In 2026, voters in Michigan will cast ballots for races involving the office of Governor, Attorney General, and Secretary of State. Gary Peters (D-MI) is opting to retire, so there’s an open U.S. Senate seat.

Democrats have three strong candidates: Mallory McMorrow, Haley Stevens, and Abdul El-Sayed. All three have raised millions of dollars for their campaigns ahead of the August primary.

Throughout the primary, Detroit Public Radio will be checking in with the candidates so our listeners can make an informed decision. The focus of this first round of interviews is to set a baseline for the candidates views on policy and what separates them from their competitors.

Having talked with Dr. Abdul El-Sayed and Michigan State Senator Mallory McMorrow, this first round of conversations concludes with Congresswoman Haley Stevens.

She talked with All Things Considered Detroit Host Russ McNamara on Feb. 18, 2026.

ICE overhaul

Russ McNamara: This week, you went to the largest detention center for migrants in the Midwest- the North Lake Processing Center in Baldwin. You’ve called for the impeachment of homeland security secretary Kristi Noem. Should Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) exist as an agency?

U.S. Representative Haley Stevens: Well, ICE needs to be overhauled. I will tell you that we need to start seeing accountability, and we need a complete overhaul of ICE. There has been mismanagement from the very top, and that’s Kristi Noem. That’s why I’m signed on to the articles of impeachment.

It’s also why I have signed on to legislation to redirect the $75 billion plus up that came from the Big Beautiful Bill championed by Donald Trump that went to ICE. That $75 billion needs to go to local law enforcement and for training and for safety and protocol measures that are really going to keep our neighborhoods safe.

What ICE is doing right now is so out of control, it is so damaging, and it’s chaotic. Michiganders are seeing what unfolded in Minneapolis, and they are worried about that coming here.

RM: In Baldwin, you told reporters, “There is female leadership here, and there are women who walked with us today…and explained how important it is to treat people with humanity.” I’m kind of curious about this quote, because taken as it is, it almost seems like you’re saying what’s happening there is okay as long as women have a seat at the table.

HS: Well, what’s happening with ICE is not okay at all. And what was very astonishing, and the reason I made that point, is because these are supposed to be the most “dangerous criminals” that ICE is taking into these detention facilities, and yet there are guards and people in that facility who don’t carry any weapons.

There’s no weapons, there’s no tasers, and yet we are supposedly dealing with the most dangerous criminals. So what ICE is doing is certainly not okay, and that’s why I’m pushing very hard for these reforms and accountability. I mean, we need to see accountability, particularly for crimes that have been committed, and we need to see prosecutions out of what happened in Minneapolis.

Affordable health care

RM: What is your plan to fix health care? Your opponents have endorsed a public option or Medicare for All. Where do you stand in all that?

HS: I’m writing legislation and fighting for Michigan’s affordable health care each and every single day, and I have throughout my time in Congress. I deeply believe that we need to expand the Affordable Care Act. We need to protect that and we we also need to make the tax subsidies permanent. We’ve seen before our very eyes time and time again how Republicans do not believe in the promise of affordable, quality, accessible health care.

I worked in the Obama administration. I want to protect Obamacare. I also want to address the cuts to Medicaid that have come down. We need to keep expanding Medicaid.

And then lastly, we need to tackle the cost of prescription drugs. We’ve made some headway on that in previous times. Right now, it feels as though our prescription drug efforts are falling on deaf ears. I believe in benchmarking prescription drug costs to the cost of Medicare.

Abortion rights and government reform

RM: Being in the U.S. House, you know better than anyone that Congress has largely been in gridlock these past few years. If elected to the Senate, do you support the elimination of the filibuster?

HS: I’ll tell you that I do for a variety of matters, particularly women’s health protection. That’s legislation that I have championed in the house, that I’ve seen pass the House and then fall flat in the Senate. Republicans like Mike Rogers (U.S. Senate candidate) are going to vote for a national abortion ban, and they are going to stand in the way of codifying abortion rights in this country. We have those rights here in Michigan, we had a tremendous victory at the ballot box a handful of years ago, and yet those rights are still vulnerable. There are lawmakers on the other side of the aisle who are not going to stand up for people’s health, not going to stand up for women’s abortions rights, and addressing the filibuster will get us out of that mess.

RM: Do you support reforms to the U.S. Supreme Court—packing, term limits or otherwise?

HS: Look, all three branches of government have some real need for reforms and some ethics. I deeply support ethics reform. For the Supreme Court, what seems to look like pay-to-play, the fact that they have a different set of ethics rules, I think it would be more than appropriate, given that the Supreme Court doesn’t have elections, and it’s a lifetime appointment to look at the term limits and age limits and the like.

Focus on Michigan

RM: Approval ratings for Democratic leadership right now are around 25%. Do you think Congress needs a fresh look or move on from the current leadership of Chuck Schumer and Hakeem Jeffries?

HS: Well, I’ll tell you what, Congress and this open U.S. Senate seat that we have here in Michigan needs its best champion in the United States Senate, and that’s me. Someone with a track record of results for our state when we’re in moments of uncertainty, I put up my hand to run at it. I did that as chief of staff in the administration of Barack Obama on the U.S. auto rescue, when General Motors and Chrysler were steering bankruptcy off the cliff and 200,000 Michigan jobs were on the line; I have stood up for our state economy and our workforce when supply chain disruptions were coming down, and helped to pass the CHIPS and Science Act. That’s a track record of delivery and speaking directly to what drives our economy, which keeps people employed, and also a plan to lower costs. And so I’m ready to hit the ground running in the United States Senate. And I believe my run for United States Senate is about the future of Michigan.

RM: But that wasn’t the question. I was asking you if there should be a change in Democratic leadership.

HS: You’re asking me about the future of the Democratic Party. And there are some people who are running who assume that’s what this race is all about, and I don’t think that’s fair to the people of Michigan. I believe that this race is about the future of Michigan and our workforce, and who’s going to get points on the scoreboard for organized labor.

I’m sitting before you here today as the only candidate in this race who’s been endorsed by organized labor, and in terms of, you know, the inside baseball conversations, because I understand what you were specifically asking me. Of course, we can make those decisions. You know, Elissa Slotkin and I will absolutely hone in on what’s best for Michigan and what’s best for the Senate operations. That’s what’s got to happen. You know, in terms of some of those inside baseball, who’s in leadership and whatnot? What Michigan needs, and what I am focused on, is Michigan leadership.

