Cadillac officials are praising the company’s performance in Australia this past weekend at it’s first-ever Formula One race.

Cadillac drivers finished near the back of the field, but that’s still a victory for a team that only entered the pinnacle of auto racing roughly a year ago.

The effort was initially organized by racer Michael Andretti.

Cadillac team manager Graeme Lowdon says he joined after a phone call from Andretti’s father, racing legend Mario Andretti.

“And at the end of the call, I still remember it now, he said, ‘Right, well that’s great Graeme. Just one more thing. Don’t let me down.’ And I’m thinking this is Mario Andretti, 1978 World Champion. Here’s a guy who raced everything. When you have somebody like that saying I really want to do this, don’t let me down, you listen,” Lowdon said.

Now Mario Andretti is on the board of Cadillac F1.

About a week before the first Grand Prix, Andretti said Cadillac had made staggering progress.

The following interview has been edited for length and clarity.

Mario Andretti: It’s a gigantic effort. The team is new but there’s a lot of experience there, including the drivers. We’re very fortunate, both of them having been Formula One winners. So that experience in itself is invaluable.

A lot of the elements are in place. And this incredible amount of positive energy within the team. That is always the main part, in my opinion, the human side.

This thing has been in the works now for the better part of three years. Many moving parts, but everybody feels that they have a lot to gain, career-wise. And that’s a beautiful thing.

Quinn Klinefelter, WDET News: You were talking about Cadillac being a U.S.-based team when you spoke with lawmakers on Capitol Hill a couple of years ago. You said F1 was like the Olympics of motor sports.

MA: This team has that objective in mind, to give it all-American representation down the road. You know, at least have one American driver on the team. Since you’re competing in that international field, I compare it to the Olympics because there’s a lot of national pride from all the competitors. I remember when I was fortunate enough to win a F1 race anywhere in the world, when I was on the top of the podium, the U.S. national anthem was played.

In Formula One, pretty much every single race is happening in a different country. Fortunately, the U.S. now has three of them after the explosion of interest that we have seen in Formula One.

You should walk my walk, Quinn. People that you would never, ever think would know anything about Formula One, with Cadillac as a team, they ask how everything is going. It gives you a lot of courage. Whatever effort has to be put forth is all worth it.

QK: For yourself, personally, after all the work your son Michael put in to even get a possible team in place before it became all Cadillac F1. And then to have achieved this entry. What’s it mean to you now?

MA: I’m a minute part of all of this. But I feel that I contributed at the beginning to get things going. And there’s a lot of pride. I love motor sports in general like no one ever. Maybe somebody has loved it as much, but never more than me. And now to be part of something historic.

General Motors was never officially part of Formula One before.I tell the story that I got to meet Zora Arkus-Duntov, who was called the “Father of the Corvette,” back in the 60s. [Duntov turned GM’s Corvettes into racing cars.] He and I gravitated to one another because we were both immigrants and did well in the sport. And he understood the importance of Formula One.

I kept saying, “Zora, you gotta get General Motors into Formula One.” He said, “Oh Mario, I speak, I speak. No one hear me now.” But now they heard. The people in charge, the personalities at the top, see the value of it. It’s a great commitment from GM. And the sport, I think, will be better off for it.

Formula 1, the most renowned auto racing competition, is gearing up for the first race of its World Championship season this weekend.

Metro Detroit fans, in particular, have a new reason to watch. For the first time, General Motors is entering the competition, while Ford is returning to F1 after a long absence.

Ford’s grand reveal

Earlier this year, the Ford Motor Company turned the Michigan Central station into a gala event attended by thousands, with millions more viewing it online.

It was all to celebrate a new paint scheme.

Specifically, the latest colors for the cars of Ford’s racing team partner, Red Bull Formula 1— a team that has won multiple F1 championships.

Ford Executive Chairman Bill Ford Jr. told the crowd that racing is in the Dearborn-based automaker’s blood.

“125 years ago, my great grandfather Henry Ford won a race right here in Detroit to help launch the Ford Motor Company,” he said. “Alongside Red Bull, we intend to make history again. And to quote my uncle, Henry Ford II, ‘let’s go like hell.’”

Ford is helping Red Bull build its own engine, a process that’s taken years.

