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.

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