AI data centers

RM: Michiganders seem to hate data centers. The growing A.I. boom, if it comes to fruition, will eat up a lot of resources. How do you weigh the need to address climate change with the constant need for business growth and more jobs in Michigan?

HS: Well, look at what we accomplished with the Inflation Reduction Act—something that I was proud to champion in the House of Representatives alongside leaders from our environmental movement, like the League of Conservation Voters. And that was the first time in history where the industry leaders, automotive companies in particular, also endorsed that legislation. And when we look at the large challenges that we are facing in terms of climate change, it is an all hands on deck approach.

We have got to take climate changes and energy needs very seriously, and this is something that I have fought for in the United States House of Representatives on the science committee, right? I held the first hearing on recycling technology in a decade when I got to Congress.

And so in some respects, you know, the table setting and the way in which we can look at creating jobs, winning the future and ensuring that we are not polluting, that we’ve shown that that can be done, you know, in terms of data centers and winning innovation races, I have been rigorous in conversations around the environmental protections and the consumer protections and the cost needs.

Wealth gap

RM: Money in this country seems to be going upwards. We’re creating lots of new billionaires. How do you address the growing wealth gap?

HS: We need someone who’s gonna fight for our organized labor and our middle class, and get the protecting the right to organize legislation done, as well as ensuring that the National Labor Relations Board actually has people with a labor background on the board. This administration has gone after people’s rights to organize, they have been trying to squash the voice of organized labor, and that is one of the best keys to addressing the wealth gap: the negotiating power of the workforce. I’m not running for Senate to do billionaire bidding.

I believe that this race is about the future of Michigan and our workforce, and who’s going to get points on the scoreboard for organized labor.

You know, I didn’t vote for the Big, Beautiful Bill because for a variety of reasons, and one, very starkly, was that that bill was a billionaire giveaway. We we have to have a fair marginal tax rate. Billionaires have got to pay their fair share. And lastly, we need a plan to lower costs for hard working Michiganders and retirees. I’ve got legislation to do that, tackling the cost of food and tackling the prices of everyday goods.

RM: When people in this country are going hungry, ethically, should billionaires exist?

HS: Well, we’re not going to be seeing someone like myself do billionaire bidding in the United States Senate, I’ll tell you that much. Tackling where and how billionaires are not paying their fair share needs to get done. We need a fair marginal tax rate. That is something that I feel very strongly about, and I feel so frustrated because we have seen this administration trample over our middle class put into place reckless tariffs that have created job insecurity and job loss.

Parts of Michigan have some of the fastest growing unemployment in the country right now because of these tariffs and the cuts to clean energy investments going into our manufacturing sector, and now we have a president who doesn’t want to open the Gordie Howe bridge—another slap in the face to our workers. We can’t be in the business of these billionaire giveaways, and we also can’t be in the business of not adjusting our tax code and fighting for labor rights.

PAC funding

RM: You say you’re not doing billionaire bidding, but you are taking corporate PAC money. That separates you from your competitors in the primary. Why?

HS: I’m deeply proud to have a campaign that has got 95% of donations that are $200 or less and those are coming from nurses and factory workers and grocery workers. I’m deeply proud to have the endorsements of the Michigan Democratic Party Black Caucus, former Speaker Joe Tate, the mayors of Livonia and Lansing and Grand Rapids in my campaign. And it’s it’s a grassroots endeavor. And look, you’ve got someone like Mike Rogers, who is going to continue to rubber stamp Donald Trump and stand in the way of comprehensive campaign finance reform. I have an “A” grading from the leading anti-corruption campaign finance reform organization because of my record.

RM: AIPAC, the American Israel Public Affairs Committee, has raised millions on your behalf for this Senate run, and in past campaigns. Since the October 7 Hamas terror attacks, Israel has been accused of war crimes and genocide against the Palestinian people. How do you reconcile voting for military support for Israel when you know exactly how the Israeli military has been using it?

HS: Well, I’d say this, that the goal has always been long term peace. We have needed to see the hostages come home, which they did, and that was an incredible day. We are in the second phase of a ceasefire, and the goal is a lasting ceasefire that will mean that Hamas has to put down its weapons, and also the calls that I have made for Israel and the United States to work together on rebuilding efforts and on humanitarian aid. We need people in Gaza, Palestinian people, to have dignity and peace, just as we need people in Israel to do so.

RM: So there’s been no hesitation in taking money from AIPAC?

HS: I’m running my campaign in a grassroots way, with individual donors who participate in the democratic process in the way that our country allows. I’m proud of my record of standing up alongside democracy and freedom and humanitarian needs. You know, here in the United States and and certainly abroad.

Note: A planned question about the rights of trans people in the U.S. was withheld because Congresswoman Stevens needed to leave for another appointment.

In 2024 presidential candidate Donald Trump promised mass deportations. Since his election, the president has largely delivered.

In 2025, the U.S. Department of Homeland Security deported more than 620,000 people, with another 70,000 currently in custody.

Millions have taken to the streets in protest. But for places that have seen the greatest influx of Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, protests and observation of ICE tactics is a new way of life.

Los Angeles, Chicago, and the Twin Cities have been inundated with federal agents. Residents are putting themselves between immigration officers and the people ICE is attempting to deport.

Protesters have been aggressive in letting agents know they’re not welcome. They’re following them around town, honking horns and blowing whistles. There has been no shortage of profanity.

Protests get bloody

White House Border Czar Tom Homan says those words are violence. “I begged for the last two months on TV for the rhetoric to stop,” says Homan. “I said in March, if the rhetoric didn’t stop, there’s going to be bloodshed, and there has been.”

In Minnesota, the blood that has been shed has come from U.S. citizens. Last month, federal agents killed Renee Good and Alex Pretti. In justifying Good’s killing, Trump Administration officials said she was armed with a car. In the moments leading up to his death, Pretti was exercising both his First and Second Amendment rights with a gun on his hip and a phone in his hand.

Steve Dulan is a professor at Cooley Law School in Lansing.  He’s also on the Board of Directors of the Michigan Coalition for Responsible Gun Owners. Dulan says Pretti’s actions that day were Constitutionally protected.