Reasons for Ford’s return

The automaker’s global director of racing, Mark Rushbrook, says rule changes mandating different types of chassis and new hybrid engines drew Ford to F1.

But he also notes that there’s been an explosion of interest in Formula 1 in the U.S.

It’s been sparked by Brad Pitt’s recent feature film about F1 and the Netflix TV show “Drive to Survive.”

Rushbrook says that makes investing in the series worthwhile for both the company and people looking to buy a Ford. 

“In Formula 1 we’re gonna have a great audience, great diversity in that audience. But there’s so much innovation and tech transfer that will make it onto our vehicles that we sell to our customers,” he said.

GM joins the race

It’s been more than two decades since Ford was in F1.

And now, for the first time ever, the pinnacle of racing includes Ford’s crosstown competitor, General Motors.

“We took the decision to come into Formula 1 before GM did because we wanted to race against Ferrari, Mercedes and we knew Audi was coming in,” Rushbrook said. “We believe it’s great that GM is coming in with Cadillac. It’s not necessarily a rivalry, per se.” 

Starting from scratch

GM, in fact, faces additional challenges.

Ford is joining the established Red Bull team. But the head of Cadillac’s F1 effort, team principal Graeme Lowdon, says General Motors is creating an entire Formula 1 car, plus eventually an engine, completely from scratch. 

“This team has grown from a sheet of paper, literally a blank sheet of paper, he said.”

Cadillac had to design and build a car while hiring enough people to staff a F1 team that typically employs 1000 people, including engineers, attorneys, marketers and others.

Lowdon likens it to the complexity and compressed timeframe of the Apollo project to land a human on the moon.

But although it will be based in the U.S., Lowdon said on the official F1 podcast “Beyond the Grid” the team is still grooming U.S. driving talent.

“Because we talk to the fans we know it’s something that they want to see—an American driver in an American car, ultimately with an American engine,” Lowdon said. “But this is Formula 1. You can’t go for second best just because it ticks some other box, because you’re not going to win.”

A dream come true

Cadillac made it to the track for test sessions earlier this year, but they faced some difficulty on the way.

Formula 1’s management initially rejected U.S. race team owner Michael Andretti’s joint bid with Cadillac to enter the series. The team was accepted after both Michael Andretti and a high-level F1 management official stepped down.

Some in Congress had also threatened to launch an anti-trust investigation, claiming F1 should not be allowed to hold races in the U.S. and then forbid a U.S. automaker from entering the series.

Cadillac kept an Andretti presence in the fold, appointing Michael Andretti’s father, legendary racer Mario Andretti, a board member of the team.

Cadillac even named its first Formula 1 car’s serial number after him, the MAC-26, as in Mario Andretti Cadillac of 2026.

Andretti says the result fulfills a dream he’s had since the 1960’s.

That’s when he says he met Zora Arkus-Duntov, who had turned GM’s Corvettes into race cars. 

“He knew the importance of F1,” Andretti remembered. “I kept saying, ‘Zora, you gotta get General Motors into Formula 1.’ He said, ‘Oh Mario, I speak, I speak. No one hear me.’ But now they heard.”

And GM officials say finally entering F1’s first race in Australia does not mean Cadillac has reached the finish line.

They say it’s just the start.

President Trump lashed out at the U.S. Supreme Court after it ruled his use of certain tariffs was illegal.

Trump noted he had other options, including blocking all trade with other nations.

“I can destroy the trade. I can destroy the country,” the president said. “I’m even allowed to impose a foreign country-destroying embargo. I can embargo. I can do anything I want. But I can’t charge $1.”

Trump later said he would impose a new global 15% tariff, though it initially began at 10%.

Congress would have to extend the tariff in about five months. The president could potentially get around that provision by announcing a new round of levies at that time.

Many businesses are weighing the impact of the tariff upheaval, including Detroit’s Big 3 automakers.

The head of the trade association MichAuto, Glenn Stevens, Jr., says car companies had anticipated the High Court’s decision.

The following interview has been edited for clarity and length. 

Glenn Stevens, Jr.: It was pretty much assumed that the justices would rule this way based on some of the preliminary arguments. We also felt that there would be a response from the administration that they might use additional or new tools if the Supreme Court ruled this way. And we have seen the president state that. I think it does reaffirm the power of Congress according to the U.S. Constitution, in the case of this particular act. But it leaves a lot of uncertainty with our industries and in our economy.

