Last month, then University of Michigan President Santa Ono announced his resignation from the college after accepting a role leading the University of Florida.

But despite the University of Florida’s Board of Trustees voting unanimously to approve Ono as the school’s 14th president, the Florida Board of Governors — which oversees the state’s universities — voted against it, reversing the decision.

David Jesse, a senior writer at The Chronicle of Higher Education, joined The Metro to discuss this unprecedented reversal and the political motivation behind it. 

Use the media player above to hear the full conversation.

Listen to The Metro weekdays from 10 a.m. to noon ET on 101.9 FM and streaming on-demand.

More stories from The Metro

A number of universities are worried about funding cuts that are coming from the Trump administration. That includes those in Michigan. 

Wayne State University, the University of Michigan, and Michigan State University collaborate — sharing research and attracting businesses to their campuses. Late last month, Michigan Tech joined the re-branded group that’s now called Research Universities for Michigan. 

At the 2025 Mackinac Policy Conference, presidents from three of the four schools spoke with WDET’s Russ McNamara: MSU President Kevin Guskiewicz, Michigan Tech President Rick Koubec and Wayne State President Kimberly Andrews Espy. 

This isn’t the only way schools are collaborating. Although it’s not yet supported by administrative leadership, faculty at many Big Ten universities are advocating for their respective leadership to sign a NATO-like agreement. It would allow the universities to share attorneys and pool financial resources in case President Donald Trump’s administration targets one of them. 

Use the media player above to hear the full conversation.

Listen to The Metro weekdays from 10 a.m. to noon ET on 101.9 FM and streaming on-demand.

More stories from The Metro

The streets of Detroit will be filled with color and courage this weekend as Motor City Pride returns to Hart Plaza June 7-8.

The annual festival and parade is Michigan’s largest LGBTQ+ pride event, but it offers much more than just a celebration.

Fifty-six years after the Stonewall Uprising ignited the modern movement for LGBTQ rights, Pride remains both a celebration and a protest. And in 2025, that duality feels more urgent. Since January, the Trump administration has enacted multiple executive orders rolling back LGBTQ protections. 

These federal actions mirror a broader national trend. More than 580 anti-LGBTQ bills have been introduced in state legislatures this year alone, according to the American Civil Liberties Union. These bills target health care, education, and public accommodations.

In this climate, Motor City Pride is more than a parade. It’s a declaration that visibility is vital. 

Dave Wait, chairperson of Motor City Pride, joined The Metro on Tuesday to discuss the event’s history and important legacy of advocacy and what that looks like in today’s political climate.

–WDET’s Jenny Sherman contributed to this report.

Use the media player above to hear the full conversation.

Listen to The Metro weekdays from 10 a.m. to noon ET on 101.9 FM and streaming on-demand.

More stories from The Metro

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump on Wednesday resurrected a hallmark policy of his first term, announcing that citizens of 12 countries would be banned from visiting the United States and those from seven others would face restrictions.

The ban takes effect Monday at 12:01 a.m., a cushion that may avoid the chaos that unfolded at airports nationwide when a similar measure took effect with virtually no notice in 2017. Trump, who signaled plans for a new ban upon taking office in January, appears to be on firmer ground this time after the Supreme Court sided with him.

Some, but not all, 12 countries also appeared on the list of banned countries in Trump’s first term. The new ban includes Afghanistan, Myanmar, Chad, the Republic of Congo, Equatorial Guinea, Eritrea, Haiti, Iran, Libya, Somalia, Sudan and Yemen.

There will be heightened restrictions on visitors from Burundi, Cuba, Laos, Sierra Leone, Togo, Turkmenistan and Venezuela.

In a video released on social media, Trump tied the new ban to Sunday’s terror attack in Boulder, Colorado, saying it underscored the dangers posed by some visitors who overstay visas. The suspect in the attack is from Egypt, a country that is not on Trump’s restricted list. The Department of Homeland Security says he overstayed a tourist visa.

Trump said some countries had “deficient” screening and vetting or have historically refused to take back their own citizens. His findings rely extensively on an annual Homeland Security report of visa overstays of tourists, business visitors and students who arrive by air and sea, singling out countries with high percentages of remaining after their visas expired.

“We don’t want them,” Trump said.

The inclusion of Afghanistan angered some supporters who have worked to resettle its people. The ban makes exceptions for Afghans on Special Immigrant Visas, generally people who worked most closely with the U.S. government during the two-decade-long war there.

Afghanistan was also one of the largest sources of resettled refugees, with about 14,000 arrivals in a 12-month period through September 2024. Trump suspended refugee resettlement his first day in office.

“To include Afghanistan — a nation whose people stood alongside American service members for 20 years — is a moral disgrace. It spits in the face of our allies, our veterans, and every value we claim to uphold,” said Shawn VanDiver, president and board chairman of #AfghanEvac.

Trump wrote that Afghanistan “lacks a competent or cooperative central authority for issuing passports or civil documents and it does not have appropriate screening and vetting measures.” He also cited its visa overstay rates.

Haiti, which avoided the travel ban during Trump’s first term, was also included for high overstay rates and large numbers who came to the U.S. illegally. Haitians continue to flee poverty, hunger and political instability deepens while police and a U.N.-backed mission fight a surge in gang violence, with armed men controlling at least 85% of its capital, Port-au-Prince.

