We asked 100 Michiganders about Trump's first 100 days: Here's what they said
Michiganders have a lot of words when it comes to describing the first 100 days of President Donald Trump's second term in office. Here are a handful:
Alarming. Chaotic. Dynamic. Glorious. Extraordinary. Evil.
At a rally at Macomb Community College on April 29, Trump celebrated his crossing the 100-day mark, returning to the stage in a state he has repeatedly campaigned in and vied for as a victorious hero, depicting his still-nascent second term to date as an unequivocal success, an unrivaled achievement, a national rebirth.
"After 100 days back in the White House, America is a free, proud and sovereign nation once more and our magnificent destiny is closer than ever before," he said. "Our golden age has only just begun."
And yes, the Free Press heard much the same from many Michiganders in the last month. From Erica Rodriguez, 45, of Midland, who said Trump came into office "with guns blazing" and from Roxanne Jabalee, 66, of St. Clair Shores, who called the president and his first 100 days, "brilliant."
But a lot of other words and feelings were also employed to describe Trump's baldly aggressive approach and historic attempt to remake the federal government, and the worldwide economic order, in the few months since he was inaugurated on Jan. 20. Many were not nearly so unanimous, so glowing, so kind.
"Wake up, America, before he crashes everything," said Jerry Catlin, 78, of Lapeer.
Over the last several weeks, more than four dozen reporters from the Detroit Free Press, Lansing State Journal and Center for Community Journalism - Michigan talked to over 100 people representing a diverse selection of residents from every region, political leaning and background. The result is a series of brief interviews that offer a sketch of how Trump's agenda and efforts are being received in a key swing state that last year for the second time helped elect him as president (and in the intervening term helped defeat him).
The hope is that, when viewed as a whole, it will be akin to an impressionist painting, portraying something more nuanced and complete than any single interview, and less reductive and reactionary than any single political rally when it comes to gauging reaction to Trump's second first 100 days. The hope is also that it shows the scope of how widely Michiganders differ and that, while their concerns for the future and their appreciation or antipathy for the administration vary wildly, there is also an ideological, philosophical or moral diversity that should be acknowledged.
Take, for instance, Barbara Ritch, a 75-year-old living in Holly. She's been worried about the number of immigrants unlawfully entering the country and cheered on Trump's efforts to protect the border and deport illegal migrants. 'He's doing what he said he would do,' she said. 'His promises are being fulfilled."
Or take Betty Romo, 40, of Lincoln Park, who moved to Michigan decades ago from Jalisco, Mexico. She didn't vote but sees what's happening in government as deeply sad. "My heart aches for my community, for the fear we live with every day. The uncertainty about our future, about whether we'll be safe or allowed to stay, makes me feel helpless," she said.
Or take AJ Whitehead, a 21-year-old junior Michigan State University student from Warren. A Black man who voted for Democratic nominee Vice President Kamala Harris, he's concerned about the cost of living, lost opportunity and political divisiveness in an atmosphere where the president has moved to strip away efforts to promote and protect diversity and equality. "The whole Trump administration doesn't make it seem like I have a secure future in a way,' he said. "I don't really know what my future holds.'
And on it goes. From a lifelong Republican like 66-year-old Penny Swan in Hillsdale who voted third-party last year because she disagrees with what she considers a cruel immigration policy that threatens to sweep up and deport Americans, to Amy Barbieri, a small business owner in Warren who considers herself more of a Democrat but voted for Trump in the last two elections, and who now says tariffs and concerns over the future of TikTok (which she used to make sales) have ruined her business. "So, no, I'm not a Trump supporter anymore," she said.
Carol Kuhn, an 84-year-old retired autoworker from Oxford, has been thrilled with the first months of Trump's second term so far. 'Every morning I get up, I thank God that President Trump is our president and we don't have to have what we had for four years,' she said, referring to former President Joe Biden's term.
In Hamtramck, 37-year-old Kate Mason, a Democrat who supported Harris described the Trump administration as a "dumpster fire" that's "dismantling democracy right in front of us."
"We're gonna have to do a reckoning on the left and figure out how we come back from this," she said.