Quinn Klinefelter, WDET News: The High Court ruled on the reciprocal tariffs on other countries. But they’re still allowing levies imposed ostensibly to protect national security. The 25% tariffs on imported vehicles and auto parts still stands, except for imports covered under the North American trade deal. So, how do you see the Supreme Court decision affecting the auto industry in particular?

GS: It affects a portion of it. But not by any stretch all of the tariffs and trade deals that have been put in place since Jan. 20 of last year when the America First Trade Policy Act was issued. Yes, the national security tariffs remain in place. The unfair trade practice tariffs remain in place. Those are very tied heavily to China. Those are significant. But anything that did deal with this Emergency Powers Act has been struck down now.

What happens from here, we don’t know. There will be court challenges. The question of whether companies will be able to get a rebate, so to speak, on what they paid, there was no direction from the court on that. So, again, we have a lot of uncertainty moving forward. And then we have a new wild card, which we anticipated, where the president said that he’d use fair trade and anti-dumping subsidy tariffs. And there’s a whole process for that.

QK: And how would that affect the auto industry?

GS: It’s such a complex supply chain. It depends on where the vehicles are assembled. It depends on what is the country of origin where the components come from. For example, a lot of the parts and the components are still exempt on this continent under the current USMCA agreement. But if you’re importing parts from other countries outside of that agreement, it does impact you, the 25% on imported vehicles does apply. So it’s actually quite complex and has been for some time. And this may muddle it up a little bit more.

QK: The trade deal between the US, Mexico, and Canada was coming up for review this year. It’s vital for automakers in particular, considering the cross-pollination of parts and vehicles between the three countries. But with this new Supreme Court decision, do you think the president may have a lot less leverage to push for a new USMCA deal that he would like?

GS: I’m not so sure about the less leverage. What I do know is our organization and many others that are related to the industry, we remain steadfast that we need to get to a renewed and strengthened USMCA agreement. We are stronger together with Canada and Mexico in the current supply chain.

Are modifications and some things needed to be adjusted? Yes. Where that goes, we’re not sure. Discussions are at a bit of a stalemate. But we have quite a bit of runway yet up to July 1st with regards to that.

QK: Canada reached a deal recently with China to sell some Chinese vehicles in that country. The Ford Motor Company has talked about perhaps trying to set up their own deal with Chinese automakers. General Motors has said they did not want that type of a thing. In light of what’s happened with tariffs now, how do you think all that might play out?

GS: Let’s look at the Canada situation first. Prime Minister Carney has a tentative agreement with China to import a small quantity, a very controlled number, of electric vehicles. That was a significant development that has drawn some criticism from the White House. It may complicate things. Again, I underscore that it’s tentative. There are a lot of other things going on with regards to trade and we’re not really certain where this is going right now.

QK: Some automotive analysts have forecast that the impact of tariffs would force car companies to raise prices on new vehicles this year. Now we have this Supreme Court decision. Even if it only affects the auto industry to an extent, as you said, it does not totally rid it of any of the difficulties companies might suffer from having tariffs. So where do you see it going now in terms of potential price increases?

GS: That’s hard to say. It’s probably not going to impact things too directly. At this point, most of the companies have absorbed as much of the increases they can within their supply chains. Affordability of vehicles is an issue. The average in our country is about $50,000 for a new vehicle. That’s a high number. Anyone who sells, distributes, or makes vehicles in this country is very hesitant to raise those prices any further. We have seen some creep.

We’ve seen some certain charges increase, like destination charges on the delivery of a vehicle, and that’s been one way the extra cost has been passed through. But there haven’t been significant increases. Most of the time in any type of consumer product, when prices go up, they don’t tend to come down too quickly. So that’s not good for the consumer.

QK: One of the things you’ve mentioned several times is the uncertainty of the situation. I’ve heard many business executives over the last year or so complain that one of the hardest things about tariffs is the uncertainty they create for people trying to make a business plan. Now we also have this Supreme Court ruling. In your view, is this making it even more uncertain now?

GS: It could, yes. The key words the in last year have been instability and uncertainty. If you apply those two words to just about anything, they’re not good. Especially if you apply them to the automotive industry. It is a long lead time, complex supply chain business that requires stability and certainty to make capital decisions, to look at its workforce, to look at supply chains. We do have new tariffs now. That doesn’t give stability and certainty.