“Haiti lacks a central authority with sufficient availability and dissemination of law enforcement information necessary to ensure its nationals do not undermine the national security of the United States,” Trump wrote.

The Iranian government government offered no immediate reaction to being included. The Trump administration called it a “state sponsor of terrorism,” barring visitors except for those already holding visas or coming into the U.S. on special visas America issues for minorities facing persecution.

Other Mideast nations on the list — Libya, Sudan and Yemen — all face ongoing civil strife and territory overseen by opposing factions. Sudan has an active war, while Yemen’s war is largely stalemated and Libyan forces remain armed.

International aid groups and refugee resettlement organizations roundly condemned the new ban. “This policy is not about national security — it is about sowing division and vilifying communities that are seeking safety and opportunity in the United States,” said Abby Maxman, president of Oxfam America.

The travel ban results from a Jan. 20 executive order Trump issued requiring the departments of State and Homeland Security and the Director of National Intelligence to compile a report on “hostile attitudes” toward the U.S. and whether entry from certain countries represented a national security risk.

During his first term, Trump issued an executive order in January 2017 banning travel to the U.S. by citizens of seven predominantly Muslim countries — Iraq, Syria, Iran, Sudan, Libya, Somalia and Yemen.

It was one of the most chaotic and confusing moments of his young presidency. Travelers from those nations were either barred from getting on their flights to the U.S. or detained at U.S. airports after they landed. They included students and faculty as well as businesspeople, tourists and people visiting friends and family.

The order, often referred to as the “Muslim ban” or the “travel ban,” was retooled amid legal challenges, until a version was upheld by the Supreme Court in 2018.

The ban affected various categories of travelers and immigrants from Iran, Somalia, Yemen, Syria and Libya, plus North Koreans and some Venezuelan government officials and their families.

Trump and others have defended the initial ban on national security grounds, arguing it was aimed at protecting the country and not founded on anti-Muslim bias. However, the president had called for an explicit ban on Muslims during his first campaign for the White House.

Reporting by Chris Megerian and Farnoush Amiri, Associated Press. AP writers Rebecca Santana, Jon Gambrell, Ellen Knickmeyer and Danica Coto contributed.

President Trump took yet another step Tuesday to place NPR and PBS at the center of his broader clash with major cultural institutions, formally asking Congress to take back the $1.1 billion it has set aside for all public broadcasters for the next two years.

A simple majority of lawmakers in each chamber must approve what’s technically known as a “rescission request” within 45 days for it to become law. With their slim leads in both the House and Senate, Republicans can afford just a few defections.

A House subcommittee hearing earlier this spring set the stage for Trump’s request. His Republican allies accused NPR and PBS of partisan bias. Lawmakers used the hearing as a springboard to argue for elimination of the federal funding that is funneled through the Corporation for Public Broadcasting to local stations and the public media networks.

PBS President and CEO Paula Kerger testified at that hearing. On Tuesday, she warned that Trump’s proposal would devastate public broadcasting stations, particularly in rural communities.

“Without PBS member stations, Americans will lose unique local programming and emergency services in times of crisis,” she said in a statement. “There’s nothing more American than PBS and we are proud to highlight real issues, individuals, and places that would otherwise be overlooked by commercial media.”

Katherine Maher, the CEO and president of NPR, echoed those sentiments and said that local public radio stations could face “immediate budget shortfalls,” leading to layoffs and show cancellations. She also questioned the legality of the request.

“The proposal, which is explicitly viewpoint-based and aimed at controlling and punishing content, violates the Public Broadcasting Act, the First Amendment, and the Due Process Clause,” Maher said in a statement.

Taking a cue from DOGE on foreign aid

The cuts to public broadcasting are part of a larger package from the White House of $9.4 billion in proposed clawbacks, which include funding for foreign aid. House Speaker Mike Johnson noted that many of the cuts were identified by the task force on government efficiency led by billionaire Elon Musk.

“We thank Elon Musk and his DOGE team for identifying a wide range of wasteful, duplicative, and outdated programs, and House Republicans are eager to eliminate them,” Johnson said in a statement, vowing to act quickly on the request.

Yet that could prove difficult in the Senate. Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins, R-Maine, noted the request included a cut to the HIV/AIDS program started by President George W. Bush that is known as PEPFAR. Collins said it was “one of the most successful public health programs in the world without a doubt.”

“I will not support a cut in PEPFAR, which is a program that has saved literally millions of lives and has been extremely effective and well run,” Collins told reporters. She sidestepped a question on cuts to public broadcasting and whether there were enough Senate Republicans to block the bill.

The rescission request follows grousing from conservative Republicans that the budget plan the House recently approved only after Trump visited Capitol Hill would significantly raise the federal debt in coming years.

Yet the $1.1 billion to be rescinded from public broadcasting would make little dent in the $36 trillion national debt, even as it represents the full funding levels for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting through the end of September 2027. Congress approved that funding in March as part of a stopgap spending bill the president signed.

A split largely along partisan lines

While public broadcasting has enjoyed bipartisan support over its decades of existence, many Republicans consider it to have a liberal outlook or bias.

“NPR and PBS have increasingly become radical, left-wing echo chambers for a narrow audience of mostly wealthy, white, urban liberals and progressives,” Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene of Georgia, a vocal Trump ally, said at the subcommittee hearing earlier this spring.