“Being a protester? That’s not justification to kill somebody,” Dulan said. “Filming the police? Not justification to kill somebody. Being armed? Certainly not justification to kill somebody.”

At Second Amendment rights demonstrations at the Michigan State Capitol Dulan has been armed – but also while doing business inside. After a series of armed protests during the Covid-19 pandemic, the Michigan Capitol Commission largely banned the possession of guns inside the Capitol building – something Dulan believes is likely unconstitutional.

Exercising two amendments at once

Dulan says he would defend the rights of people to carry firearms while protesting, though he wouldn’t put himself in a similar situation.

“Personally, I don’t think it’s responsible gun ownership, particularly when there’s a high likelihood that there could be some kind of a physical confrontation,” Dulan said. “You know, we’ve been teaching classes to gun owners for a long time at MCRGO. We teach that situational awareness is incredibly important, and the best way to solve most problems is by avoidance.”

Carrying a gun can also influence how other protesters see you.

Loren Khogali is the executive director of the American Civil Liberties Union of Michigan. She says demonstrating 2^nd Amendment rights may make others hesitant to exercise their right to peaceably assemble.

 “What we need right now in this country is as many people as possible to feel as comfortable possible exercising their 1st Amendment right to speech,” Khogali said.

Acting with impunity

The bigger issue to Khogali is the Trump Administration – and the armed agents enforcing his demands – attacking people with seeming impunity.

 “Right now we are watching the government engage suppressing people’s right to speech, suppressing people’s right to protest in the most violent of ways,” Khogali said. “We have watched the federal government murder two people in Minnesota, and so it is extremely important that when you go to a protest, you understand exactly what your rights are based on those state laws.”

 “Law enforcement should be adhering to the Constitution and should be protecting the right of protesters to protest within the law,”Khogali said.

In Minnesota, federal law enforcement has been largely unconcerned with the rights of protesters. Numerous judges have cited ICE and the Department of Homeland Security for violating court orders.

What is qualified immunity?

Steven Winter is the Walter S. Gibbs, Distinguished Professor of Constitutional Law at Wayne State University. He’s litigated cases on qualified immunity – the rule that shields police and other governmental entities from civil liability. 

He says those who violate constitutional rights should face consequences, but that’s not the reality.

 “Well as a practical matter, very little,” Winter said. “In a theoretical matter, they should both be open to potential civil and criminal liability.”

But asked if he thinks the agents who killed Good and Pretti will face justice… “I think it’d be very unlikely,” Winter said.

Winter says U.S. Supreme Court has narrowed the scope of what can negate qualified immunity. “It’s only a violation–it’s only actionable–if it was clearly illegal, clearly unconstitutional. So that’s easy to muddy up, right?”

Knowing your rights regardless

Even if it’s unlikely you will receive justice if your rights are violated, it’s still best to know your rights and have a plan.

“You always have the right to remain silent and to ask to speak to an attorney. You also have the right to walk away from the police calmly,” Khogali said. “If an officer demands that you should turn over your phone, you should refuse and you should tell them that you would like to speak with an attorney.”

However, witnesses to the killing of Alex Pretti say their phones were confiscated anyway. Other witnesses were taken into custody.

Khogali recommends having emergency contact numbers memorized and to let loved ones know when you’re headed to a protest.

Steve Dulan says the on-going protests can serve as a teaching tool. “I am hopeful that people will take this opportunity to learn about their rights and I’m hoping that the rhetoric cools.”

This week, Homan announced that 700 ICE agents were being taken out of Minnesota. The protests and deportations continue.

The ACLU of Michigan has this handy pocket guide for your rights at protests, and what you should know before, during, and after ICE raids.

In 2026, voters in Michigan will cast ballots for races involving the office of Governor, Attorney General, and Secretary of State. Gary Peters (D-MI) is opting to retire, so there’s an open U.S. Senate seat.

Democrats have three strong candidates: Abdul El-Sayed, Mallory McMorrow, and Haley Stevens. All three have raised millions of dollars for their campaigns ahead of the August primary.

Over the next few months, Detroit Public Radio will be checking in with the candidates so our listeners can make an informed decision. The focus of this first round of interviews is to set a baseline for the candidates views on policy and what separates them from their competitors.

The series continues with Dr. Abdul El-Sayed, a public health expert who has served as the health director for both Detroit and Wayne County.

He talked with All Things Considered Detroit Host Russ McNamara on Jan. 21, 2026.

The following interview has been edited for clarity and length. 

Medicare for All

Russ McNamara, WDET: You’ve written a book about Medicare for All. Why do you prefer that over a public option for health insurance?

Dr. Abdul El-Sayed: We’re watching as healthcare is becoming very quickly one of the most unsustainable features on anybody’s budget sheet. You’re seeing premiums go up 10, 15, 20%—and that’s not even if you’re on one of the ACA plans, for which the Trump Administration has now pulled subsidies going into next year. The unsustainability of our system is going to be paramount, and it’s going to be top of voters’ minds.

I’ve been consistent about the need for Medicare for All.

Medicare for All is government health insurance guaranteed for everyone, regardless of what circumstances you’re in. If you like your insurance through your employer or through your union, I hope that’ll be there for you. But if you lose your job, if your factory shuts down, you shouldn’t be destitute without the health care that you need and deserve.

But Medicare for All does more than just guaranteeing health care. It also addresses the increasing costs that we’re seeing skyrocket in our system by being able to negotiate prices on behalf of all of us, and it also creates a system where doctors and hospitals and clinics can compete with each other in a truly free market system. This is what we’ve needed in America for a very long time, and like you said, I wrote a book on how to do it back in 2021.

The foundations of our system have just gotten less sustainable since then. It would free us of so many of the fears that people have every day, the $225 billion of medical debt that Americans currently hold, which is higher than the GDP of half of the states in the entire country.

And beyond that, it gives us the safety and security that would spur the economy. Too often, small businesses don’t get founded simply because people are stuck in dead end jobs, even if they have an amazing idea, because they’re afraid of losing their health insurance.

Now a public option is exactly that; it’s just an option. There is no reason why it would actually address any of the foundational problems in our system. It wouldn’t bring down the rising costs. It wouldn’t guarantee people health care, and we don’t really know how much it would cost. Plus, there’s an added thing that folks need to think a little bit about—that those of us who’ve thought about the health care system understand—if you have a public option, what happens is, the private health insurance system will try to dump all of the most expensive patients onto that public option, vastly increasing the cost of that public option and making it unsustainable.

