Health care in Michigan is about to get more expensive.

According to a recent report from the health policy research group KFF, insurers offering plans through the Affordable Care Act will increase premiums by 15% next year, with some even proposing 20% hikes. Medicaid is set for $1.2 trillion in national cuts, including work mandates and higher fees.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel also announced last week that she joined a multi-state coalition lawsuit challenging a Trump administration rule that would “create significant barriers to obtaining health care coverage under the Affordable Care Act.”

So, what does all this mean for you and your family’s health care costs?

Thomas Buchmueller, a health economist at the University of Michigan, joined The Metro on Tuesday to break down what’s changing, who will feel it first, and what Michigan can do to soften the blow.

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

In Detroit, the fallout from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s doubling down on aggressive tactics has shaken local communities.

Just last month, a Detroit teen less than four credits from graduation was deported after getting stopped by ICE for a traffic violation.

These are some of the tactics that led over 300 faith leaders and community members to march this week from Corktown to Detroit’s ICE field office. The goal of the demonstration — organized by the advocacy group Strangers No Longer — was to deliver a pastoral letter demanding humane enforcement.

Immigrant rights and environmental justice advocate Odalis Perales is working with Strangers No Longer to break down barriers between faith communities, in schools, and among police about the challenges and tension of this moment.

She joined The Metro on Thursday to talk about her progress and respond to ICE’s refusal to engage with the group’s pastoral letter and demands. 

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) — Senate Republicans on Tuesday advanced President Donald Trump’s request to cancel some $9 billion in previously approved spending, overcoming concerns from some lawmakers about what the rescissions could mean for impoverished people around the globe and for public radio and television stations in their home states.

The Senate vote was 50-50, with Vice President JD Vance breaking the tie.

A final vote in the Senate could occur as early as Wednesday. The bill would then return to the House for another vote before it would go to Trump’s desk for his signature before a Friday deadline.

Republicans winnowed down the president’s request by taking out his proposed $400 million cut to a program known as PEPFAR. That change increased the prospects for the bill’s passage. The politically popular program is credited with saving millions of lives since its creation under then-President George W. Bush to combat HIV/AIDS.

The president is also looking to claw back money for foreign aid programs targeted by his Department of Government Efficiency and for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

“When you’ve got a $36 trillion debt, we have to do something to get spending under control,” said Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D.

The White House tries to win over skeptics

Republicans met with Russ Vought, the director of the White House Office of Management and Budget, during their weekly conference luncheon as the White House worked to address their concerns. He fielded about 20 questions from senators.

The White House campaign to win over potential holdouts had some success. Sen. Mike Rounds, R-S.D., tweeted that he would vote to support the measure after working with the administration to “find Green New Deal money that could be reallocated to continue grants to tribal radio stations without interruption.”

Some senators worried that the cuts to public media could decimate many of the 1,500 local radio and television stations around the country that rely on some federal funding to operate. The Corporation for Public Broadcasting distributes more than 70% of its funding to those stations.

Maine Sen. Susan Collins, the Republican chair of the Senate Appropriations Committee, said she was particularly concerned about a lack of specifics from the White House.

“The rescissions package has a big problem — nobody really knows what program reductions are in it,” Collins said. “That isn’t because we haven’t had time to review the bill. Instead, the problem is that OMB has never provided the details that would normally be part of this process.”

Sen. Lisa Murkowski, R-Alaska, said she didn’t want the Senate to be going through numerous rounds of rescissions.

“We are lawmakers. We should be legislating,” Murkowski said. “What we’re getting now is a direction from the White House and being told: ‘This is the priority and we want you to execute on it. We’ll be back with you with another round.’ I don’t accept that.”

Sen. Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., Collins and Murkowski joined with Democrats in voting against the Senate taking up the measure.

McConnell said he wanted to make clear he didn’t have any problem with reducing spending, but agreed with Collins that lawmakers didn’t have enough details from the White House.

“They would like a blank check is what they would like. And I don’t think that’s appropriate,” McConnell said.

But the large majority of Republicans were supportive of Trump’s request.

“This bill is a first step in a long but necessary fight to put our nation’s fiscal house in order,” said Sen. Eric Schmitt, R-Mo.

Democrats warn of the consequences

Democrats warned that it’s absurd to expect them to work with Republicans on bipartisan spending measures if Republicans turn around a few months later and use their majority to cut the parts they don’t like.