It’s a story that sounds all-too-familiar to many in Michigan.

A father faces criminal charges after allegedly ignoring his teenaged son’s cries for counseling and instead buying him a high-powered gun as a Christmas present. The teen is accused of using the weapon to kill four people and wound more than half-a-dozen others at a local high school.

But this is not the case of Jennifer and James Crumbley, who were convicted of involuntary manslaughter after their son went on a deadly rampage at Oxford High School.

Instead it’s the start of a trial for Georgia resident Colin Gray, charged with second-degree murder because of a school shooting committed by his then-14-year-old son in 2024.

Criminal justice reporter Chamian Cruz is covering the trial for WABE public radio in Atlanta. She says the case echoes the circumstances surrounding the Crumbleys and Oxford High.

The following interview has been edited for clarity and length.

Chamian Cruz, WABE News: Right now jury selection is happening for the father of Colt Gray. He was a student at Apalachee High School who’s accused of fatally shooting two students and two teachers. His father was charged because he’s accused of gifting his son an AR-15 for Christmas the year before. And that was the gun that was allegedly used in the shooting.

Quinn Klinefelter, WDET News: It does sound like there’s similarities with the Crumbley case. Was the shooter targeting particular people? Did he just seem to be operating at random? How did it all happen?

CC: Authorities say that the year before the shooting happened, police went to Gray’s home and questioned him and his father about online threats that he had made about committing a mass shooting. And it’s alleged that even after the police spoke to them, the father bought that gun for his son.

Authorities have said that Colt Gray was able to hide the gun in his backpack, take it on the school bus. He just wrapped a poster around [the barrel, which was sticking out of his pack.]It doesn’t really seem like he targeted anyone in particular. School had just started, they were about a month into the new school year. And he had recently transferred to that school.

But we do know that he had told his parents that he was having mental health issues and he wanted help. He begged his parents to take him to a mental institution. But for one reason or another, he wasn’t getting that help. That’s when the shooting took place.

QK: Did he survive the shooting? Was he taken into custody?

CC: He did survive the shooting. He is at a juvenile detention center right now. But he is being charged as an adult and he’s facing 55 charges. Both him and his father have pleaded not guilty. And I do think it’s important to point out that the teenager is waiting for his father’s trial to be over. And then his attorneys have said that they’re interested in offering him a plea deal.

QK: In Michigan they had charged Crumbley’s father with involuntary manslaughter. Is it a similar charge there?

CC: Yes. The father is facing 29 charges and they include second degree murder, involuntary manslaughter, reckless conduct, and child cruelty.

QK: You said jury selection is just getting underway. But there’s often preliminary hearings and other filings where evidence is revealed. Sometimes you get an idea of how attorneys might argue a case. Do you get any sense of how they might defend the father in this shooting? In Michigan they had said that James Crumbley, the father of the Oxford High shooter, really had no inkling of what his son might do or was capable of doing. Is there a similar argument being made in the Georgia case?

CC: There was one motion that focused on statements the father made to police after his son was arrested. What came to light from that was that his son had written an apology letter before the shooting took place. And the father had also sent him text messages saying, “Don’t do it.” So he was aware of what was happening.

QK: Has the prosecutor or the judge there referenced the Crumbley case? Something akin to, “We’re charging this particular father in this way because of the precedent set by the trial in Michigan?”

CC: They haven’t specifically brought up the case, no.

QK: What’s the reaction been among people in the local area in Georgia in terms of whether or not the father should be charged?

CC: I do think that people in the community here feel like the father should be charged because he didn’t secure the weapon. The biggest thing that has happened after the shooting is that lawmakers have passed a lot of bills trying to beef-up school security. There are metal detectors now at the schools. And they’re trying other ways to make the schools safer, to make sure that guns aren’t able to be brought in.

They only charged the father in this case. I know that he and Colt Gray’s mom were divorced and the son was living with the father at the time of the shooting, but the mom called the school before the shooting happened to warn them. Somehow she knew that this was happening or going to happen.

QK: The mother actually tried to warn the school that the son was going to do the shooting?