Even so, Alaska Sen. Lisa Murkowski, a Republican, came out last month in favor of retaining federal funding, saying stations in her state provide vital services.

Some leading Democrats also have flagged their enduring support for the networks. Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and Sen. Patty Murray, the leading Democrat on the Senate Appropriations Committee, accused Trump of “misplaced priorities.”

“President Trump is looking to go after PBS and NPR to settle political scores and muzzle the free press, while undermining foreign assistance programs that push back on China’s malign influence, save lives, and address other bipartisan priorities,” the two senators said in a statement.

Rep. Dan Goldman of New York, the Democratic co-chair of the House Public Broadcasting Caucus, sent a letter in May signed by 106 lawmakers – all Democrats – to House appropriators in which they advocated for maintaining financial subsidies.

“Without federal support for public broadcasting, many localities would struggle to receive timely, reliable local news and educational content, especially remote and rural communities that commercial newsrooms are increasingly less likely to invest in,” stated the letter. “In states such as Alaska, Minnesota, North Dakota, and Texas, rural public radio stations are often the only weekly or daily news source in their communities. Even in places with other daily or weekly news sources, those outlets may not be directing resources toward original or locally based stories, leaving it to public stations to fill the gap.”

A broader attack on public media

The rescission request represents an expansion of Trump’s rhetorical attacks on NPR and PBS. He has previously sought to take control of CPB’s board by ordering the firing of three of its five members. He also issued an executive order stating that no money from CPB can go to NPR or PBS – and that other public broadcasters that receive CPB money cannot send it to the two national networks.

Those moves are now being questioned in court. CPB is privately incorporated in the District of Columbia and was set up by Congress with statutory safeguards against political influence. It sued the Trump White House over the attempt to fire CPB directors. Then NPR and three Colorado member stations sued the administration over Trump’s edict that no federal taxpayer money go to NPR or PBS. At the end of May, PBS and Minnesota affiliate Lakeland PBS followed up with their own joint lawsuit challenging the executive order.

Asking Congress to claw back funds, however, is unquestionably legal. And it has prompted a flurry of lobbying. Officials from nearly 200 public radio stations flooded Capitol Hill in May to tell lawmakers about the value they say they bring to their communities and regions.

By law, Trump’s request kicks off the 45-day period for Congress to consider his request. The last time a president successfully made a rescission request was a generation ago.

Disclosure: This story was reported and written by NPR Media Correspondent David Folkenflik and NPR Congressional Correspondent Deirdre Walsh. It was edited by Deputy Business Editor Emily Kopp, Managing Editor Vickie Walton-James and Managing Editor Gerry Holmes. Under NPR’s protocol for reporting on itself, no corporate official or news executive reviewed this story before it was posted publicly.

Experts say Medicaid cuts passed by the U.S. House could result in millions of people losing health care — including more than 700,000 people in Michigan. 

Michigan resident Janae Wouldfolk says the cuts would change her life. A union liaison for AFSCME Local 140 who has worked at the Detroit Medical Center for 27 years, Wouldfolk cares for her 74-year-old mother and 19-year-old disabled son, Shemar.

On today’s episode of the Detroit Evening Report, she spoke with WDET’s Sascha Raiyn about her concerns. 

Wouldfolk says she’s used the knowledge she’s gained as an advocate and caregiver to help coworkers who needed help with health care coverage for themselves or loved ones. She says she knows many families who will be deeply impacted by the Medicaid cuts.

“You know, it’s a lot. It’s a struggle and if they do cut it, it’ll be a disaster,” she said.

The House passed the Trump administration budget last month. The bill will move to the Senate for a vote this week.

Other headlines for Tuesday, June 3, 2025:

• The Department of Homeland Security has agreed to restore the visas of four international college students — two at Wayne State and two at the University of Michigan. The American Civil Liberties Union sued the government, which has stripped visas from thousands of students across the country this spring and threatened to deport them. A federal judge dismissed the case after the Trump administration agreed not to terminate their status based solely on cursory background checks.
• Tiff Massey’s “Baby Bling” will be added to the Detroit Institute of Arts’ permanent collection. DIA Director Salvador Salort-Pons broke the news on WDET’s The Metro on Monday. Baby Bling is one of the pieces featured in Massey’s year-long “7 Mile + Livernois” exhibit that closed at the museum in May. After the success of the exhibit, the museum says it plans to re-install its contemporary African American galleries in a more prominent location near Diego Rivera Court in October. 

Do you have a community story we should tell? Let us know in an email at detroiteveningreport@wdet.org.

WASHINGTON (AP) — A federal court on Wednesday blocked President Donald Trump from imposing sweeping tariffs on imports under an emergency-powers law, swiftly throwing into doubt Trump’s signature set of economic policies that have rattled global financial markets, frustrated trade partners and raised broader fears about inflation intensifying and the economy slumping.

The ruling from a three-judge panel at the New York-based U.S. Court of International Trade came after several lawsuits arguing Trump’s “Liberation Day” tariffs exceeded his authority and left the country’s trade policy dependent on his whims.

Trump has repeatedly said the tariffs would force manufacturers to bring back factory jobs to the U.S. and generate enough revenue to reduce federal budget deficits. He used the tariffs as a negotiating cudgel in hopes of forcing other nations to negotiate agreements that favored the U.S., suggesting he would simply set the rates himself if the terms were unsatisfactory.

