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

The Catholic Church’s selection of its first American Pope took many observers by surprise, both worldwide and those present at the event.

That includes Michigan native and WDET photographer Dawn Uhl-Zifilippo.

She was in Vatican City during the conclave to elect the new Pope.

She described the electrifying moments after Cardinal Robert Prevost stepped to a balcony and delivered his first address as Pope Leo XIV.

The following interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Dawn Uhl-Zifilippo: It sounds like a soccer match right now in St Peter’s. It’s just unleashed joy right now. All this energy that’s been held back waiting for that decision has just sprung out. Just a lot of happiness, a lot of joy in that square right now. And a lot of people.

Quinn Klinefelter, WDET News: It looks like a vast crowd from all the scenes there. It also sounds as if the announcement that a new pope had been elected made a big difference in the mood of the crowd.

DZ: When I was there earlier it was still a sea of people. But it was actually rather quiet. You would expect a higher crowd noise from the amount of people that were there. I wouldn’t say it was quite reverent, but they were using their “inside” voices, almost like when you’re walking through a museum. But under that was this energy, a vibration, if you will, that felt like a coiled spring. So there was a lot of anticipation, but it was a calm, quiet anticipation. You knew when the announcement was made that the crowd would just explode. And that’s exactly what’s happened.

QK: You’ve traveled a bit, you’ve seen various places. Now you’re there during this historic event. Is there anything that has surprised you, something that you weren’t expecting?

DZ: Once again, it is the way the crowd conducted itself, the huge amount of people there. The first day there was 45,000 people. The Vatican City is about 109 acres of land and everywhere you went, it was full of thousands of people. But it didn’t sound like you had that many people there. I guess it was the respect and almost reverence. It was not quite that because not everybody there was waiting to see who the new pope was going to be. There’s a lot of people who are simply tourists. But still, the kind of respect there among that many people, it was really kind of impressive.

QK: Have you heard any talk among those people or others in hotels, bars, etc., about their reaction now that the church has actually named its’ first-ever pope from the U.S.?

DZ: I think a lot of people are a little surprised. The top two contenders were Italian, so it was a bit of a shocker. There was some conversation before the announcement was made, where I was at, hoping that there would be someone to follow in the footsteps of Pope Francis and continue the church on that trajectory. Because, in their opinion, the church needed that progressive stance. So after the announcement was made and we found out who the new pope is, his address to everyone thanking Pope Francis, it was obvious that he was going to be following in that line. I think there was a bit of relief, quite honestly, that this is where it was going. Now, of course, not everybody feels that way. But among the groups that I overheard, that was the general feeling.

QK: Obviously this is a global event. You see pictures of people waving flags, carrying them around. Did you ever see anybody with any U.S. flags or anyone there saying, “Yeah, go American?”

DZ: Not that I saw to begin with. And I was in the space for quite a while. I stood in place just listening and I counted somewhere around maybe eight different languages that I’m aware of. But not very many English-speaking people there. You saw pride of place, people carrying flags and wrapping themselves in the flag of their home country. I did not see any American flags then. Now that the announcements have been made you do see some people that have American flags in the square celebrating. Clearly this position as pope has impact across the world and it was reflected in the people that were walking around the square. There is a lot of people with hope. We’ve always known this as a powerful position. But being on the ground, seeing the amount of people, the diversity, it really drives home how powerful this position is.

QK: For people that would have just watched the event on television or online, is there something that you’ve seen, felt, heard, that people wouldn’t get from just a flat screen video of the event?

DZ: Being on the ground it was, I don’t know how to put this, heartening, I guess. There was this underlying feeling of hope and anticipation. And walking in that space, again with everyone being calm and relatively quiet, it really was powerful. That this position would have that kind of impact, that someone embodied that kind of hope and almost unity, honestly. It’s under a particular religion, but it was something lovely to see with all of the violence and acrimony that’s going on now. This amount of people having a peaceful gathering with the hope and the anticipation behind it. It was refreshing. And the contrast over three hours’ time. It being very full in the area around St. Peter’s but still some space, to now being just solid human beings. In three hours’ time. The contrast is stunning, the calm and now the joy and the energy. It’s like you flipped a switch.

This year marks a time of transition in the city of Detroit.

Voters will elect a new leader of the city to replace long-time Mayor Mike Duggan, who is leaving to run for governor.

And experts at the think tank Detroit Future City predict the new mayor will face several challenges, like building new infrastructure to handle flooding and power outages.

But the group’s CEO, Anika Goss, told WDET one of the core issues the city must focus on is growing a sector some analysts say is disappearing — Detroit’s middle class.