And on it goes, in a state and a country where Trump's bold approach to his second term has people amazed, shocked, stunned, elated. Here's a chance, below, to look at all of those interviews, divvied by region, with more than 100 Michiganders and what they had to say about the president's second term to date, how far it's gone and what they think about where it might be headed.
Read all 100 interviews by region:
Wayne County
Oakland County
Macomb County
Mid-Michigan and Thumb
Southern Michigan
Northern and West Michigan
Want more local journalism like this? Subscribe to the Detroit Free Press.
This series was reported by: Dana Afana, Lily Altavena, Sarah Atwood, Tresa Baldas, Duante Beddingfield, Dave Boucher, Lisa Vidaurri Bowling, Jackie Charniga, Natalie Davies, Paul Egan, Eric Guzman, Christina Hall, Brad Heineman, Clara Hendrickson, Brendel Hightower, Johnathan Hogan, Violet Ikonomova, Cassidey Kavathas, Georgea Kovanis, Jamie L. LaReau, Eric D. Lawrence, Arpan Lobo, Keith Matheny, Sarah Moore, Darcie Moran, David Rodriguez Muñoz, Corey J. Murray, David Panian, Jenna Prestininzi, Nour Rahal, Nushrat Rahman, Liam Rappleye, Don Reid, Adrienne Roberts, Andrea May Sahouri, Beki San Martin, Susan Selasky, Kristen Jordan Shamus, Scott Talley, Kristi Tanner, Connor Veenstra, Tess Ware, Niraj Warikoo, Jalen Williams, John Wisely, Suzanne Nolan Wisler and Frank Witsil.
This article originally appeared on Detroit Free Press: Trump's first 100 days: Michigan residents weigh in
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Associated Press
9 minutes ago
- Associated Press
After tear gas and street fires, an Los Angeles community cleans up as National Guard troops arrive
COMPTON, Calif. (AP) — Ernest Melendrez woke up early Sunday to shovel tear gas pellets and other charred and broken detritus from his neighborhood's streets, the remnants of a battle between protesters demonstrating against immigration raids and federal and local authorities the night before. Melendrez wore a mask covering his nose and mouth, but he coughed often – it wasn't enough to protect him from remaining tear gas still in the air. Across the street, storefronts were covered in anti-U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement graffiti. 'I think people have the right idea, just the wrong approach,' Melendrez said as cars whisked by him, some honking in appreciation or stopping to ask questions about the night before. 'Everybody has their own way of coping with stuff, and if nobody is there to help manage their feelings this is what can tend to happen. You need some community support.' Melendrez, his wife and daughter cleaned the streets that were obscured just hours earlier by huge clouds of tear gas fired by federal authorities. The protests prompted President Donald Trump to order National Guard troops deployed to downtown Los Angeles President Donald Trump says he's deploying 2,000 California National Guard troops to Los Angeles to respond to immigration protests, over the objections of California Gov. Gavin the clashes. More protests were planned Sunday, and troops dressed in tactical gear were seen stationed outside Metropolitan Detention Center downtown, where hundreds of demonstrators clashed with federal authorities previously. Newsom has called Trump's order a 'complete overreaction.' A Home Depot about a block away from where Melendrez was cleaning was the epicenter of the previous night's struggle. On Sunday it was empty and calm; a lone worker cleaned graffiti off the store's sign as customers drove in. As federal officers in tactical gear fired tear gas and other nonlethal weapons in Compton and Paramount on Saturday, some protesters started a series of small fires that left black char on the streets. Graffiti was scrawled on a doughnut shop, a taqueria, a gas station and other locally owned businesses. On Sunday the damage was still raw and uncleaned in Compton, save for Melendrez's efforts, with spray-painted slogans such as 'What is America without Immigrants' all around. Launie Melendrez, who is married to Ernest, said she supported peaceful protest, and empathized with the families 'being destroyed, that are getting wrangled up. It's sad.' She looked around at the local businesses that had been damaged, and shook her head. 'The destruction of people's hard work. This is how these people, their families, take care of themselves. And the destruction of that is not going to help your case.' Given the breadth of the damage, neighbors said they were angry they were being left to clean up the mess. Melendrez's daughter, Elaina Angel, grew up in Compton and said she wasn't surprised. But it still left her feeling frustrated to see the Home Depot already reopened while her streets and local businesses were still marred by trash and graffiti. 'They don't care about Compton,' she said through her mask, stopping to cough from the irritation. She meant political leaders, law enforcement authorities and others who were nowhere to be seen Sunday morning. 'But I don't think they were counting on us to come out and clean it up.'