That being said, I want to be clear about something. I think too often when we talk about health care we talk about this or that. To me, anything that increases health care access, anything that would do so by increasing the public’s capacity to provide it and would reduce the power of corporations, is something that I would vote for. But I’m not going to make the mistake of pretending like that’s the whole answer. The whole answer is we need to get to Medicare for all. But if you want to climb to Mount Everest, you got to get to base camp, and you got to climb some other hills.

So I understand that we need to take steps along the way. But anybody who wants to tell you that somehow a public option will solve our health care problems doesn’t understand how health care works, or has taken too much money from the industry that does not want Medicare for All because of what it may mean for their profits.

The growing wealth gap

RM: High health care costs are just one part of the equation when it comes to the high expenses that Americans are facing right now. There’s also a concentration of wealth in the top 1, 5, 10% How do you address the growing wealth gap in this country?

AE: You know, I’m the only person running for U.S. Senate who’s never taken a dime of corporate money to fund a campaign, and that shows up in the ways that I stand up to corporations. So there’s two pieces here.

Number one: we’ve got to make it so that corporations can no longer buy access to politicians to do their bidding—a system that every other candidate I am running against has willingly participated in but me—and that makes sure that the system is not rigged against the rest of us, so that big corporations and billionaires can continue to make yet more money off of a system that funnels money from our back pockets into theirs.

But the second part of this is that I think we finally need to start taxing billionaire wealth. I’ve been very clear about the fact that for too long, our system has allowed billionaires to pay a lower effective tax rate than you and I, who make our money the old fashioned way—working for it.

The way we should be judging our economy is not by how much wealth accumulates at the very top, how many more billionaires we spit out, but rather we should be judging our economy based on whether or not it provides everyday Americans access to the basic means of a dignified life.

And I think we need to rethink the way that we do taxation in mainly so that we’re taxing the wealth of people make $100 million or more, because guess what? If you tax a billionaire at 8%, guess what? They’re still they’re still a billionaire. They’re still going to have money their kids, kids, kids, kids are still going to be rich.

And I think that we can get along to making sure that our kids have great public schools, that we’re providing health care and good infrastructure for all of us. And if we can do that, I think we can start to bring down the massive wealth inequality that’s only growing in this country.

RM: Ethically, should billionaires exist?

AE: I don’t think that our system should be in the business of creating billionaires. I think our system should be in the business of empowering everyday folks to be able to live a life with access to the basic dignities that they need and deserve, good housing, good health care, affordable food, the experience of knowing that you’re sending your kid to a school that dignifies their brain and empowers them for a career into the future.

Too few people have access to that right now, and I think that the way we should be judging our economy is not by how much wealth accumulates at the very top, how many more billionaires we spit out, but rather we should be judging our economy based on whether or [it] not provides everyday Americans access to the basic means of a dignified life.

We are the richest, most powerful country in the world. It is a crazy thing that people are struggling to afford their groceries, struggling to afford housing, wondering whether or not if they’re under 40 they’ll ever own a home, or if they can stay in their home. If they’re under 65, worried about whether or not they are going to go bankrupt simply because they got sick. Those are choices that we make, and at the wrong end of creating an economy that spits out more and more billionaires is the opportunity to be able to solve so many of those challenges for folks.

I think we need to reorient that system. That means, yes, taxing billionaires—it also means rethinking the firewall that should exist between billionaire money and corporate money and our politics. It means standing with unions, it means empowering small businesses, and it means guaranteeing every single person the health care that they need and deserve.

Data centers and the AI boom

RM: Michiganders seem to hate data centers. The growing AI boom—if it comes to fruition—will eat up a lot of resources. How would you weigh the need to address climate change with the constant need for business growth and more jobs in this state?

AE: In the last year alone we’ve had 15 data center proposals. Each of those data centers is partnering with a corporate utility that has raised our rates without actually improving the reliability of our electricity. Our costs go up, our reliability does not and we’re watching as these huge corporations are partnering with these utilities to try and bring these projects into our communities, promising a certain number of jobs.

I understand the fears that everyday folk have about what this will mean for the price of their electricity, the water that we take for granted in a state like Michigan, whether or not they’re going to have a job in the future. And so we’ve issued a data center terms of engagement. And what these terms of engagement are meant to do is clarify what the real risks are and hold data center projects accountable to addressing those risks.

Number 1: if you’re promising jobs, you better actually create the good union jobs that you say you want to create.

Number 2: your project should not increase the price of electricity for anyone in our state.

Number 3: you should have closed loop systems that do not rely on our fresh water or stress our water infrastructure.

Number 4: there should be a community benefits agreement that is negotiated with the local community to make sure that the value of the project actually moves into the community in which it’s going to be housed.

Number 5: investments that are made should improve the reliability of our utilities.

Number 6: these should be enforceable by penalty.

And the beautiful thing about this approach is that it offers a roadmap, both for local communities to hold data center projects accountable, but also it creates the pathway for the kind of federal legislation that I’d like to get passed as a U.S. Senator.

But these are challenges that we’re facing and the kind of approach that we’ve seen on the part of the corporations and the utilities, where they try to fly by night and steamroll local municipalities to get their projects done, all it’s done is fan the flame on mis and disinformation.

So what we want is clarity. We want transparency. We want integrity. We want honesty, and we want to make sure that folks understand exactly what’s coming to their local communities.

Accountability in government, Supreme Court reform

RM: Do you support the elimination of the filibuster, and how do you feel about making significant changes to the structure of the Supreme Court, whether it’s packing it, term limits, or making sure that there’s some sort of ethical accountability?

AE: The filibuster allows senators to hide behind just one senator, in effect, veiling them from democracy itself. Because if you don’t have to take a hard vote, your public won’t hold you accountable for the hard vote that you just took.

Similarly, the Supreme Court has acted in ways that demonstrate that really it’s become just a third political arm of government. So I oppose the filibuster.

If you look at what Trump is doing, he’s doing most of it by executive fiat. Most of what he’s trying to do is he’s trying to operate through the White House itself and where checks have failed have been at the Supreme Court, and I think that we need to start talking a bit about what term limits might look like.