“It shreds the appropriations process,” said Sen. Angus King, an independent from Maine who caucuses with Democrats. “The Appropriations Committee, and indeed this body, becomes a rubber stamp for whatever the administration wants.”

Democratic leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., said that tens of millions of Americans rely on local public radio and television stations for local news, weather alerts and educational programs. He warned that many could lose access to that information because of the rescissions.

“And these cuts couldn’t come at a worse time,” Schumer said. “The floods in Texas remind us that speedy alerts and up-to-the-minute forecasts can mean the difference between life and death.”

Democrats also scoffed at the GOP’s stated motivation for taking up the bill. The amount of savings pales compared to the $3.4 trillion in projected deficits over the next decade that Republicans put in motion in passing Trump’s big tax and spending cut bill two weeks ago.

“Now, Republicans are pretending they are concerned about the debt,” said Sen. Patty Murray, D-Wash. “So concerned that they need to shut down local radio stations, so concerned they are going to cut off ‘Sesame Street.’ … The idea that that is about balancing the debt is laughable.”

What’s ahead in the Senate

With Republicans providing enough votes to take up the bill, it sets up the potential for 10 hours of debate plus votes on scores of potentially thorny amendments in what is known as a vote-a-rama. The House has already shown its support for the president’s request with a mostly party line 214-212 vote, but since the Senate is amending the bill, it will have to go back to the House for another vote.

Republicans who vote against the measure also face the prospect of incurring Trump’s wrath. He has issued a warning on his social media site directly aimed at individual Senate Republicans who may be considering voting against the rescissions package. He said it was important that all Republicans adhere to the bill and in particular defund the Corporation for Public Broadcasting.

“Any Republican that votes to allow this monstrosity to continue broadcasting will not have my support or Endorsement,” he said.

–Reporting by Kevin Freking, The Associated Press. Congressional correspondent Lisa Mascaro and staff writers Mary Clare Jalonick and Stephen Groves contributed.

CONCORD, N.H. (AP) — A federal judge in New Hampshire issued a ruling Thursday prohibiting President Donald Trump’s executive order ending birthright citizenship from taking effect anywhere in the U.S.

Judge Joseph LaPlante issued a preliminary injunction blocking Trump’s order and certified a class action lawsuit including all children who will be affected. The order, which followed an hour-long hearing, included a seven-day stay to allow for appeal.

The judge’s decision puts the birthright citizenship issue on a fast track to return to the Supreme Court. The justices could be asked to rule whether the order complies with their decision last month that limited judges’ authority to issue nationwide injunctions.

The class is slightly narrower than that sought by the plaintiffs, who wanted to include parents, but attorneys said that wouldn’t make a material difference.

“This is going to protect every single child around the country from this lawless, unconstitutional and cruel executive order,” said Cody Wofsy, an attorney for the plaintiffs.

The lawsuit was filed on behalf of a pregnant woman, two parents and their infants. It’s among numerous cases challenging Trump’s January order denying citizenship to those born to parents living in the U.S. illegally or temporarily. The plaintiffs are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union and others.

At issue is the Constitution’s 14th Amendment, which states: “All persons born or naturalized in the United States and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States.” The Trump administration says the phrase “subject to the jurisdiction thereof” means the U.S. can deny citizenship to babies born to women in the country illegally, ending what has been seen as an intrinsic part of U.S. law for more than a century.

“Prior misimpressions of the citizenship clause have created a perverse incentive for illegal immigration that has negatively impacted this country’s sovereignty, national security, and economic stability,” government lawyers wrote in the New Hampshire case.

LaPlante, who had issued a narrow injunction in a similar case, said while he didn’t consider the government’s arguments frivolous, he found them unpersuasive. He said his decision to issue an injunction was “not a close call” and that deprivation of U.S. citizenship clearly amounted to irreparable harm.

In a Washington state case before the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, the judges have asked the parties to write briefs explaining the effect of the Supreme Court’s ruling. Washington and the other states in that lawsuit have asked the appeals court to return the case to the lower court judge.

As in New Hampshire, a plaintiff in Maryland seeks to organize a class-action lawsuit that includes every person who would be affected by the order. The judge set a Wednesday deadline for written legal arguments as she considers the request for another nationwide injunction from CASA, a nonprofit immigrant rights organization.

Ama Frimpong, legal director at CASA, said the group has been stressing to its members and clients that it is not time to panic.

“No one has to move states right this instant,” she said. “There’s different avenues through which we are all fighting, again, to make sure that this executive order never actually sees the light of day.”