White House spokesperson Kush Desai said that trade deficits amount to a national emergency “that has decimated American communities, left our workers behind, and weakened our defense industrial base — facts that the court did not dispute.”

The administration, he said, remains “committed to using every lever of executive power to address this crisis and restore American Greatness.”

But for now, Trump might not have the threat of import taxes to exact his will on the world economy as he had intended, since doing so would require congressional approval. What remains unclear is whether the White House will respond to the ruling by pausing all of its emergency power tariffs in the interim.

Trump might still be able to temporarily launch import taxes of 15% for 150 days on nations with which the U.S. runs a substantial trade deficit. The ruling notes that a president has this authority under Section 122 of the Trade Act of 1974.

The ruling amounted to a categorical rejection of the legal underpinnings of some of Trump’s signature and most controversial actions of his four-month-old second term. The administration swiftly filed notice of appeal — and the Supreme Court will almost certainly be called upon to lend a final answer — but it casts a sharp blow.

The case was heard by three judges: Timothy Reif, who was appointed by Trump, Jane Restani, named to the bench by President Ronald Reagan and Gary Katzmann, an appointee of President Barack Obama.

“The Worldwide and Retaliatory Tariff Orders exceed any authority granted to the President by IEEPA to regulate importation by means of tariffs,” the court wrote, referring to the 1977 International Emergency Economic Powers Act.

The ruling left in place any tariffs that Trump put in place using his Section 232 powers from the Trade Expansion Act of 1962. He put a 25% tax on most imported autos and parts, as well as on all foreign-made steel and aluminum. Those tariffs depend on a Commerce Department investigation that reveals national security risks from imported products.

It was filed in the U.S. Court of International Trade, a federal court that deals specifically with civil lawsuits involving international trade law.

While tariffs must typically be approved by Congress, Trump has said he has the power to act to address the trade deficits he calls a national emergency.

He is facing at least seven lawsuits challenging the levies. The plaintiffs argued that the emergency powers law does not authorize the use of tariffs, and even if it did, the trade deficit is not an emergency because the U.S. has run a trade deficit with the rest of the world for 49 consecutive years.

Trump imposed tariffs on most of the countries in the world in an effort to reverse America’s massive and long-standing trade deficits. He earlier plastered levies on imports from Canada, China and Mexico to combat the illegal flow of immigrants and the synthetic opioids across the U.S. border.

His administration argues that courts approved then-President Richard Nixon’s emergency use of tariffs in 1971, and that only Congress, and not the courts, can determine the “political” question of whether the president’s rationale for declaring an emergency complies with the law.

Trump’s Liberation Day tariffs shook global financial markets and led many economists to downgrade the outlook for U.S. economic growth. So far, though, the tariffs appear to have had little impact on the world’s largest economy.

The lawsuit was filed by a group of small businesses, including a wine importer, V.O.S. Selections, whose owner has said the tariffs are having a major impact and his company may not survive.

A dozen states also filed suit, led by Oregon. “This ruling reaffirms that our laws matter, and that trade decisions can’t be made on the president’s whim,” Attorney General Dan Rayfield said.

Oregon Sen. Ron Wyden, top Democrat on the Senate Finance Committee, said the tariffs had “jacked up prices on groceries and cars, threatened shortages of essential goods and wrecked supply chains for American businesses large and small.″

Reporting by Lindsay Whitehurst and Josh Boak, Associated Press. AP writers Zeke Miller and Paul Wiseman contributed.

Editor’s note: This story has been updated to correct the spelling of the last name of Judge Gary Katzmann, from Katzman in earlier versions of the story.

The U.S. Department of Justice and the White House are looking at pardoning the two men convicted in the 2020 plot to kidnap Gov. Gretchen Whitmer.

President Donald Trump told reporters on Wednesday that the men convicted in the kidnapping plot were victims of “a railroad job.”

Whitmer shared her reaction to the news with WDET’s Russ McNamara at the Mackinac Policy Conference on Thursday, saying she’s not happy that the justice department — and the president — are even considering pardons.

“When the man took a shot at Donald Trump when he was on the campaign trail in Pennsylvania, I was one of the first office holders on either side of the aisle to condemn it,” Whitmer said. “Anything short of condemning political violence does a disservice to every American.”

Whitmer has been a frequent visitor to the White House this year, asking for federal aid for this spring’s ice storms and helping to secure a new fighter mission at the Selfridge Air National Guard Base.

She said she would be “incredibly disappointed” to see the administration take that action, and that she “certainly will be conveying that to the White House.”

The two men seeking pardons — Barry Croft Jr., 49, and Adam Fox, 42 — were convicted in 2022 of conspiracy for their roles in the alleged kidnapping plot, and are serving a 20-year and 16-year prison sentence, respectively.

On securing a semiconductor ‘fab’ in Michigan

Whitmer also spoke about her stated goal of landing a massive microchip factory for Michigan before the end of her term at the start of 2027. She shared that while federal support would be needed to get the project “over the finish line,” she remains optimistic about getting it done before she leaves office.

“With so many pressures right now in our economy around tariffs and all the chaos, diversifying our economy and landing a chip fab — a plant — it’s so important to all the things that we as Americans rely on and want to do in the future, and this is something that I think would be a huge win for Michigan.”

–WDET’s Jenny Sherman contributed to this report

Use the media player above to hear the full conversation.

In 2016, many liberals didn’t take Donald Trump seriously. They thought that he was wacky, ridiculous, offensive, and not a serious candidate for president. 