I don’t think that this current system serves our democracy very well. I proposed a system that says that every president should have three appointments. Every Supreme Court justice should have at least 10 years and a possible renewal for another 10 years. But what that does is it incentivizes the selection of of jurists who want to interpret the Constitution on its own terms, because all of them may not know who the person making a decision about the reappointment might be, and it addresses the fact that you don’t want jurists who are too Junior and haven’t had as much experience or too senior, and may not be at the top of their game. I do think we need Supreme Court reform. 

Foreign policy

RM: U.S. foreign policy is currently at the forefront of the global conversation with President Trump’s ongoing thirst for Greenland, his Board of Peace for Gaza and the recent attack on Venezuela for oil. As a senator, what would your ideal foreign policy for the US?

AE: I believe in international law. I read my history. I look at all the effort after World War II, to stop the next world war from happening again. And courageous leaders who watched the carnage of that war came together and said, We need international law that we all abide by.

And the frustration is that as we’ve developed as the world’s superpower, we have sometimes abided by that international law and sometimes broken it. And I think where we have abided by it, where we have stood up, for example, to protect international law in circumstances like Bosnia and Herzegovina, in circumstances like Ukraine, I think we do great good in the world, but too often, we have decided to skirt that international law. When you look at the war in Iraq, when you look at Vietnam, and right now, when you look at the unilateral funding and subsidies of a genocide in Gaza, we have been the chief violator of international law.

My vision for our foreign policy is that, yes, we are strong, but we are the first among equals to stand up for that international law, rather than being the first to break it.

Immigration and Customs Enforcement

RM: Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents have been terrorizing immigrants in communities of color – in blue states and cities – especially over the past year. Should ICE exist?

AE: No, we need to abolish ICE.

I just recently came back from my own personal fact finding mission in Minneapolis. Now I’m running for Senate in Michigan, but I also understand that if they can occupy a city like Minneapolis, they can do the same here in Michigan.

I just want to be clear about what ICE is. They tell us that this is about immigration and customs enforcement, but let’s be clear, immigration law is not criminal law, it’s civil law. So why do you need masked men carrying heavy weaponry on peaceful streets?

They tell us that this is about protecting the southern border, but I’ve looked at a map, and Minneapolis is not very close to the southern border. We can have a safe and secure southern border. We can enforce immigration law. But ICE is not about that. ICE is a paramilitary force normalizing the use of government power on peaceful streets, in thrall to one man. They are using the pretext of immigration to weaponize against the laws and norms and mores of our democracy and our Constitution itself. And I believe that it ought to be abolished.

If the idea of ICE is that they’re supposed to keep you safe, go ask Renee Good, or her widow or her orphaned child about how safe Renee Good is because of ICE.

I talked about abolishing ice back in 2018 because anybody could have seen where this is going. And now we’ve gotten here, and I shudder for our state, because they’re talking about buying a facility in Highland Park. They’ve got the facility in Baldwin. I do not want to see what I saw in Minneapolis here at home.

So when I’m in the U.S. Senate, I intend to lead the effort to abolish ICE, because I do not believe that it has anything to do with keeping our southern border secure and safe—which I intend to do—or with enforcing any of the laws when it comes to immigration, this is about normalizing paramilitary force and thrall to one man on our streets. And if there is anything that’s antithetical to the idea of America, it’s that.

Transgender rights

RM: The rights of transgender people to seek care, serve in the military or just play high school sports has been used by conservatives as a wedge issue, not just between Republicans and Democrats, but within the Democratic Party, what will you do to support that small, but disproportionately targeted part of our community?

AE: I believe that rights are rights, are rights, and when you assent to somebody taking away somebody else’s rights, you are at some point assenting to somebody coming for yours.

We have to stand together to fight for our collective rights, even when those rights are rights we may never see ourselves using. And I think that is it is critical for us to recognize where MAGA has tried to use this conversation to tear people apart, to get them into positions where we’re having a conversation about high school sports, rather than a conversation about health care or a conversation about affordable groceries or a conversation about how to make sure home ownership is possible. Those are the conversations that I’m hearing about up and down my state.

So I think it’s perfectly within the means of local communities and sporting governing bodies to lead the conversation about high school sports. I think it’s important for doctors to be able to provide the health care that their patients need in consultation with their parents if they are not of age.

But that has nothing to do with our broader public conversation in our politics. And so I want politics to be solving the problems that politics should be about solving. I want to make sure that communities and parents and families and doctors and sporting bodies get to make these decisions together, in consultation with each other, to take on these problems. Because every single moment that Republicans want us to be talking about trans kids or trans kids playing sports is a moment we’re not talking about making sure that everybody gets the health care that they need and deserve, and that people get access to housing, and those are the conversations we need to take on that they are imminent in our lives.

But rights are rights, are rights, and we need to be standing up for everybody’s rights when anybody tries to take them away.

While President Trump was inside Motor City Casino on Tuesday, protesters outside were braving the elements and aggression by the Detroit Police Department.

A group of demonstrators marched from Cass Park in front of the Masonic Temple and to the sidewalk in front of the casino at the corner of Temple and Grand River Avenue.

After being allowed to peacefully assemble for a few minutes, Detroit Police forced protesters down Grand River to a less visible location on the casino’s west side at Trumbull Ave and Elm Street.

A Detroit Police officer – who would not give his name, only the numbers 168 – threatened protesters and members of the press with arrest if they did not move. At least two protesters were arrested.

What the protesters have to say

Sarah Reed of Farmington Hills carried an inverted American flag – a symbol of distress. She stood in front of the advancing officers in an act of defiance.

Reed was surprised by their aggression. “It’s a public sidewalk, and if you and I were there this evening, this morning, before any of this, they’d have no issue with us being on the sidewalk,” Reed said.

Reed, the granddaughter of a Holocaust survivor, said she wants the president to resign. But she had a message for Democrats too. “Get off your asses and fight,” Reed said.

Troy resident Jake Malacos used his lunch hour to protest. He says he was happy to be around protesters because a show of solidarity is good for the community.

As for why he was picketing: “Well, the corruption from the Trump administration. The brutality. The murder of Renee Good. Most of the policies that he’s putting out are pretty rough for me,” Malacos said.