The New Hampshire plaintiffs, referred to only by pseudonyms, include a woman from Honduras who has a pending asylum application and is due to give birth to her fourth child in October. She told the court the family came to the U.S. after being targeted by gangs.

“I do not want my child to live in fear and hiding. I do not want my child to be a target for immigration enforcement,” she wrote. “I fear our family could be at risk of separation.”

Another plaintiff, a man from Brazil, has lived with his wife in Florida for five years. Their first child was born in March, and they are in the process of applying for lawful permanent status based on family ties — his wife’s father is a U.S. citizen.

“My baby has the right to citizenship and a future in the United States,” he wrote.

Reporting by Holly Ramer and Mike Catalini, Associated Press.

Today on The Metro, we continue our coverage on the fight over public media funding and what’s at stake for local news and music stations across the country.

President Donald Trump signed an executive order to eliminate funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) due to alleged bias. Now, in the House Rescissions Act of 2025 — which narrowly passed the House last month — he’s asking Congress to claw back CPB funding that has already been approved.

The Senate Appropriations committee held a hearing on the bill last month, and the Senate will need to vote on the package by July 18.

If passed, local stations — including WDET and the programs you love — would face profound impacts. At WDET, about 6% of our annual budget comes from CPB.

Kelly McBride, senior vice president at the Poynter Institute, serves as NPR’s public editor. She says in her role with NPR, she serves as an independent critic of NPR reporting, engaging with listeners and critiquing public media stations when appropriate.

McBride spoke with Metro co-host Robyn Vincent about how public editors at major media outlets help hold journalists accountable, and how NPR could improve its coverage of federal funding cuts to public media and allegations of bias.

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) — A divided Supreme Court on Friday ruled that individual judges lack the authority to grant nationwide injunctions, but the decision left unclear the fate of President Donald Trump’s restrictions on birthright citizenship.

The outcome was a victory for the Republican president, who has complained about individual judges throwing up obstacles to his agenda.

But a conservative majority left open the possibility that the birthright citizenship changes could remain blocked nationwide. Trump’s order would deny citizenship to U.S.-born children of people who are in the country illegally.

The cases now return to lower courts, where judges will have to decide how to tailor their orders to comply with the high court ruling, Justice Amy Coney Barrett wrote in the majority opinion. Enforcement of the policy can’t take place for another 30 days, Barrett wrote.

The justices agreed with the Trump administration, as well as President Joe Biden’s Democratic administration before it, that judges are overreaching by issuing orders that apply to everyone instead of just the parties before the court.

The president, making a rare appearance to hold a news conference in the White House briefing room, said that the decision was “amazing” and a “monumental victory for the Constitution,” the separation of powers and the rule of law.

In dissent, Justice Sonia Sotomayor wrote, “The court’s decision is nothing less than an open invitation for the government to bypass the Constitution.” This is so, Sotomayor said, because the administration may be able to enforce a policy even when it has been challenged and found to be unconstitutional by a lower court.

Rights groups that sued over the policy filed new court documents following the high court ruling, taking up a suggestion from Justice Brett Kavanaugh that judges still may be able to reach anyone potentially affected by the birthright citizenship order by declaring them part of “putative nationwide class.” Kavanaugh was part of the court majority on Friday but wrote a separate concurring opinion.

States that also challenged the policy in court said they would try to show that the only way to effectively protect their interests was through a nationwide hold.

“We have every expectation we absolutely will be successful in keeping the 14th Amendment as the law of the land and of course birthright citizenship as well,” said Attorney General Andrea Campbell of Massachusetts.

Birthright citizenship automatically makes anyone born in the United States an American citizen, including children born to mothers in the country illegally. The right was enshrined soon after the Civil War in the Constitution’s 14th Amendment.

In a notable Supreme Court decision from 1898, United States v. Wong Kim Ark, the court held that the only children who did not automatically receive U.S. citizenship upon being born on U.S. soil were the children of diplomats, who have allegiance to another government; enemies present in the U.S. during hostile occupation; those born on foreign ships; and those born to members of sovereign Native American tribes.

The U.S. is among about 30 countries where birthright citizenship — the principle of jus soli or “right of the soil” — is applied. Most are in the Americas, and Canada and Mexico are among them.

Trump and his supporters have argued that there should be tougher standards for becoming an American citizen, which he called “a priceless and profound gift” in the executive order he signed on his first day in office.

The Trump administration has asserted that children of noncitizens are not “subject to the jurisdiction” of the United States, a phrase used in the amendment, and therefore are not entitled to citizenship.