But during that time, Congresswoman Debbie Dingell thought differently. She was speaking with her constituents Downriver, and it was prior to President Trump’s first term that she realized he was well-liked, that he had a good chance at becoming the most powerful person in America. 

Almost a decade later, Trump has become central to the Republican Party and our politics writ large. Democrats have spent a lot of that time becoming the “anti-Trump” party. But after losing the 2024 election, many Democrats believe that position is not enough. They need to stand for something. 

So, what do Democrats stand for? What should they stand for? And what do they need to do to win back the country — specifically the low-income and marginalized people they claim to champion?

Dingell joined The Metro live from the Mackinac Policy Conference to discuss how she stays connected to her constituents.

“Every weekend I try to be at a couple farmers markets…I try to be in a union hall, I try to be in a veterans hall, I go to special events, I go to the grocery store — where real people are,” Dingell said. “And I don’t go with anybody, I go with no entourage, I don’t have any staff, I go me, and people talk to me and they tell me what’s on their minds, and a lot more Democrats need to do that.”

WDET’s Jenny Sherman contributed to this report.

Use the media player above to hear the full conversation.

Listen to The Metro weekdays from 10 a.m. to noon ET on 101.9 FM and streaming on-demand.

More stories from The Metro

WASHINGTON (AP) — President Donald Trump used a White House meeting to forcefully confront South African President Cyril Ramaphosa, accusing the country of failing to address Trump’s baseless claim of the systematic killing of white farmers.

Trump even dimmed the lights of the Oval Office to play a video of a far-left politician chanting a song that includes the lyrics “kill the farmer.” He also leafed through news articles to underscore his point, saying the country’s white farmers have faced “death, death, death, horrible death.”

Trump had already cut all U.S. assistance to South Africa and welcomed several dozen white South African farmers to the U.S. as refugees as he pressed the case that a “genocide” is underway in the country.

The U.S. president, since his return to office, has launched a series of accusations at South Africa’s Black-led government, claiming it is seizing land from white farmers, enforcing antiwhite policies and pursuing an anti-American foreign policy.

Experts in South Africa say there is no evidence of whites being targeted for their race, although farmers of all races are victims of violent home invasions in a country with a high crime rate.

“People are fleeing South Africa for their own safety,” Trump said. “Their land is being confiscated and in many cases they’re being killed.”

Ramaphosa pushed back against Trump’s accusation. The South African leader had sought to use the meeting to set the record straight and salvage his country’s relationship with the United States. The bilateral relationship is at its lowest point since South Africa enforced its apartheid system of racial segregation, which ended in 1994.

“We are completely opposed to that,” Ramaphosa said of the behavior alleged by Trump in their exchange. He added, “that is not government policy” and “our government policy is completely, completely against what he was saying.”

Trump was unmoved.

“When they take the land, they kill the white farmer,” he said.

Trump appeared prepared to confront Ramaphosa at the start of the meeting while journalists were present. Videos were cued up on a large TV set to show a clip of an opposition party leader, Julius Malema, leading an old anti-apartheid song.

The song has been contentious for years in the country because of its central lyrics “kill the Boer” and “shoot the Boer” — with Boer a word that refers to a white farmer. Malema, featured in the video, is not part of the country’s governing coalition.

Another clip played showed white crosses on the side of a road, described as a memorial for white farmers who were killed. Ramaphosa seemed baffled. “I’d like to know where that is, because this I’ve never seen.”

Trump kicked off the meeting by describing the South African president as a “truly respected man in many, many circles.” He added: “And in some circles he’s considered a little controversial.”

Ramaphosa chimed in, playfully jabbing back at a U.S. president who is no stranger to controversy. “We’re all like that,” Ramaphosa said.

Trump issued an executive order in February cutting all funding to South Africa over some of its domestic and foreign policies. The order criticized the South African government on multiple fronts, saying it is pursuing antiwhite policies at home and supporting “bad actors” in the world like the Palestinian militant group Hamas and Iran.

Trump has falsely accused the South African government of rights violations against white Afrikaner farmers by seizing their land through a new expropriation law. No land has been seized and the South African government has pushed back, saying U.S. criticism is driven by misinformation.

The Trump administration’s references to the Afrikaner people — who are descendants of Dutch and other European settlers — have also elevated previous claims made by Trump’s South African-born adviser Elon Musk and some conservative U.S. commentators that the South African government is allowing attacks on white farmers in what amounts to a genocide.

The administration’s concerns about South African policies cut even deeper than the concerns about white farmers.

South Africa has also angered Trump over its move to bring charges at the International Court of Justice, accusing Israel of committing genocide against Palestinians in Gaza. Ramaphosa has also faced scrutiny in Washington for his past connections to MTN Group, Iran’s second-largest telecom provider. It owns nearly half of Irancell, a joint venture linked with the Islamic Revolutionary Guard Corps. Ramaphosa served as board chair of MTN from 2002 to 2013.

Ramaphosa came into the meeting looking to avoid the sort of contentious engagement that Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy experienced during his February Oval Office visit, when the Ukrainian leader found himself being berated by Trump and Vice President JD Vance. That disastrous meeting ended with White House officials asking Zelenskyy and his delegation to leave the White House grounds.