CC: I think that Colt Gray sent a text message to her letting her know that he was going to do it. The biggest thing is that he wanted help at the time. He had told his parents he wanted to go to counseling or be taken to a mental institution. And he didn’t get that mental health help. So, like the Michigan case, the parents were aware that he was struggling but didn’t address it.

A Michigan lawmaker says he will continue calling for higher fees and tougher regulation of landfills in the state.

Michigan state Senator Darrin Camilleri pressed for the legislation last year as environmental officials weighed whether to renew the license of the Wayne Disposal site in Van Buren Township. Ownership also wanted to increase the size of the landfill by 24%.

The landfill became embroiled in controversy after its owners initially planned to accept toxic material left over from the first atomic bomb project.

Michigan’s Department of Environment, Great Lakes and Energy (EGLE) recently approved the site’s vertical expansion. But Camilleri says that result is not sitting well with those who live near the site.

The following interview has been edited for clarity.

Michigan state Sen. Darrin Camilleri: Just like my constituents, I am deeply disappointed and frustrated that EGLE decided to expand this toxic waste facility that sits in the middle of our communities. It’s something we’ve been fighting against for many years now. I’m trying my best to regulate it at the state level. But we have not been able to push these regulatory bills through the entire process. Renewing its license is just another slap in the face to my communities. They have said that they do not want to have these types of facilities in their backyard.

The toxic waste that we are getting from all over the country should not be dumped right here in Michigan. That’s been our number one calling point. Michigan is not your dumping ground and we should be doing more to push back against these types of facilities. So of course, when we heard about the permit getting approved, my residents and I were just devastated.

Quinn Klinefelter, WDET News: Michigan regulators said they had to address issues raised by the public. But they added that those issues could not be the basis for denying the landfill a license. Regulators say the facility doesn’t present any hazard to public health or the environment based on their monitoring of air, groundwater, etc. in and near the site. With all that being the case, do you see any other options for those who would be concerned about this expansion? Or is it just a done deal and live with it now?

DC: We have won in court when it came to the nuclear waste that came out of the Manhattan Project in New York and keeping it out of Michigan. Our local community leadership, including our mayors and supervisors, led the charge against those shipments and won in court. So there are options on the table to halt this type of material from coming into Michigan, but we do need to do more.

That’s why I  introduced bills further regulating landfills. We passed them out of the state senate and they’re currently sitting in the state house with no opportunities that we know of, so far, for movement. House Republicans have basically indicated that they are not interested in regulating these facilities. Which is really frustrating, because this is not a Democratic or Republican issue.

When I have town halls on these topics in Van Buren Township or in Wayne County, Republicans as well as Democrats come asking for change. We delivered that promise out of the state senate. And I’m going to keep trying this term and, if not this term, we’re going to try again next term as well.

QK: Some people blame the so-called “tipping” fees that Michigan charges for waste disposal, which are very low compared to other states or countries, for making Michigan a magnet for trash. You have talked about raising those tipping fees. A few months ago, I spoke with Michigan House Speaker Matt Hall about it. He told me that raising the fees would be “a kind of tax on people” for their trash. What’s your reaction to Hall’s argument?

DC: When we look at the reasons why we have so much out-of-state waste coming into Michigan, whether it’s regular trash or toxic trash, it’s because we have had so many low fees for far too long. Michigan has the lowest tipping fees in the nation. And that is a problem for us if you want to rein-in these large corporations that are sending their trash and their waste to Michigan. I believe that it’s time to raise the tipping fees.

And even in the proposal that we passed out of the senate, Michigan would still charge one of the lowest fees of any state in the country. But it would add more revenue back to the environmental cleanup fund and also, critically, put some of that money generated from out-of-state companies trying to send trash here and return the funding back to local communities in Michigan.

So this actually is something that would benefit our local community leadership. And it’s something that I think would be a long-term deterrent to some of these out-of-state companies continuing to use Michigan as a dumping ground.

QK: When someone like Speaker Hall argues that higher tipping fees equal another tax on people for their trash, what’s your response to that?

DC: That’s just not accurate. The fees that we’re talking about are put onto large companies. We need to hold large companies accountable for dumping their trash and their toxic waste in our communities. And then the fees that are generated from that sector go directly back into our communities to help our local governments, as well as EGLE, clean up other toxic and hazardous waste sites all over the state of Michigan. So, it’s a win-win. And there really is no reason for us to not engage in this debate. We can have a back and forth on the number and the price of the potential tipping fee. But to simply say no without a conversation is not serious policymaking.