But states, immigrants and rights groups that have sued to block the executive order have accused the administration of trying to unsettle the broader understanding of birthright citizenship that has been accepted since the amendment’s adoption.

Judges have uniformly ruled against the administration.

The Justice Department had argued that individual judges lack the power to give nationwide effect to their rulings.

The Trump administration instead wanted the justices to allow Trump’s plan to go into effect for everyone except the handful of people and groups that sued. Failing that, the administration argued that the plan could remain blocked for now in the 22 states that sued. New Hampshire is covered by a separate order that is not at issue in this case.

The justice also agreed that the administration may make public announcements about how it plans to carry out the policy if it eventually is allowed to take effect.

–Reporting by Mark Sherman, Associated Press

Federal funding for the Corporation for Public Broadcasting (CPB) is the focus of a Senate Appropriations Committee hearing on Wednesday. 

The publicly-funded nonprofit, which provides funding to PBS, NPR and its affiliates like WDET, would lose $1.1 billion — two years’ worth of funding that has already been approved by Congress — if the bill passed by the House earlier this month gets Senate approval. It would also rescind more than $8 billion in funding for foreign aid programs addressing global public health, international disaster assistance and hunger relief.

That bill passed in the House by a margin of 214 to 212, with four Republicans crossing the aisle to vote against the package. There were also four Democrats and two Republicans who did not vote on the bill at all.

President Donald Trump has already signed an executive order to eliminate CPB funding, claiming all public media is biased, but the Rescissions Act of 2025 would go beyond that, revoking funding already approved by Congress.

Today on The Metro, we break down what it would mean for public media organizations like WDET if the legislation gets Congressional approval.

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

At a press conference at the conclusion of the NATO summit in the Netherlands on Wednesday morning, President Trump insisted that his strikes had heavily damaged Iran’s nuclear operation, despite a U.S. intelligence report that says otherwise.

The press conference came as the world watches to see whether a ceasefire between Israel and Iran will endure. Citing that ceasefire, Trump compared his bombings to the nuclear bombs that helped end World War II.

“It was so bad that they ended the war. It ended the war,” he said. “Somebody said, in a certain way, that it was so devastating, actually, if you look at Hiroshima, if you look at Nagasaki, you know, that ended a war, too. This ended a war in a different way, but it was so devastating.”

Trump traveled to the summit the morning after announcing that ceasefire, which came days after the United States joined Israel’s attacks on key Iranian nuclear facilities. An early classified U.S. intelligence assessment said the bombs caused only limited damage, setting Tehran’s nuclear program back “a few months.”

The White House has dismissed that assessment. At the press conference, Trump slammed U.S. news outlets, specifically naming CNN and the New York Times, for their reporting on it.

Trump also cited a statement from the Israel Atomic Energy Commission, which said that U.S. strikes had “set back Iran’s ability to develop nuclear weapons by many years.”

At NATO, allies agreed to commit 5% of their GDP to defense spending by 2035, up from 2%. Trump has long called for allies to boost their spending, saying that the United States was paying more than its fair share. The U.S. contributes about 3.5% of its GDP to NATO.

Before the summit, Trump told reporters that the new goal wouldn’t apply to U.S. spending. “They’re in Europe. We’re not,” he said. And he also expressed some ambivalence to Article 5, the mutual defense clause in the NATO treaty that says an attack on one member is considered an attack on all, adding to long-held fears among European allies that Trump would not back them in the event of an attack.

At the press conference, Trump seemed to suggest the NATO summit had changed his thinking.

“I came here because it was something I’m supposed to be doing, but I left here a little bit different,” he said. He later added, “I left here saying that these people really love their countries. It’s not a ripoff, and we’re here to help them protect their country.”

Immediately prior to the press conference, Trump met with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. Trump said they did not discuss a ceasefire in that country’s war with Russia.

“I just, I wanted to know how he’s doing. He was very nice, actually,” Trump said. “I took from the meeting that he’d like to see it end. I think it’s a great time to end it. I’m going to speak to Vladimir Putin, see if we can get it ended.”

He later added that he has not been able to end that war yet, in part because Putin is being “difficult.”

When asked why he and Zelenskyy did not talk to the press after their meeting, however, Trump did not answer, directing Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth to the lectern. He did not directly answer, either, instead excoriating the media for their reporting on the Iran intelligence assessment.

Reporting by Danielle Kurtzleben, NPR. Watch the full press conference below.