
At 100 days, economic anxieties come alive in Michigan: ‘I wish the message was clearer'
President Donald Trump is taking a self-described victory lap on Tuesday as he returns to one of the biggest battleground states for the first time since taking office, basking in the glow of 100 days back in the White House.
For Pashko Ujkaj, who can feel the economic pressures at his Dodge Park Coney Island diner, it's far too early to measure the success – or bemoan the failure – of Trump's second term.
'I think it's too early to give him a grade,' Ujkaj said. 'If he puts this economy back on track and wins these tariffs to our advantage, I think people will feel more comfortable. If he doesn't, it's not going to be good. It's not going to be good.'
The economic headwinds and their accompanying hardships weigh heavy on the minds of voters who supported Trump – and those who did not – as his presidency hits 100 days. It's an arbitrary, yet inescapable, milestone for early assessments of his whirlwind return to power.
In 2016, Ujkaj voted for Trump. Four years later, he did not. When asked whom he supported in 2024, he paused for an uncomfortably long moment as customers sat within earshot, before replying: 'Let's just say you're putting me on the spot.'
Like many business owners, he would rather listen to opinions than offer his own, considering he is as likely to serve breakfast to Trump-voting Republicans as he is lunch to Democrats who backed Kamala Harris at his Macomb County diner north of Detroit.
But after absorbing the last few months of those conversations, he is certain of one thing: The economy and a promise of lowering costs, which helped propel Trump to the White House, now stand as one of the president's biggest challenges.
'I think the fair thing to give him a grade – if you want to really give him a true grade – is by the end of the year,' Ujkaj said. By then, he added, 'I want to see this economy better.'
For all the carefully watched national economic indicators, including a University of Michigan survey this month that showed consumer sentiment fell to 52% from 57% in March, Ujkaj has also noticed a telling metric inside his diner.
'Instead of coming out three or four times a week, people might only come out one or two times,' Ujkaj said in an interview Monday before the lunch crowd arrived. 'We have a lot of seniors. They're on fixed incomes. And when you see those prices skyrocket, they feel it the most, right?'
In Michigan, where one in five jobs are linked in some way to the auto industry, fallout from the Trump administration's tariff policy comes up in one conversation after another. The on-again, off-again duties – on neighboring Canada, Mexico and beyond – have roiled markets and frustrated John Walus, a three-time Trump voter, Army veteran and retired autoworker.
'I just wish the message was clearer on where he's going with the tariffs,' Walus said. 'I think that would settle a lot of the turmoil right now, especially with the stock market. There's been a lot of uncertainty right now regarding that.'
As he paused for a moment to talk Monday afternoon while walking in downtown Mt. Clemens, Walus added: 'How is he going to get from here to there? I think he needs to do a better job of explaining how that's going to be done.'
As the president was set to make his way to Michigan on Tuesday for an evening rally at Macomb Community College in Warren, the White House signaled another modification on auto-related tariffs, responding to fears from the nation's biggest automakers about economic consequences.
The president is poised to sign an executive order Tuesday that will lay out a three-year plan that breaks down different phases of the auto tariffs – a decision that came after Trump fielded calls from multiple automaker CEOs, White House officials familiar with the conversation told CNN.
Chris Vitale, a retired Michigan auto worker who was in the Rose Garden on April 2 as Trump announced the sweeping tariffs in an event the White House hailed as 'Liberation Day,' said he applauded the president's approach to tariffs to revive American manufacturing.
'I know how our industry has been disadvantaged, for the last 60 years,' Vitale said. 'The tariffs, in effect, got people's attention and brought them to the negotiating table, which is probably the goal all along.'
Vitale spent three decades at Chrysler, which is now Stellantis, before retiring at the end of last year. He is among the many rank-and-file auto workers and retirees who have spoken out in favor of Trump's tariffs, one of many things he says he supports about Trump's second term.
'For the first time in four years, I don't have a feeling of dread,' Vitale said. 'It's like that weight, that dread, of what new regulation, what new law, what experimental vaccine, what mandate is going to get imposed next.'
Before administration officials previewed their latest tariff pause on Tuesday, the whiplash and uncertainty has become a growing point of frustration to Michael Taylor, the mayor of Sterling Heights, a Republican who supported Trump in 2016 but has since twice voted against him.
'The tariffs are on, then they're off, then they're changed,' Taylor said in an interview. 'Business owners, they really struggle when they don't have a certain landscape ahead of them. These tariffs have created chaos in that regard.'
The promise of reviving American manufacturing by imposing steep tariffs is overstated, he said, and far more complicated than the Trump administration has indicated or explained.
'He's not just misleading. He's lying,' Taylor argued about a tariff strategy Trump has long believed in, with visions of factories suddenly roaring back to life. 'It's frustrating because he has a lot of supporters who believe him even though he knows he's not telling the truth.'
'Small businesses are the backbone of America,' Gibson said. 'How can that be if tariffs are brought into play? Then, little people, businesses like mine, are going to struggle and may not even exist because we cannot afford to pay those kind of prices and absorb it into our little business.'
Naszreen Gibson, who owns The Rendezvous with Tea, said she is bracing for the impact of Trump administration's tariffs on tea imports from Sri Lanka, China and other countries around the world. She said she did not vote for Trump, but many of her customers did.
Her sales are down from a year ago, she said, which she attributes to economic anxiety and belt-tightening before a possible recession.
'Every time someone talks about the tariffs, the stock market goes crazy,' Gibson said. 'It goes up and down, people have their retirement funds there, their 401(k)s and so on.'
The president's visit to Michigan on Tuesday marks a rare moment of taking his economic agenda on the road for the first campaign-style rally of his second term.
While he has flown to his homes in Florida or New Jersey most weekends since returning to office, the term-limited Trump has logged virtually no travel during the week. It's a far different pattern than during his first term, when he delivered speeches in several battleground states during his first 100 days.
For a president who campaigned on lowering costs for Americans and ushering in what he promised would be a new 'Golden Age,' the economic concerns reverberating through conversations with voters across Macomb County are a potential warning for his administration at this stage.
The signs of unease are palpable, even for optimistic business owners like Ujkaj at Dodge Park Coney Island.
'Right now, I don't think it's where he wants it to be,' Ujkaj said of the president's performance after 100 days in office. 'Do I think it's going to get better? Yes. I do think he wants his legacy to be known for something great.'
Hashtags

Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles


Bloomberg
18 minutes ago
- Bloomberg
Traders Scour for ‘Elusive' Catalyst to Push S&P 500 to Record
For stock traders there's little to fear at the moment. Corporate America keeps churning out solid earnings. The chances of a recession aren't blaring. And President Donald Trump's tariff policy is expected to become more clear before long. So what's there to worry about?


Black America Web
20 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


CNN
20 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.