picnics for decades and inviting lawmakers from both parties to mingle on the lawn. Both Massie — one of two Republicans in the House to vote against the bill last month — and Paul have ripped the bill's deficit impact. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated the proposed tax cuts in the plan would decrease revenues by more than $3.6 trillion over a decade, while measures to cut federal spending — including reforms to Medicaid and Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program —would reduce outlays by $1.2 trillion over the same period, resulting in a net deficit increase of $2.4 trillion. Paul had earlier told reporters that he didn't know if the revoked invite came from Trump himself or staffers around him, but said he hoped it wasn't directly from the president. 'I don't know if this came from the president on down— let's hope not, but if not it's coming from his petty staffers who have been running a, sort of a paid influencer campaign against me for two weeks on Twitter,' Paul said. 'If you look at my Twitter, it's just gobs and gobs of these people, we know they're being paid because the White House, someone has told us the White House called them from the White House and offered them money to attack me online.' Mychael Schnell contributed to this report.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump's federal troop deployment amid LA protests heads to court
(NewsNation) — Approximately 330 immigrants have been arrested in Los Angeles since demonstrations against the Trump administration's federal immigration raids began Friday. That's according to the White House, which announced the arrest numbers Wednesday as the city prepared to enter its second day under a curfew enacted by LA Mayor Karen Bass. The epicenter of nationwide protests against President Donald Trump's immigration crackdown, LA's streets have been flooded with activists, looters and thousands of federal troops. LA County will comply with ICE if feds bring warrants: Supervisor The U.S. Northern Command said on Wednesday that 700 U.S. Marines had completed training and would be deployed to LA 'within the next 48 hours.' The Marines, like the National Guard, will be tasked with protecting federal officers and property under Title 10. More protests are planned through the weekend, including a 'No Kings' rally on Saturday. The event is part of a national network of events to counter Trump's pricey military parade in Washington, D.C. A federal court hearing has been scheduled for Thursday over the Trump administration's decision to send military troops into LA without a request from California Gov. Gavin Newsom. The hearing will serve as a defining moment in the legal back-and-forth between Trump and California officials. Posse Comitatus Act: Does law allow Trump to send troops to LA? The Justice Department argues the administration has no obligation to consult with the governor before sending in troops, while Newsom's lawsuit cites a 19th-century law that makes it illegal to use federal troops for law enforcement on domestic soil — unless the president invokes the Insurrection Act. Where the 'No Kings' anti-Trump military parade protests are planned In Portland, Oregon, approximately 60 to 70 protesters demonstrated outside an Immigration and Customs Enforcement facility into the night Wednesday, according to NewsNation affiliate KOIN. Local police said munitions were deployed by federal law enforcement when cars were leaving the facility, but things remained mostly peaceful following clashes Tuesday night. Omaha mayor doesn't 'know why' city was targeted in ICE raid In Indianapolis, around 1,000 people protested ICE raids outside game three of the NBA finals, NewsNation affiliate WTTV reported. The protests remained peaceful and broke up shortly after beginning. And in Baltimore, demonstrations took place across the city as protesters urged local leaders to protect immigrants from ICE. Again, the demonstrations remained peaceful. Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Trump's new travel ban leaves narrow openings for challengers
The Trump administration's travel ban presents a complex case for immigration advocates who have challenged previous efforts by President Trump to close the U.S. to certain foreigners. Trump needed multiple bites at the apple during his first term before the Supreme Court upheld the third version of his so-called Muslim ban in 2018. His latest version is more sweeping, targeting 19 countries instead of seven. It's also more narrow in the exceptions that would allow people to skirt the new restrictions. Trump's Supreme Court-approved travel ban was finally able to win over the courts with the argument it was needed on national security grounds. But his latest travel ban also points to visa overstay rates as a rationale for blocking citizens from U.S. travel. That addition is something that could provide an opening to legal challenges, said experts interviewed by The Hill. 'The rationales that are given in the order go far beyond national security-related justifications,' said Ahilan Arulanantham, co-director of the Center for Immigration Law and Policy (CILP) at the University of California, Los Angeles School of Law. He noted that when the Supreme Court upheld Trump's first travel ban, 'they were focused almost exclusively on national security-related justifications.' 