The South African president’s delegation included golfers Ernie Els and Retief Goosen, a gesture to the golf-obsessed U.S. president. Ramaphosa brought Trump a massive book about South Africa’s golf courses. He even told Trump that he’s been working on his golf game, seeming to angle for an invitation to the links with the president.

Luxury goods tycoon and Afrikaner Johann Rupert was also in the delegation to help ease Trump’s concerns that land was being seized from white farmers.

At one point, Ramaphosa called on Zingiswa Losi, the president of a group of South African trade unions, who told Trump it is true that South Africa is a “violent nation for a number of reasons.” But she told him it was important to understand that Black men and women in rural areas were also being targeted in heinous crimes.

“The problem in South Africa, it is not necessarily about race, but it’s about crime,” Losi said. “We are here to say how do we, both nations, work together to reset, to really talk about investment but also help … to really address the levels of crime we have in our country.”

Musk also attended Wednesday’s talks. He has been at the forefront of the criticism of his homeland, casting its affirmative action laws as racist against whites.

Musk has said on social media that his Starlink satellite internet service isn’t able to get a license to operate in South Africa because he is not Black.

South African authorities say Starlink hasn’t formally applied. It can, but it would be bound by affirmative action laws in the communications sector that require foreign companies to allow 30% of their South African subsidiaries to be owned by shareholders who are Black or from other racial groups disadvantaged under apartheid.

The South African government says its long-standing affirmative action laws are a cornerstone of its efforts to right the injustices of the white minority rule of apartheid, which denied opportunities to Blacks and other racial groups.

Following the contentious exchange in front of the cameras, Trump hosted Ramaphosa for lunch and further talks.

Ramaphosa, speaking to reporters following his White House visit, downplayed Trump’s criticism, adding he believes “there’s doubt and disbelief in (Trump’s) head” about his genocide charge. He insisted they did not dwell on Trump’s concerns about white farmers in their private conversation.

“You wanted to see drama and something really big happening,” Ramaphosa told reporters following his White House visit. “And I’m sorry that we disappointed you somewhat when it comes to that.”

–Reporting by Gerald Imray and Aamer Madhani, Associated Press. AP writers Seung Min Kim, Chris Megerian, Darlene Superville, Sagar Meghani and Ali Swenson contributed.

A new survey by the University of Michigan finds confidence in the U.S. economy is steadily eroding.

Researchers say the widely-watched Consumer Sentiment Index has shown a sharp decline throughout this year.

The director of the survey, Joanne Hsu, told WDET those responding have a somber view of the nation’s financial future.

The following interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Joanne Hsu: One of the huge factors that we’re hearing from consumers is that they’re worried about the impact of trade policy on the economy. This month we had over 2/3 of consumers telling us spontaneously about the impact of tariffs. And largely speaking, these concerns are not positive. People who mentioned tariffs are really worried about inflation coming back. They’re worried that unemployment is going to get worse. It’s not just about tariffs being high. After all, we did capture a few days of interviews after the pause on China tariffs. They’re really worried about uncertainty, unpredictability and instability with policy. They know it makes it really hard for businesses to plan and for consumers to plan as well.

Quinn Klinefelter, WDET News: I understand that this is the lowest that you have seen the Consumer Index be in three years?

JH: That is correct. We are near historic lows. Consumers are really feeling quite negative about the economy across multiple dimensions, their personal finances, buying conditions for big-ticket items, business conditions and labor markets. It’s very loud and clear across demographics and across aspects of the economy.

QK: If it’s been going down for a number of years then that would include the previous occupants of the White House. Have you noticed a difference among consumers since the Trump administration took over from the Biden administration?

JH: The sentiment did rise right after the election. There was a temporary post-election bump. But in December, as Trump started talking more about his planned tariff policy, that’s really when sentiment started to take a turn for the worse. And when we look at the impact from the major policy announcements that happened, tariffs on our North American neighbors, reciprocal global tariffs, after each of these consumer sentiment worsened. Again, the major reason for this is people are concerned that inflation is going to come roaring back. And inflation has been the number one thing on people’s minds for several years now. In 2022, when we hit the all-time historic low, inflation was raging. Consumers have been telling us loud and clear since then that they’re really worried about the cost of living.

QK: Is there any positives you can take from what you’re seeing in the index?

 JH: I’d say the positive thing is that it hasn’t gotten that much worse from last month. We had three consecutive months of very, very steep decline. So the fact that it didn’t tank further this month, I think, should be welcome news. The other thing is that consumers are bracing for the impact of tariffs, but they don’t actually believe that inflation has already gotten out of control. They recognize that inflation slowed over the last couple of years. Of course, they remain frustrated by high prices.

We had historically low sentiment in 2022 but consumers were still willing to spend despite that lack of confidence. One of the big differences between then and now are consumer views of labor markets and their incomes. After the pandemic labor markets were very, very strong. Consumers’ incomes were very reliable. So in spite of the fact that they felt terrible about the economy they were willing to spend because they had the income to support it. Today, it’s different. Consumers are starting to tell us that their incomes are getting weaker. The expected probability of job loss has gone up. We have 2/3 of consumers expecting unemployment to worsen in the year ahead. That labor market confidence we saw three years ago just isn’t here anymore, which does not bode well for consumer spending going forward.

Editor’s note: This interview was re-aired on The Metro on Tuesday, May 20, 2025. Listen to the Metro segment below.

More stories from The Metro

U.S. Sen. Gary Peters is warning the United States could lose a competitive advantage to other nations if federal funding for research projects were to end.