Once DPD had pushed the protesters to the designated 1st Amendment area on Trumbull, about 1,000 protesters marched to Detroit Public Safety.

Officially, Detroit Police do not work with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, but they do share office space.

How does a global community provide for the needs of its citizens without destroying the planet? That’s the crux of “Anthropause: The Beauty of Degrowth,” a new book out this month.

In the early days of the Covid-19 pandemic, society shut down for a few months. As humans stayed inside, animals returned to their old habitats and pollution eased as industry slowed.

Retired researcher—and new metro Detroit resident—Stan Cox looks at how that “anthropause” could be a preview of the necessary societal changes to save lives and the planet.

He spoke with All Things Considered – Detroit host Russ McNamara last month. Click on the media player to listen or read selected transcripts below.

Russ McNamara, WDET: Why did you write this book?

Stan Cox, Author: The main point I’m making in the book is imagining that we as a society, if we were to rapidly phase out fossil fuels and get by just on the energy that could be generated other ways; and if we stopped plundering the earth for minerals and cutting down forest and causing ecological damage; and we had less energy and materials, and had to allocate them carefully: people know that’s going to mean sacrifice. What am I going to have to give up and so forth?

And what I’m saying in the book is okay, yeah, there are certain things, obviously that will have to be given up. But let’s consider all of the dangers and nuisances, terrible stuff that we put up with an advanced industrial society that has all this energy and materials running through it.

We would be saying goodbye to a lot of those harms and ills by simply not doing a lot of the stuff that requires so much energy input. So the rest of the book, then, is going through specific technologies and activities and so forth that are really harmful to people and the environment, of course, that we would not have the fuel to undertake them, or we would be using resources for meeting people’s basic needs, and we wouldn’t be spending a lot of energy on these other things.

RM: You discuss this and I’m reminded of data centers to run artificial intelligence. People certainly don’t seem to want them and definitely don’t want these in their backyard because there is this concern about the high cost of electricity, and the amount of groundwater that is needed.

SC: That’s absolutely right. One of the big reasons these communities don’t want them is that they create this horrific noise at very high decibel levels and low low frequency noise, which is especially dangerous to human health. When I started writing the book, there wasn’t as much being said about A.I. and the data centers at that time, so I did eventually incorporated them, but the beginning of the second chapter is about noise pollution and and I just used it. It’s seemingly a very small thing, but it really brings out other issues. The leaf blower, especially the gas powered leaf blower, also produces this low frequency and very high volume sound—about eight times the decibel level that the World Health Organization says is safe – and they’re producing a wind about the speed of an EF five tornado. The low frequency sound can travel like three football fields. It’s still above the safe limit.

RM: So what are the societal impacts? Let’s say we start degrowth right now. What are the benefits?

SC: We can’t go on like we’re on the trajectory that we’re on now, because. A degrowth is going to happen. Either a chaotic, brutal degrowth where it’s a Mad Max kind of future, because we’ve tried to force growth to continue and have destroyed ecosystems

Or we can have a planned, rational degrowth that ensures that there’s enough for everybody and that we’re not causing ecological collapse. But there’s no way that growth can continue at this rate.

Sometime in the past three years, we passed a milestone. The quantity of human made stuff—that is everything that human society has manufactured or built or produced—if you weigh all of it up, the mass of all of that exceeds the total mass of all living things on Earth, all plants, animals, microbes, et cetera, and that quantity of stuff being produced is is doubling every 20 years. And clearly that can’t go on.

Herb Stein, an economist from the 70s or 80s was kind of the Yogi Berra of economists. He had a line: “if something can’t go on forever, it won’t” and that’s where growth cannot go on forever. So we have to pull back, create what I called in the book an “anthropause” of our own, and try to have a rational, safe and just reduction in the amount of economic activity for the good of everybody.

In 2026, voters in Michigan will cast ballots for races involving the office of Governor, Attorney General, and Secretary of State. Gary Peters (D-MI) is opting to retire, so there’s an open U.S. Senate seat.

Democrats have three strong candidates: Mallory McMorrow, Haley Stevens, and Abdul El-Sayed. All three have raised millions of dollars for their campaigns ahead of the August primary.

Over the next few months, Detroit Public Radio will be checking in with the candidates so our listeners can make an informed decision. The focus of this first round of interviews is to set a baseline for the candidates views on policy and what separates them from their competitors.

The series begins with Michigan State Senator Mallory McMorrow.

She talked with All Things Considered Detroit Host Russ McNamara on Jan. 8, 2026.

The following interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Healthcare access

Russ McNamara, WDET: What’s your plan to fix healthcare?

State Senator Mallory McMorrow: So I come at this from somebody who was an industrial designer, who’s solutions oriented, and our solution needs to be three fold. It needs to be universal. Everybody needs to have health care, no exceptions. It needs to be affordable. You should not be able have to break the bank or go bankrupt for a hospital visit.

So for me, that starts with a real public option, something that will force the private health insurers to compete. And I’m somebody who as a millennial, we’re around the same age, we don’t have the same job security that our parents did.

So having a real public option, there are a few states now who have implemented public options Colorado, Nevada and one other and they are starting to see real cost savings. They are starting to ensure that everybody has coverage. Vermont, on the other hand, as an example, they tried a single payer system and abandoned it 15 years ago after not being able to figure out the payment or the implementation.

RM: Just to kind of clarify on that you’re not in favor of something like Medicare for all. Vermont’s a very small sample size.

MM: I think it’s too big of a challenge. Admittedly, we are a country of more than 360 million people. When I talk to people all across the state, they don’t say that they they want one single system. They say, I want the insurance that works for me. I want to be able to see my doctor. I want to be able to go to my pediatrician, and I want it to be affordable. That, to me, requires more options, not fewer.

Abortion rights and the Supreme Court

RM: If elected as a U.S. senator, what would you do to reinstall abortion rights that were shifted back to the States by the U.S. Supreme Court?

MM: We need to codify abortion access as a fundamental right, the right that was taken away from women after 50 years of precedent with Roe [v. Wade].

I had legislation here in the state of Michigan to ensure that Medicaid covered reproductive rights abortion procedures. That was one of the things that unfortunately didn’t make it through the final version of the Reproductive Health Act. But your income should not determine whether or not you have access to the care that you need if something with your pregnancy goes wrong, and that is something that we need to fix on the federal level, and that I will fight for.