'These are justifications that are not in any way national security related. They're just immigration policy rationales. … That's definitely an area of potential legal vulnerability.' Trump's travel ban places full restrictions on citizens from 12 countries: Afghanistan, Chad, Republic of the Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Myanmar, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen. It also places partial restrictions on seven other countries: Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela. For some countries, the Trump administration's latest ban cites faulty 'screening and vetting measures' inhibiting U.S. Embassy staff from reviewing visa candidates. But the executive order repeatedly references countries' visa overstay rates — the percentage at which a country's citizens remain in the U.S. beyond the time period allowed under their visa. 'It's just collective punishment. None of the people who are banned under this proclamation are banned for anything that they did wrong, or any actual individual suspicion that they will do something wrong,' said Adam Bates, a counsel at the International Refugee Assistance Project. 'It's just this kind of collective punishment. 'We don't trust your country. We don't trust your government. We don't trust you based on no other reason than where you were born — not because of anything you did or have done or will do.'' Raha Wala, vice president for strategy and partnerships for the National Immigration Law Center, said those inconsistencies will likely factor in the lawsuit. 'One of the real legal defects of this new, expanded ban is that it's completely arbitrary. You know, folks from Canada have one of the highest visa overstay rates, but they're not on this ban list,' he said. In issuing the new ban, the administration highlighted an Egyptian man arrested in an attack on demonstrators in Boulder, Colo., calling for the release of hostages held by Hamas. The man, Mohamed Soliman, filed for asylum shortly after arrival but overstayed his initial visa. Yet the administration did not include Egypt on its travel ban, which Wala argued shows it is an 'arbitrary and capricious, expanded ban' designed to 'ban or restrict individuals from countries that President Trump, perhaps personally, just doesn't like.' He added that the ban would disproportionately hit 'lots of countries of Black folk, brown folk, Asian folk and Latino folk.' Trump has defended the exclusion of Egypt. 'Egypt has been a country that we deal with very closely. They have things under control. The countries that we have don't have things under control,' Trump told reporters in the Oval Office earlier this month. Arulanantham said litigation will likely include a review of visa overstay rates for countries not included in the ban. 'I think it's highly problematic to assume that, 'Oh, because some people from Burundi overstay, therefore we should assume that the others will and ban them all.' It's obviously highly problematic from a moral perspective. It's discriminatory. But if you're going to take that kind of approach that you have to ask the question like, 'OK, well, are these really outlying countries?'' he asked. Trump has already moved to lift protections on citizens from a number of the countries on the travel ban list, such as Afghanistan, Cuba, Haiti and Venezuela. Former President Biden designated Temporary Protected Status (TPS) — protections from deportation — for migrants from Afghanistan, Venezuela and Haiti. He also started a parole program that granted entry for two years and work permits to citizens from Cuba, Haiti, Venezuela and Nicaragua if they could secure a U.S.-based financial sponsor. Trump has since scrapped the parole program while terminating TPS for countries now included in the travel ban. Those moves have been challenged in court. In stripping TPS, Trump has argued Afghans, Haitians and Venezuelans no longer merit the temporary refuge the protections give for those fleeing civil unrest or natural disasters. All three countries are currently roiling from various political controversies and are facing severe food insecurity. 'For the purposes of terminating TPS, Afghanistan is a safe, stable, secure country. And for the purpose of banning Afghans from getting visas, Afghanistan is a terrorist-run failed state,' Bates said. 'They're self-contradicting.' State Department spokesperson Tommy Pigott defended the ban as a national security measure as well as 'broader action from this administration on a whole host of visa issues.' 'This is a national security imperative,' he said during a briefing earlier this month. 'Do we have the ability to vet people coming in, and this, again, has been that priority from the beginning of this administration. Can we say with confidence that people coming to the United States have been properly vetted? Is there essential authority in these countries that can confirm that? Can we trust what they're telling us?' While immigration advocates felt confident the new travel ban was discriminatory, they hedged on whether any challenge would be successful in court. 'It's certainly possible, it's very possible, the Supreme Court upholds this,' Arulanantham said, noting that such a move would have 'very dramatic impacts on immigrant communities' and separate families. Wala also expressed some doubts. 'I don't want to oversell the case, so to speak,' he said. 'Are we super confident this particular Supreme Court is going to come down the right side of this one? Well, not necessarily, because they upheld what we viewed and still view to be a very unconstitutional ban the prior time.' Copyright 2025 Nexstar Media, Inc. All rights reserved. This material may not be published, broadcast, rewritten, or redistributed.