He toured the Institute for Quantitative Health Science and Engineering at Michigan State University on Friday.

During the tour, he saw locusts that could detect the smell of cancer in cells and mice that researchers hope will provide insight into how memories form and change.

But he said that research could be at risk of losing federal dollars, arguing people don’t understand the work being done.

“When we tell the story, when we talk about how this basic research can transform lives and power our economy to greater and better things and better lives for everybody else, we can make the case that this is government funding at its best,” Peters said.

Peters said it would take years to rebuild if funding were to lapse even temporarily.

“This has to be an ongoing enterprise, you have to continually invest in this,” Peters said. “You can’t just stop the research today and say we’ll take it up maybe next year or a few years from now or whenever. It’s not going to look the same. It’s not going to be as efficient.”

He said ongoing uncertainty will make it easier for other countries to recruit researchers from the United States.

Some university faculty members across the Big Ten system want the schools to pool resources to help defend each other if the Trump administration threatens their funding or programs.

Those schools include the University of Michigan, where the faculty senate voted overwhelmingly to approve a non-binding resolution creating such an alliance.

Michigan State University’s faculty senate also voted recently to ask the school’s administration to enact the joint-defense proposal.

MSU Faculty Senate Vice Chair Jack Lipton told WDET the measure stems from a recommendation first developed and passed by educators at Rutgers University in New Jersey.

The following interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Jack Lipton, Michigan State University Faculty Senate: They had come up with this idea to create an agreement that ran like NATO, “an attack on one is an attack on all,” and propose this out to the schools who are part of the Big Ten Academic Alliance. We took it up with the idea that the federal government, through executive orders, is trying to control what universities are doing through intimidation, through loss of funding. And by going after schools one at a time, it’s difficult for schools to mount an effective defense when they are looking at potentially losses of millions to hundreds of millions of dollars in their funding. Soultimately the faculty senate, which is an advisory body, asks that our president lead with the other presidents of the Big Ten in pushing back against what we consider to be inappropriate and unlawful incursions into the academic mission of private and public universities.

Quinn Klinefelter, WDET News: What would this have the university do if, in fact, administrators accepted it?

JL: The university would put funds into a central repository that would be accessible to all members of the Big Ten, and also utilize human capital, with respect to the offices of the General Counsel and their attorneys. They would work together to mount defenses of any member school if they are challenged by the federal government, through these executive orders, with a loss of funding where they’re targeted based upon perfectly legal actions as universities. They’re all following Title 9 regulations related to students. A lot of what the federal government is trying to do is to say that schools are involved in unlawful discrimination, when the schools are actually supporting equity and inclusion, which this particular administration doesn’t seem to be particularly fond of. Giving all people equal opportunity to gain access to higher education, whether it’s through their work or through education or through jobs.

QK: Have you had any reaction yet from the Michigan State administration as to whether or not they might follow your recommendations?

JL: I’ve not. Anything that we pass in the faculty senate is strictly advisory. It’s our sense of what should be done and the university president has no obligation to act on our resolution. I would hope that as it garners continued public attention, the president will work with other big Ten leaders to try and figure out some way to support each other so that we’re not essentially picked off one by one.

QK: There have been a number of faculty senates now throughout Big Ten schools that have either voted for this proposal or seem to be considering it. There were some on your faculty that were a little iffy about doing it. Why is that?

JL: Everyone looks at this differently, right? Some individuals feared that by the very fact we’re considering this, we are putting a target on our backs for the federal government to act specifically against Michigan State University. And there were some that had some trepidation regarding passing it. But then there were others who specifically study things like authoritarian regimes and human rights, they felt this is really that critical point when we have to decide whether we are going to do the right thing or we’re going to do the safe thing. While differences of opinion were clearly present, ultimately, when it came to a vote, we shut off debate and it passed. I think that most faculty are obviously concerned about passing something like this. But even despite that, they saw the value and the appropriateness of taking a stand and making a recommendation. We really want to ensure that higher education can continue to maintain its high ideals and be a place where academic freedom and free speech can be lauded and expected.

“Seeing an administration that is so contemptuous of higher education, so contemptuous of freedom of thought and freedom of expression, is really alarming; they are trying to silence faculty by using the power of the purse and withholding federal funding.”

– Jack Lipton, MSU Faculty Senate Vice Chair

QK: You’ve been involved in high-level academia for decades now. Have you ever seen something similar to this in regards to the federal government’s view of and actions towards higher education?

JL: I don’t think anyone has ever seen anything like this. The post-World War II expansion of higher education has been kind of a crown jewel of the United States. The growth of higher education, the growth of universities, particularly public universities like Michigan State University, have been such a gift to this country. And seeing an administration that is so contemptuous of higher education, so contemptuous of freedom of thought and freedom of expression, is really alarming. They are trying to silence faculty by using the power of the purse and withholding federal funding. We all use those funds in our research, like I and the people in my department do to work on neurodegenerative diseases and find the causes and cures of Parkinson’s and Alzheimer’s disease. They are trying to hold those kinds of funds hostage so that we’ll be quiet. I think that’s wrong, and I’m hopeful that this is a sad, yet brief chapter in American history when it comes to higher education.

Editor’s note: This episode of The Metro aired prior to the president signing an executive order directing federal funding cuts to PBS and NPR.