The following interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Anika Goss, Detroit Future City: We use the language of “middle class,” but you can also use the language of “middle wage,” those within the median income for Detroit. And this particular demographic trend we really feel is important, because this is generally your tax base. They are staying in homes, buying homes, investing in their communities. And we want to focus on this because it is the largest demographic to leave Detroit.

Quinn Klinefelter, WDET News: What would you advise Detroit’s next mayor to do to help grow that segment of the populace?

AG: First, develop the neighborhoods. Make the neighborhoods places that would retain and attract middle-class households. The second issue is, how can Detroiters grow wealth and remain in Detroit? What kind of jobs are there nearby and available that actually have a middle-class wage, not only entry wages but also growth wages. It’s an environment that also creates strong businesses and entrepreneurs that can actually grow their own business. These are elements that can appeal to middle-class households. Two other things that I think are really important, and this can be tough for mayors, but they’re going to have to figure out property taxes. They are still uneven and very, very high in Detroit. So really thinking about what can we do to stabilize and lower the property tax rate. And second, work cooperatively with the schools, public and private and charter, so that the education system in Detroit also becomes something to attract and retain families.

QK: When you talk about raising incomes, outgoing Mayor Mike Duggan has touted how many companies he says have located in the city over the last decade or so. And oftentimes those businesses are supposed to give first preference for new hires to Detroiters. The city also has work training programs available. Would you say the next mayor should they try to build on that or go beyond it somehow?

AG: I think build AND go beyond. I think what was great about the Duggan administration is that he did really set this environment of Detroit being a place for you to invest in. And it was at a time when a lot of companies were not thinking of coming here. Now they are. But what we found is that a lot of the companies are still looking at Detroit proper as a place for low-wage labor. We have to really market Detroit as a place that has talent for a diversity of income ranges. Really work with these companies to ensure the jobs that we’re receiving in Detroit are jobs where you can actually grow your wage over time. I feel like there were really good deals made for low and moderate wages earners. There are people who are out of work that definitely need those jobs. But we can’t just stop there and declare it a success. We have to also really consider how we bring in other jobs and prepare Detroiters for those other jobs that are making a higher wage.

QK: Along with the income and job situation, people in the city have talked for years about the overall development in Detroit seeming to focus on the downtown area. And how does it get out to the neighborhoods? Duggan, for one, had launched a series of projects to try to strengthen various blocks in the city. Again, is there something you think the next mayor should do to go beyond that? Or should they try some entirely new approach?

AG: I think that it will be imperative for the next mayor to take the Strategic Neighborhood Fund and other neighborhood initiatives even further. To really create neighborhoods that have a diversity of housing choices, that have amenities and that are looking at places for investment in these areas. There’s still several neighborhoods in Detroit where there are no mortgages, whole census tracts that do not have mortgages in Detroit. The next mayor will have that challenge of not just stabilizing the strategic neighborhood places but also thinking about where else throughout the city can we target for a variety of households and a variety of incomes. You should be able to live in a neighborhood and increase your income and not have to move out of the city. You should be able to identify neighborhoods where you can do that. And right now, even with the Strategic Neighborhood Fund initiative, there’s still only 12 middle-class neighborhoods in Detroit out of more than 200 census tracts. We still have a long way to go.

QK: Do you think there’ll be enough funding available to push such efforts?

AG: There’s never enough money to do all of the things that we want to do. You really are going to have to prioritize. And if the North Star for the next mayor is, “How do we actually lay out a growth plan for Detroit and Detroiters?” That’s a very different proposition than thinking broadly about how to make Detroit better. I feel like the Duggan administration got us to this point. It’s really important now for the next mayor to take it even further. It’s something that is absolutely imperative. I don’t see an alternative.

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.

Michigan Congresswoman Debbie Dingell is one of 50 U.S. House Democrats demanding a full explanation of an alleged National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) data breach. 

Whistleblower Daniel Berulis, who did IT work for the NLRB, says a representative from Elon Musk’s Department of Government Efficiency (DOGE) did more than search for fraud and waste when it visited the agency last month. 

Berulis says DOGE appears to have uploaded a huge amount of data from NLRB’s computers, erased traces of what it did and then left all of the system’s security features turned off. Then someone with an internet address based in Russia repeatedly, but unsuccessfully, tried to access the NLRB computers. 

DOGE never requested access to their systems and the agency’s own internal investigation found no sign of a computer breach,  a spokesperson for the NLRB said. 

Dingell spoke to WDET Senior News Editor Quinn Klinefelter about her concerns and what DOGE could have done with the data. Klinefelter also joined The Metro on Tuesday to recap their conversation.