CBS News
9 minutes ago
- CBS News
Kevin Hassett says if Senate finds Medicare abuse, then "we would look at it" in Trump bill
Kevin Hassett says if Senate finds Medicare abuse, then "we would look at it" in Trump bill White House National Economic Council director Kevin Hassett said Sunday the Trump administration is not targeting Medicare in its sweeping budget proposal, but signaled the administration would be open to changes if senators uncover fraud or abuse as they look at the bill. "If somebody finds waste, fraud and abuse in Medicare, then of course we would look at it," Hassett said on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan." "But there have been a lot of false stories about Medicare being on the table, and it's totally not on the table." Senate Republicans this week are working on the House-passed budget bill, dubbed the "One Big Beautiful Bill" by President Trump, which includes deep tax cuts, border security measures, and changes to Medicaid and food assistance programs. Hassett on Sunday pushed back against the idea that Republicans are targeting Medicare for cuts. "That story that got out last week was covered as our intent to go after Medicare," Hassett said bluntly. "And it was just a big fake news story." National Economic Council director Kevin Hassett on "Face the Nation with Margaret Brennan," June 2, 2025. CBS News Asked whether the administration would revisit the Medicare provision if the Senate identifies abuse, Hassett said they would. "I've seen a massive amount of waste, fraud and abuse in Medicaid, and I've not been briefed on Medicare waste, fraud and abuse. But if they find something then, of course, we would look at it," he said. The nonpartisan Congressional Budget Office estimated earlier this week that the bill will add $2.4 trillion to the national debt over the next decade. Sen. Thom Tillis told Charlotte's WCNC on Thursday that he supports legislation that would address waste in the Medicare Advantage Program. This addition, he said, would not touch beneficiaries but would focus on "eliminating waste, fraud, and abuse of the Medicare Advantage program, including costly government overpayments to insurance companies." To pay for some of Mr. Trump's tax reforms, such as extending his 2017 tax cuts and eliminating tax on tips, there are cuts to several programs. Republicans have insisted they are not cutting Medicaid, and reductions in the low-income entitlement program have become one of the most charged parts of the bill. In a closed-door session with members of the Republican conference days before the bill's passage, sources in the room told CBS News Mr. Trump said, "Don't f*** around with Medicaid." House Republicans passed the bill late last month on a 215–214 vote, sending it to the Senate where GOP leaders are weighing revisions to secure enough votes under budget reconciliation rules. "What we want to see done now is we want the Senate to pass the bill, and then we want the House and Senate to work out their differences," Hassett said. "So right now, the Senate has to get the votes they need to pass the bill, and we're supporting them in that process." Some Republican senators, including Susan Collins of Maine, Lisa Murkowski of Alaska, and Josh Hawley of Missouri, have voiced concerns about Medicaid provisions in the bill, particularly new monthly premium requirements for low-income recipients. Their opposition highlights ongoing uncertainty as Senate GOP leaders work to secure enough votes. The bill can't afford to lose more than four votes in the Senate, granted that all Democrats vote against it. Hawley has called the Medicaid work requirements "both morally wrong and politically suicidal." When asked about Hawley's concerns, Hassett said, "I'd have to go see what he has and talk to him about it. And I also would want to talk to the president about the specific matter. So I can't speak to that one." The administration has repeatedly argued that failure to pass the legislation could hurt the broader economy. "If we don't pass this bill, then we lose 6 to 7 million jobs and 4% GDP," Hassett said Sunday. "If we create the jobs that we have in the bill, then we're going to create a heck of a lot more insurance than what we're talking about in waste, fraud and abuse." Senate Republicans are expected to release their version of the bill in the coming days. If there are significant changes, it will then have to go back to the House for final passage before landing on Mr. Trump's desk.