Public trust in the free press has been steadily declining for decades and President Donald Trump’s combative relationship with the news media has further eroded that trust. He frequently refers to the free press as “the enemy of the people” and “fake news.” 

Those words have had an impact. 

In 2020, American journalists faced a sharp rise in attacks, especially during the Black Lives Matter protests. 

According to the Committee to Protect Journalists, “at least 400 press freedom violations were reported, including physical assaults, arrests, and damage to equipment.”  

The committee found that many of these incidents, including roughly 300 assaults, were attributed to law enforcement.

On the campaign trail in 2024, Trump continued his rhetoric against the press.

“To get to me, somebody would have to shoot through the fake news. I don’t mind that so much,” he told a crowd in Pennsylvania.

Now, after Trump’s first 100 days in office, the Committee to Protect Journalists is sounding a louder alarm. 

It says the beginning of Trump’s term has “been marked by a flurry of executive actions that have created a chilling effect and have the potential to curtail media freedoms. These measures threaten the availability of independent, fact-based news for vast swaths of America’s population.”

Trump has banned reporters from his press conferences. He is selective of which media outlets he speaks to, and he has filed multiple lawsuits accusing media companies of misconduct against him. 

The president is also taking aim at NPR and PBS.

NPR reported last month that the administration plans to request Congress cut funding from NPR and PBS — news and information that is not profit-based and relies on funding from listeners, sponsorships, and the government. WDET is an NPR affiliate station that also would feel strong impacts from these cuts.

NPR media correspondent David Folkenflik joined The Metro on Thursday to talk more about this.

Use the media player above to hear the full conversation.

Listen to The Metro weekdays from 10 a.m. to noon ET on 101.9 FM and streaming on-demand.

More stories from The Metro

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer is responding to critics of her meetings with President Donald Trump by answering that they’ve yielded results. Whitmer, a Democrat serving her final term as governor, and widely considered a possible future presidential contender, says she still has fundamental disagreements with President Donald Trump. She also says face time with Trump, including a now-famously awkward Oval Office encounter, was worth it to win 21 new fighter jets heading to Selfridge Air National Guard Base in Macomb County.

The Michigan Public Radio Network spoke with the governor Wednesday about cutting a deal with a president with whom she’s had an adversarial relationship.

The following interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Rick Pluta: Why does this Selfridge deal matter, not just to Macomb County, not just to metro Detroit, but to the entire state of Michigan?

GW: Yeah, you know, this is a big deal. So the A-10, which is our fighter mission at Selfridge, is being retired. And the fighter mission matters because we think about Selfridge, it has an economic impact on the state of $850 million a year. There are 30,000 jobs in Michigan that are related to Selfridge directly. And so not having a fighter mission would be a huge problem, not just for Selfridge but for a defense economy that we’ve been building out, advanced manufacturing. We think about aerospace as well as bases in Grayling, Alpena, and in Battle Creek. This has a massive impact on the state of Michigan. So I’ve been working to try to get a new fighter mission at Selfridge every year since I’ve been elected governor, and my predecessors did, as well, and we got it done, 21 F-15 EXs. This is the cutting edge, state-of-the-art planes and it’s gonna have a generational impact on our economy.

RP: How did this come to be? Why now?

GW: Well, you know, after the election — I had been trying to get the Biden administration to do this — after the elections, I said, well, let’s keep going. I’m going to keep trying to work with the Trump administration to get it done. And I was at the National Governors Association dinner at the White House. I raised it at that first opportunity with U.S. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth that night, as well as when I sat next to Donald Trump at the dinner, you know, and I’ve had many conversations and meetings with the president on this issue. I’ve been relentless on this and they were receptive. And despite the fact that we’ve got a lot of differences and we don’t agree on a lot of things, I take every opportunity to make the case for Michigan, whether it’s about tariffs, Asian carp, or ice storms. Selfridge has been a part of all those conversations every time, too.

RP: As you mentioned, you’ve said you will work with everyone, anyone, but you have gotten a lot of pushback from folks within the Democratic Party about your work with this president. Now that this Selfridge deal is done, what’s next? What are your plans for continuing to work with this administration?

GW: I oppose this administration and a lot of things that they’re doing, whether it’s around their — what they’ve done on — you know, I mean, it’s voluminous, the ways that we disagree, the things that we disagree on — from their tariff policy, the chaos that’s been leaked, to the violation of people’s civil rights, to the potential Medicaid cuts that are coming that are going to impact Michigan hospitals and Michiganders everywhere. That being said, I’ve got a duty to continue to try to get as much done for our state as I can. I’ve got to work with people that I don’t always agree with. I always have, and I always will, try to do what’s right for Michigan and that means continuing the conversation on preventing Asian carp from infiltrating the Great Lakes, getting relief for victims of the ice storm. It means continuing to work to try to get more economic development done in Michigan. So I will both fight back when I need to, and try to get Michigan’s priorities done wherever I can.

RP: Finally, Governor, do you think Democratic voters, that is voters in your party, know that you still fundamentally disagree with President Trump?

GW: Yeah, of course they do. My values haven’t changed. My oath is to serve the people of Michigan. It means standing up for our rights, it means fighting back when they’ve got tariff policies that are making Michiganders lose jobs or their costs go up. It also means getting at the table and being there to get a huge investment like Selfridge over the finish line. I can do both. I will do both, that’s the ethos I’ve always led with.