RM: Does that level of fight include eliminating the filibuster for abortion rights?

MM: Yes.

RM: Does that include packing the Court and increasing the number of justices?

MM: We have to fix the Supreme Court. I am open to any conversation on how we do that. The Supreme Court was supposed to be an independent arbiter of the Constitution. Very clearly they are not. They are now bending at the whims of this President, handing this president effectively immunity to do whatever the hell he wants. So I am talking to some constitutional experts right now, some judicial experts on whether that means term limits, whether that means oversight, whether it means reforms, or whether it means more justices. I am open to anything to ensure the Supreme Court does its job.

Affordability and wealth inequality

RM: The top one percent in this country control a third of the wealth in this country. That’s doubled since 1990. What is your plan to address the wealth gap?

MM: The average home buyer now is in their 40s. We have our population aging and declining in the state of Michigan, I talked to a lot of people who say they want to start a family. They cannot fathom how they would be able to afford to do that. So the biggest thing that we have to do is address income inequality, and one of the provisions that I just put into a piece of legislation in Lansing would prohibit companies from pursuing stock buybacks if they were to receive a state incentive. This was on the transformational brownfield legislation. We have companies continuing to pad their shareholders bottom lines instead of paying their employees. We need to raise wages. We need to create incentives so that companies are not paying their CEOs 100 times, 200 times, 300 times the average wage of their worker, and instead encourage companies to be better corporate citizens.

RM: Quick yes or no: Should billionaires exist?

MM: Yes, I think they can and should exist. And I look at somebody like Mark Cuban as an example. You can be a billionaire without being a jerk. This is somebody who goes out and says very publicly that this country, the infrastructure of this country, the educational system of this country, gave him the platform he needed to be successful. And he’s out there trying to bring medication costs down. Cost Plus drugs, I think is something that we should be taking a real hard look at it.

But you don’t need to be an Elon Musk to do it. I mean, you listen to this man who wants to become a trillionaire, trillionaire with a T, and his vision of the future is so dark and dystopian that he wants to abandon the earth and go to Mars. You should be successful in this country if you work hard, you play by the rules, but you should also be able and be forced to give back so that the next person has the same chance you did.

AI in Michigan

RM: Utilities and tech companies are pushing AI. Americans are a bit more skeptical. How do you reconcile resources required for data centers with the need to address climate change?

MM: Michigan has an opportunity to be the first state to do this right. There are some states and some companies that are getting this very wrong. And for data centers and for utility companies who are jacking up residence rates for these things to come online, they have every right to be angry.

You know, I just mentioned Elon Musk. You look at Colossus down in Memphis, that is an example of a company and a man doing everything wrong where rates are growing going up. The air quality in the surrounding neighborhood has become almost unlivable. People have asthma and they feel like they did not have a choice for what this company decided to do.

Now here in Michigan, we started by passing legislation that for a data center company to receive an incentive, they must ensure that rate payers are not subsidizing the cost of that data center. They must use at least 90% renewable energy to power that data center, and they need to be responsible with their water. That is a good start for us. I think any data center should be built with unionized labor. We need to make sure that these are good jobs. We need to make sure that it does not use Michigan’s water, that it has a closed source system that does not drain the Great Lakes or harm our water system, we need to ensure that it is bringing more renewables onto the grid.

If we do this right, we can encourage these companies and these investments to force the grid infrastructure upgrades that we have been so desperately needing for decades now in a way that can actually help create jobs and opportunity.

Finding a cure to fearmongering

RM: For the past few years, Republicans and conservative media have made it a priority to attack trans people, whether it’s trans kids playing sports, serving the military, and making their own health care decisions. What is your plan to support one of the most marginalized and at-risk segments of the population?

MM: Look for people who got to know me, maybe for the first time outside of my district and outside of Michigan, it was for a speech that I gave from the Senate floor in a moment when Republicans in our state were targeting and demonizing kids, and I am never going to run away from that. You know, whether or not a fifth grader wants to play soccer with her friends, doesn’t have any indication as to your future and your ability to start a business or raise a family.

And what the Republicans have done an incredible job of doing is by playing on people’s rightful anger and fear that they are not doing as well as they had hoped or as well as their parents did, and instead of actually solving those problems for people, they’re finding somebody to blame. First it was immigrants, then it was DEI [diversity, equity, inclusion] then it was trans kids. It is a smaller and smaller group of people.

And I fundamentally believe the way forward is that we have to be the party that solves those fundamental problems for people. If we can restore the American Dream and ensure that in Michigan and in the United States, if you work hard, you play by the rules, you can achieve that life that you wanted, then there won’t be this appetite to target and hurt vulnerable kids.

If we can restore the American Dream and ensure that in Michigan and in the United States, if you work hard, you play by the rules, you can achieve that life that you wanted, then there won’t be this appetite to target and hurt vulnerable kids.

I am really proud of the work that I’ve done in the state senate to expand Elliott Larson [Civil Rights Act] to ensure that you cannot be fired, you cannot lose housing because of who you are, how you identify or who you love. But obviously people are under attack right now, and we can’t run away from that, but we have to be very clear in telling Michiganders and Americans that this man and these Republicans don’t care about you either. They’re not doing anything to fix your problems, and you targeting a marginalized community isn’t going to make your life any better.

ICE immigration raids

RM: Immigration and Customs Enforcement has been terrorizing immigrant communities since its inception, all in the name of safety and fighting crime. That has been turned up a considerable amount since President Trump took office last year. This week, an ICE agent shot and killed a woman in Minneapolis. Bluntly, should ICE exist?

MM: Yes, and it needs to be vastly reformed. Michigan is a border state. We need Immigration and Customs Enforcement to do the work of what and who comes across the border. That should be its job. Its job should not be to be unleashed on communities to terrorize people, to go after people whose skin color isn’t exactly right, or who have an accent.

Right now, we have masked vigilantes who are being unleashed across the country, being recruited into these jobs with no experience, who are high on their own power, who are throwing American citizens in vans, deporting them. As we saw, as you mentioned, in Minneapolis this week, an American citizen is dead because she stopped her car. There is no justification for that use of force. And the U.S. Senate needs to do its job of oversight of a full investigation of what happened, not only here, but across the country, and then to reform this agency so it actually does the job of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement and not terrorizing Americans and immigrant communities.