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

Tens of thousands of immigrant children — including hundreds in Michigan — came to the U.S. fleeing gangs, human trafficking or trying to re-unite with family members.

Nonprofit groups supplied attorneys to help keep the children here, some so young they need a teddy bear to calm them when they testify in immigration court.

But the Trump administration is halting federal funding for the effort, apparently defying the courts to do so.

That’s hitting the nonprofit Michigan Immigrant Rights Center (MIRC) hard.

Christine Sauve, manager of policy and communication for MIRC, told WDET the group has to make severe cuts in key areas.

Listen: Michigan Immigrant Rights group shares repercussions of federal funding cuts

The following interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Christine Sauve, Michigan Immigrant Rights Center:  We did lose federal funding for two of our programs. One is the help desk in immigration court. We had previously received a stop-work order on that program. There was a court order for us to return to services and then just last week, the federal government terminated the contract completely. There is continued litigation on that. However, the funding has been terminated for now. The other program is our unaccompanied children’s program. We provide legal representation and “Know your rights” information to all immigrant children in Michigan in court proceedings. Unfortunately, that program had received a stop-work order. Then it was lifted too. But the contract was terminated at the end of March. There was litigation filed in that case as well. And unfortunately, to date, the Trump administration has not followed the court’s orders. Payment has not been made for those services, and due to the financial pressure from the loss of both of those contracts, we’ve had to lay off 72 staff in our five offices across the state. We will still have our small help desk team, five individuals operating outside of the Detroit immigration court. We have 49 staff remaining distributed in our five offices across the state.

Quinn Klinefelter, WDET News: In terms of what the administration is supposed to do according to the courts, have they ordered them to fund you guys and they are simply not?

CS: In the unaccompanied children’s case, the hearings are ongoing. But after the last judge’s order to return to services, the government has not complied with those orders. There has been no payment and no communication with the contractor. We are a subcontractor for the services. There’s been no communication, no follow through, no intention shown to provide payment for the services. So without the federal funding coming in we were left with very difficult pressures to continue our services as best we can. What we do know is that under the Trafficking Victims Protection Reauthorization Act, a bipartisan act passed by Congress decades ago, it acknowledged the unique vulnerability of children and actually codified the federal government’s obligation and responsibilities to ensure that unaccompanied children have legal representation so they’re not facing that risk of deportation without due process, without a chance for a fair hearing in court.

“Most unaccompanied children are eligible for permanent status and other forms of relief under current U.S. law. But they can’t access that relief without an attorney to help make their case in court. It’s so heartbreaking because children just cannot meaningfully navigate immigration court alone. We don’t expect children to do that in any other court process in America.”

– Christine Sauve, Michigan Immigrant Rights Center

There was a recognition that it could not be a fair hearing if the child did not have an attorney or representation. Most unaccompanied children are eligible for permanent status and other forms of relief under current U.S. law. But they can’t access that relief without an attorney to help make their case in court. It’s so heartbreaking because children just cannot meaningfully navigate immigration court alone. We don’t expect children to do that in any other court process in America.

QK: At times some unaccompanied kids try to get a sponsor in the U.S., perhaps a family member, after they arrive here. There’s concerns from some sponsors now about doing that going forward, because some of their own personal information could be revealed that didn’t used to have to be. How is that process unfolding?

CS: The Trump administration had authorized information-sharing between agencies. There’s something known as the “foundational rule” for the unaccompanied children’s program. It previously stated that information about sponsors’ immigration status could not be shared with other federal agencies, in particular Immigration, Customs and Enforcement. This administration has changed course to permit sharing of sponsor immigration status with law enforcement, specifically for the purposes of achieving their goals of mass deportation. They are looking at all avenues to do so. And unfortunately, it affects some of the most vulnerable of our community members, the children who are placed in those homes. They’ve been placed with family or relatives that they know and trust. Removing the sponsor would affect the health and outcomes for the child as well. So that is challenging our work right now.

QK: With your current situation, while you still watch what’s going on with the litigation that’s underway, where do you guys go from here? How badly understaffed are you? Is it going to affect your mission tremendously as you go forward?

CS: The capacity will be lowered but we will not stop representing the children that we currently have in our caseload. We currently have 800 cases that are still proceeding. We’ll have a small team focusing on those cases for the next nine months to complete as many of them as we can. But unfortunately, we won’t be able to accept any new children’s cases for the foreseeable future. We have done a fair amount of fundraising. But there’s a reason that public funded services exist and it is because often other entities are unable to provide that level of funding. We have been very busy over the past couple of months reaching out to as many foundations and private donors as possible to raise the funds to have this small team continue over the next nine months. I don’t think with the current funding we have available at the moment we could continue that beyond nine months.