USA Today
16 minutes ago
- USA Today
Illegal border crossings at record lows as Trump crackdown spreads
SUNLAND PARK, New Mexico ‒ The U.S.-Mexico border used to buzz with illegal migration at a scale President Donald Trump called an "invasion." Now soldiers surveil the desert from military vehicles, Border Patrol radios are silent and illegal crossings have fallen to record lows. Reaching far beyond the border, deep into the country's heartland, Trump insists America is under "invasion" and has continued to invoke wartime powers to stop it. He has transformed the borderland into a military base, made arrests by masked agents a common sight in America and packed detention centers with immigrants, the vast majority without criminal records. He's now trying to take control of the California National Guard to crack down on immigrants and the protesters trying to defend them. Trump's aggressive actions – and protestors' increasingly violent opposition – have touched off a furious national debate about civil rights, the rule of law and what the word "invasion" really means. Trump is known for his verbal flourishes, but declaring an "invasion" in numerous executive actions is one way to unlock extraordinary federal authorities, often reserved for wartime, said Jessica Vaughan, of the right-leaning Center for Immigration Studies. "It was not just meant to rile people up, or to just be used as a melodramatic description, but it was meant to trigger a certain response under certain authorities," she said. The word "invasion" appears in at least 12 of Trump's executive orders, proclamations and memoranda since he took office Jan. 20, according to a USA TODAY review. He has ramped up military rhetoric in official orders, even as his administration touts its success in stopping border crossings. In a May 9 proclamation, after months of increased border security, Trump declared that he wants to "end this invasion, remove the illegal-alien invaders from the United States, and protect the American people." The mass arrival of migrants under President Joe Biden pushed the United States to its highest percentage of foreign-born people in a century. Trump's moves to reverse it by deporting millions is transforming the country again, redefining what it means for the United States to be a nation of immigrants. From immigration raids at construction sites in Florida, dairy farms in Vermont and restaurants in California; to the detentions of college students in Massachusetts and targeting of alleged gang members in Colorado apartment complexes, the Trump administration is sending a firm message to millions of immigrants: You aren't welcome here. Which America is it? The president's most vocal supporters see a chief executive delivering rapid results. Craig Johnson, 67, rallied for Trump at a campaign stop in Las Vegas last year. The Navy vet supports the ramp-up in deportations – especially after the VA recently cut back his benefits, he said. He is appealing the cutback, but he also believes immigrants have drained resources. "There are so many people that were here illegally that were getting food stamps or medical," he said. "The impact it's had on citizens is just horrendous." But other Americans are growing increasingly concerned as the president's agents adopt aggressive, fear-inducing arrest tactics and widen their net to target otherwise law-abiding immigrants alongside murderers, rapists, and drug dealers. "They've created a war zone in our community for a war that's imagined," said Laura Lunn, director of advocacy and litigation for the Rocky Mountain Immigrant Advocacy Network. "It's making us all feel less safe. People are losing trust in law enforcement." Some migrant advocates are becoming militant in their opposition to Trump's agenda, in some cases adopting tactics commonly associated with resistance fighters, mapping the movement of ICE agents and increasingly engaging in physical confrontations. On June 6 and 7, hundreds of protestors clashed violently with federal agents in Los Angeles, after dozens of immigrant arrests were carried out by masked agents riding in armored vehicles. The Trump administration dispatched U.S. Border Patrol tactical agents to the city in response and deployed 2,000 members of the National Guard. L.A. Mayor Karen Bass condemned how agents carried out the detentions. "These tactics sow terror in our communities and disrupt basic principles of public safety in our city," she said in a statement. "We will not stand for this." Some former immigration agents and military personnel also have concerns about the new enforcement tactics. In California, retired Homeland Security Investigations special agent Patrick Comey dedicated three decades of his life to enforcing U.S. immigration laws. But the Trump administration's tactics – splashy arrests by agents in heavy tactical gear – are "becoming more and more distressing every day." "This is not the America that I was trained to serve," he told USA TODAY. Army veteran Jose Diaz was outside the Buona Forchetta Italian restaurant in San Diego on May 30, when immigration agents tried to drive their vehicles through an angry crowd and deployed two flash-bang grenades, one of which went off by his foot. Diaz said he had never seen soldiers overseas use such tactics on a crowd of unarmed civilians. 