Israel-Palestine conflict

RM: In October, you characterized the deaths of tens of thousands of Palestinians at the hands of Israeli military as genocide. Have you changed that stance at all?

MM: I am somebody who looks at the videos, the photos, the amount of pain that has been caused in the Middle East, and you can’t not be heartbroken. But I also feel like we are getting lost in this conversation, and it feels like a political purity test on a word—a word that, by the way, to people who lost family members in the Holocaust, does mean something very different and very visceral, and we’re losing sight of what I believe is a broadly shared goal among most Michiganders, that this violence needs to stop, that a temporary cease fire needs to become a permanent cease fire, that Palestinians deserve long term peace and security, that Israelis deserve long term peace and security, and that should be the role of the next U.S. senator, particularly in this primary.

We’ve got some candidates who are using this as a political weapon and fundraising off of it, and I think that that is just losing the humanity of what we’re seeing in the Middle East. And we deserve better.

RM: Should the US be giving money, weapons, military aid to Israel if they are indeed running a genocidal regime?

MM: We need to use the leverage that we have. You know, I came out in support of the Sanders resolution that would have blocked offensive weapon sales to Israel, and the more that Netanyahu pushes into Gaza, the worse this gets. And to be very clear, being in support of Israelis is not being in support of Netanyahu, in the same way that being in support of Palestinians is not the same as being in support of Hamas. And centering the humanity of what we see on the ground, and especially being sensitive to how many Michiganders are directly impacted by the impacts of the Middle East, is where we need to be.

So we need to use the leverage that we have as the United States as an ally to ensure that this war ends and that the ceasefire is a permanent ceasefire.

Campaign funding

RM: You’ve said you will not be taking campaign money from AIPAC, the powerful pro-Israel lobby. Where is the money in your campaign coming from?

MM: So far to date, we have outraised every other candidate on both sides of the aisle, and it is with zero corporate PAC dollars, and it is from people. We have raised more than $3.9 million for more than 60,000 individual donors. More than half of our donations are from people donating $200 or less. That is significantly more than any of the other candidates. In fact, I’ve got more grassroots support than my two Democratic opponents combined.

So it is by people, people who are donating $5 and $10 people who are donating what they can all across the country, and I am incredibly proud of that.

RM: So you’re turning away corporate money?

MM: Yes, no corporate PAC dollars at all.

The music landscape has changed a lot since the turn of the 21st century. Not just styles, but how we consume music. Nothing illustrates that better than the rise of the indie music scene.

In his new book Such Great Heights: The Complete Cultural History of the Indie Rock Explosion, Stereogum managing editor Chris DeVille looks at how changes to TV, the internet, and the record industry fueled the rise in early ’00s indie music.

DeVille talks with WDET’s Russ McNamara. Click on the link to listen or read selected excepts below. 

The following interview has been edited for length and clarity.

RM: So why write this book?

DeVille: There’s many different sort of through lines that are being traced here. One of them is technology. It’s a subject that I think is really complex and really fascinating, and it involves a lot of my favorite music ever.

This stuff that has been kind of chronicled and debated online for years in blog posts and social media posts and a lot of the documentation of it is starting to disappear, because websites just go offline, or people delete their social media accounts. And so I wanted to create a little bit more permanent record of some of these things that happened—some of the ways that these bands broke through, some of the conversations that were being had around this music.

One reviewer compared it to like a yearbook that you look back at and you get some fond memories, and you get some cringe, but yeah, it’s kind of like a history of my listening as an adult.

Russ McNamara, WDET: In the book, you mention the TV show ‘The OC’ which was a popular teen soap opera in the early ’00s. How much did that show’s soundtrack play into the rise in indie rock?

Chris DeVille, author of “Such Great Heights”: I was surprised as I was writing the book, how much it became like a shadow history of the evolution of the Internet over the last couple of decades. And you know The OC thing, it’s like they’re putting these bands in front of a much bigger audience. Like Death Cab for Cutie is like a fairly obscure band at the time, and then this character on this popular teen show is like making his whole personality that he loves Death Cab for Cutie.

It’s like giant platform, but then they lose cool points with some people, as you know, sort of a more norm-y audience discovers this band, but it’s definitely, there’s no doubt that it was a huge like funnel, bringing a bunch of bands to a much broader audience

RM: What about the added accessibility of file sharing sites like Limewire and Napster?

CD: Whatever platform you were using to pirate music I think contributed to the accessibility of stuff. Stuff could blow up, even if it didn’t fit into a particular radio format, or it wasn’t getting past the MTV gatekeepers. It didn’t have to fit into any existing niche or existing format to blow up. It could just catch fire and go viral on these file sharing servers.

I mean, the same thing was still true when iTunes came in and kind of formalized and commercialized the process. You could still have a song that people would download it like crazy.

RM: Which indie bands benefitted the most from this setup in the early 00’s?

CD: Arcade Fire was definitely the biggest. The other dimension that I talk a lot about in the book, is Pitchfork. And just like the power that Pitchfork had to make or break someone’s career. If they gave something a 10.0 people were just going to jump on it and worship it. And if they kind of talked smack about a particular band or completely panned a band, then there were instances where that basically ended someone’s commercial prospects. And so like Arcade Fire were like the perfect storm.

RM: So where is indie rock at now? Is it dead? Does the genre really mean anything anymore?

CD: Over time, indie became like more of a genre, and then the genre itself started to change. But I think what we saw happen in the 2010s is sort of like the indie goes pop thing. It was like a bubble, and it really did pop. We still have these sort of like boutique pop stars like Clairo.

We had artists that came out of the indie world become pop stars of a sort because of stuff like Tiktok. Like Mitski is a good example of that where she’s coming from, from the indie rock infrastructure, and she is making music that jumps across genres a little bit.

There’s a hunger for bands that have a little bit more of an edge to them, that are a little bit less smooth, a little bit willing to be weird or noisy. That’s what you see with a lot of the biggest indie bands today – ones that have gone against that sort of, like Spotify-friendly, passive-listening experience. There’s now a hunger for music that’s a bit more abrasive, something that will jolt people out of their stupor.

Music wants to evolve. It wants to find new audiences. And so the whole idea of like, gatekeeping and having the right audience versus the wrong audience, like, that’s something that factors into the book too.