QK: I’ve gotten different narratives from different state regulators about just how much room Michigan actually has for more landfills. Some say the state won’t have any more space for them after the next decade or two. Others say the state will always be able to build new landfills if it’s necessary. Do you have any view about that situation?

DC: One of the things that we would require in our legislation is a statewide hazardous waste management plan. We’ve not had one done since the 1980’s. And as part of that plan, I would require state regulators to map out and examine this exact question. How much waste can we take in? How much room is there for additional types of facilities? Or have we already met our cap, which is what I hope is the case. And how do we ensure that we can prioritize Michigan waste first before accepting all this out-of-state and out-of-country material? Our regulators have not really done enough to plan-out the future. This is one thing that our legislation would address.

It’s critical that we continue this conversation. Because communities like mine in Downriver and western Wayne County do have a significant amount of hazardous waste and regular landfills across our region. And we want to make sure that we are protecting our environment, taking care of our communities and investing back into them so they are the types of places where people want to move to.

Having one of these facilities in a densely populated area is just not the right move. My goal is to ensure that if they are going to exist, that they are regulated to a higher standard and that it does cost more money to send waste to Michigan. Because right now, we are way too cheap and it’s way too attractive for these out-of-state companies to dump their waste here. We’re saying enough is enough.

The impact of the recent series of fatal encounters between some Minnesota residents and agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement is being felt in metro Detroit.

Several law enforcement officials in the region say they do not want to cooperate with deportation operations conducted by ICE.

That includes Washtenaw County Sheriff Alyshia Dyer.

She says Washtenaw sheriff deputies and ICE agents often have very different agendas.

The following interview has been edited for clarity.

Alyshia Dyer: It really puts [police] in conflict with the communities they serve. It’s our responsibility, regardless of immigration status, to keep everyone safe. We need our local communities to trust us. As local police, we rely on the public trust that we build in the communities we serve. The way that immigration enforcement operates is completely different.

And it’s not our duty or responsibility to enforce federal immigration law. We don’t ask about immigration status. We don’t get involved in immigration matters. And especially in this climate, where people are so afraid to even leave their homes, we don’t want to be involved in that.

Quinn Klinefelter, WDET News: As a lay person, it has always seemed to me that federal issues would take precedence over local policing matters. Is it legal for your deputies to basically avoid helping a federal agency like ICE?

AD: Absolutely. The Michigan constitution, as well as our state and local laws, make it very clear that we have a duty to protect and serve all residents of the county. We take an oath as well to do that. And it doesn’t say only if they have valid immigration status. Constitutional rights apply to everyone. And we are not trained nor given resources, nor is it our priority, to look into immigration matters.

The 287 (g) program [which allows local police to act as immigration enforcement agents] is a voluntary program. It is a choice to enter into that program or not. There is no mandate that we have to do it. So we are exercising our discretion and not entering into that agreement. We are going to stay focused on local public safety issues. And, honestly, our resources are already stretched thin.

QK: I would imagine there’s additional costs, financial and otherwise, that a department has to bear when it is working with ICE.

AD: There have been a number of rulings that basically say holding somebody in jail after a judge has ordered them released so that ICE can come pick them up, is a serious issue. It raises liability concerns for the county. Agencies have been sued for doing that. And it’s not our responsibility.

My responsibility as sheriff is to make sure we enforce local and state law, keep the county safe and run the county jail. If a judge orders somebody to be released, they are to be released. And it is not a mandate nor, in my opinion, good practice to keep them in jail pending transfer to immigration officials. If we were to hold somebody in jail solely based on an immigration detainer, which is not a judicial warrant, and we keep them past the release date, then we risk liability for the entire county.

QK: At this point many people have seen the viral videos of ICE tactics in action. They seem to create fear, even among those who have not broken the law. Victims are afraid to call 911, witnesses don’t want to talk, crimes are not reported. Beyond not cooperating with ICE, what can be done by departments like yours to try to restore that trust with the public?