'We had much stricter rules of engagement than these agents had,' he said. Shifting the focus away from the border On a morning in mid-May, near the rusted steel U.S.-Mexico border fence in southern New Mexico, soldiers surveilled the desert from inside an eight-wheeled Stryker vehicle. Hours went by without a single illegal crossing. Trump's aggressive new policies helped drive down illegal migration at the Mexican border, accelerating a sharp decline that began in the last year of the Biden administration. Citing the "invasion," Trump deployed troops to Texas, New Mexico, Arizona and California and declared a strip of land along the border a "National Defense Area." Migrants who enter that territory can be charged with illegal entry and trespassing on a military installation. The administration is already shifting its focus from the border to the country's interior. "The prior administration allowed unchecked millions of aliens to illegally enter the United States," Trump said in an April 28 executive order. "This invasion at the southern border requires the federal government to take measures to fulfill its obligation to the states." Stephen Miller, Trump's top immigration advisor, has long argued that vast government powers and the military should be deployed to combat the migrant "invasion." Miller, who as White House deputy chief of staff has helped shape Trump's muscular new approach to immigration enforcement, argues liberal Americans are more interested in sob stories about law-breaking immigrants than they are about protecting their country. On social media, he called the protests in Los Angeles"an insurrection against the laws and sovereignty of the United States," adding in a comment directed to Bass, the mayor: "You have no say in this at all. Federal law is supreme and federal law will be enforced." But Trump's reliance on the military to combat the "invasion" has some critics worried that a president who grows accustomed to using the military in one arena may be increasingly willing to deploy soldiers elsewhere inside the country. The border military build-up "is part of an effort to take on internal missions," said Adam Isacson, director of defense oversight for the left-leaning Washington Office on Latin America. "The authoritarian needs an enemy to start, to galvanize the population," he said. "You use the word invasion; it's immigrants for now." Federal judges challenge Trump Courts around the country have put the brakes on some of Trump's efforts to reverse or combat the "invasion." Federal judges have been quick to thwart his more controversial efforts, from his invocation of the 1798 Alien Enemies Act to deport certain immigrants without due process; to his targeting of pro-Palestinian protesters because the White House didn't like what they said. Prof. Michael Kagan, who runs the Immigration Clinic at the University of Nevada-Las Vegas law school, said Trump's use of wartime language reflects the administration's deliberate effort to sway both the courts and public opinion by invoking national security. During war, he said, the courts and the general public have given the president broad deference to exercise powers that could never be justified during peacetime. Kagan cited the preemptive incarceration of Japanese-Americans during World War II as an example of a presidential action that was at the time endorsed by the courts but later widely deemed both unconstitutional and morally wrong. "They're hoping to tap into a broader norm in America, where the courts allow the executive to get away with a lot more during a war," he said. Kagan said current efforts targeting immigrants are akin to to the military testing new weapons systems: a small number of agents trying different tactics against a relatively small number of people to find the most effective path forward to meeting Trump's 1-million-per-year deportation goal. "They're seeing what can we get away with," said Kagan, adding the courts should block any effort to curb due process before the practice becomes widespread. Congress appears poised to pour $150 billion in new funding to back Trump's efforts, according to an analysis of a reconciliation budget bill by the American Immigration Council. That's more than double the current Department of Homeland Security budget and would represent a dramatic expansion of the department's reach. "If you think bad things are happening now, wait till they get tons more money," said Matthew Soerens, vice president of advocacy and policy for World Relief, a Christian humanitarian organization. The organization has argued against deporting people who benefitted from Biden-era immigration programs and followed the rules at the time. Soerens says what happened wasn't an "invasion." "We want DHS to have enough money to deport violent criminals and ensure secure borders," Soerens said. "We don't want them to have enough money to deport people who came here under the rules we gave them." Contributed: Eduardo Cuevas