AD: What we have done is made it very clear to the community where our values lie and that we will not be working with ICE. We have maintained a clear separation. We also do not ask about immigration status. So when anyone needs help, they can call 911. But because the national administration remains obsessed with mass deportation, it’s hard for local police. People are fearful. And I have no doubt in my mind that people are not calling the police when they need help because they’re worried. Regardless of what we say, there’s still that fear.

People have confused us with ICE. Them wearing masks and hiding their identities and the tactics they use are not best practices. That’s not what we do at the local level. We try really hard to support all residents. We work closely with immigrant rights groups. I’ve done a number of education town halls, making sure people understand their rights.

Honestly, it puts local law enforcement in an impossible situation. They need the trust of the public to effectively do their job. And when federal immigration agents come in and take someone and detain them, they’re not dealing with the aftermath, right? I’ve had residents in Washtenaw County, people with legal status or who are citizens even, that have said, “Should I carry a birth certificate with me? Is it safe to send my kid to school?”

It is really hard to be sheriff and be responsible for the public safety of a county and know that, unfortunately, there are people in the county that are going to be targeted by immigration enforcement, sometimes solely for just existing. This idea that they’re only going after people with violent felonies or serious criminal records is not true. I have seen the opposite. I’ve also seen cases where they have mistaken someone because they were Latino and they assumed that they were someone undocumented.

Over the years law enforcement has pushed back on that. It’s racial profiling. Seeing these situations play out, not just in Washtenaw County but across the country, is really troubling. I think that local law enforcement and sheriffs have a responsibility to be a voice of reason and assure the public that we are not going to operate how ICE is operating.

QK: You’d raised concerns recently on your personal Facebook page about ICE targeting parents at school bus stops and reportedly detaining a mother in front of her child. Spokespeople for ICE dispute that account, calling it one of the “lies” that put their agents at risk. You later said the report you posted was inaccurate. But you say that doesn’t diminish your worries about how ICE typically operates now compared to a few years ago.

AD: There was a point in time where there was a separation between just focusing on enforcement removal operations and the work that Homeland Security was doing. And there were important things they were doing involving human trafficking and ensuring survivors of violent crime could get citizenship status. Now all of the resources are focused on deporting as many people as possible. I know people that have since retired from some of these agencies, that have said there’s a pressure for quotas. They are told, “You need to deport this many people a month.” That is abhorrent. That’s also a problem.

A new report finds that the rise in requests to build huge data centers across the country could reshape the size and cost of the electric grid in Michigan.

The Union of Concerned Scientists estimates that within five years data centers could require well over half of all the new power demand in the state.

One of the report’s co-authors, Lee Shaver, specifically analyzed the likely impact of data centers on Michigan.

Shaver says the question is not how much new electricity Michigan will need, it’s who will pay for it.

The following interview has been edited for clarity.

Lee Shaver: The utilities have what’s called an obligation to serve. So they are going to build enough generation capacity to be able to meet the demand from data centers. The way that the system is supposed to work is that whoever causes that new demand pays for it. But the amount of demand we’re seeing from data centers kind of upsets the way that these things have been done historically. There’s a much higher likelihood that customers other than the data center would end up paying for a portion of those costs.

The big difference is just how much larger the data centers are. As an example, the total size of the data center that DTE Electric was just approved to connect to their grid in Saline Township would be 1.4 gigawatts, which is equivalent to the energy demand of over a million homes.

If could take decades for a million people to move into a new city. It’s slow growth that the utility can plan for over a long timeframe. Those costs can be spread out very easily. But when you’ve got a million homes showing up in a community in less than two years, that’s a massive amount of growth. There’s tons of new infrastructure that has to be built. And the regulation just can’t accommodate that level of growth without the way that those costs are covered being distorted.

Quinn Klinefelter, WDET News: The Michigan Public Service Commission says the agreement between the data center and DTE includes strong protections against a big rate increase for customers. I’ve also heard that some utilities require owners of data centers to pay what’s called a “large load tariff.” Just what is that?

LS: The word tariff is a bit misleading, especially since tariffs have been in the news so much. But when a utility talks about a large load tariff, they’re talking about a set of terms and conditions that data centers have to agree to in order to be provided with electric service.

And there are a lot of really good and positive things in those tariffs that utilities are proposing, like minimum contract terms, minimum monthly billing amounts. The challenge is that, especially in Michigan, especially with the DTE data center that was just approved, there’s just not enough detail that has been made public from these large load tariffs and from the applications that the data centers themselves are submitting for the public to have assurance that the costs are actually going to be covered.

QK: Is there a point where you finally find that out one way or the other? Does it have to be when the centers are operating or can it be determined while they’re constructed?

LS: There’s several points in the process at which that needs to be done. Obviously the large load tariff needs to be in place when that contract between the data center and the utility is signed. There has to be transparency. A lot of that information, though not all of it, should be public so that it can be reviewed. And there should be regular reporting on at least an annual basis. The utility and the data center should be providing information back to the regulators to say, here’s how much energy was provided, here’s how much it cost, here’s how it was paid for. And at the same time, look at how the billing of other customers changed over that same time period.

QK: Does it take until the things are actually up and going before you can really find that out? Or can you tell that during the construction process?

LS: You need both pieces. You’re not going to get assurance that it happened properly until after things are up and running. But if you don’t have a good framework in place at the beginning to collect and share that data, you would never get any reassurance that it’s been done properly.

QK: Beyond purely financial considerations, I’ve heard some concerns about the possible health or other costs that could be associated with these massive data centers. In your view, is it reasonable to be worried about some of those effects?

LS: Absolutely. What we know today is that any new data centers coming in the near term are going to result in more fossil fuels being burned to provide them with power. And when we burn fossil fuels, there’s emissions of heat trapping carbon dioxide, nitrous oxide, sulfur dioxide and other pollutants that have measurable health impacts. Our report found that due to data centers being built over the next 5-10 years, there’s close to $20 billion worth of health damages that would be caused from air pollution, most of which would happen directly in Michigan. And the global climate damages are estimated to be over $400 billion across the 2026-2050 timeframe.

QK: Having analyzed the issue, what, in your view, is the best strategy for a state like Michigan to follow in regards to where or how many data centers are allowed in?

LS: We didn’t speak to whether or not specific data centers should be allowed to operate, but we do make a couple of recommendations from the policy side.

In addition to the steps that need to be taken to ensure that data centers pay for their own costs, we also recommend what we’re calling a CO2 reduction policy. We found that’s necessary because, while Michigan does have some really progressive clean energy and renewable energy standards, with the growth in data centers, those standards are not enough to continue Michigan on the path to reaching net zero carbon emissions. A CO2 reduction policy would essentially set a limit on how much fossil fuel can be burned in the state of Michigan. And by enacting that limit, over time combustion of fossil fuels will be reduced and all of those negative health impacts would diminish.

QK: Considering the current makeup of Congress and the White House, in your view, how realistic is it that such prohibitions could actually get through?

LS: Our recommendation is actually at the state level, for exactly that reason. And our modeling shows that regardless of policies elsewhere, if Michigan were to enact a CO2 reduction policy, it would have significant impacts on reducing emissions in Michigan.

The Detroit Auto Show roars into Huntington Place this week for media previews and other events before opening to the public this weekend.

Organizers say this year’s car extravaganza differs from the others in its more-than-a-century history.

Executive Director Sam Klemet says the auto show is filled with the kinds of hands-on activities customers simply cannot duplicate using the internet.

The following interview has been edited for clarity.

Sam Klemet: It’s something for everyone. We’ve talked about the various iterations of what the show has been over the last number of years. And I think it was originally considered more of a media show and then it’s been identified as a consumer show. And I’m really looking at it now as more of a content show.

We’re still going to have some special reveals from some of our OEM partners and some other specialty vehicles. We’re going to have some great news conferences as part of our Mobility Global Forum with newsmakers from all over the world. Of course, we have the charity preview where we’ll raise millions of dollars for local children’s charities. And then we open to the public.

It’s a chance for everyone to come under one roof and see kind of what the auto industry is about, where it’s going, and also what the city of Detroit is about.

Quinn Klinefelter, WDET News: You have a section this year that deals with off-road vehicles and experiences connected with them. What is that all about?

SK: It’s called our Michigan Overland Adventure. Obviously in the state of Michigan there’s a great culture, particularly in the northern part of the state, where people want to do off-roading. There’s a lot of camping. There’s a lot of trails. And we want to tap into that heritage and show off the modern vehicles that really are tapping into that type of lifestyle.

The Michigan Overland adventure has all kinds of support from OEMs like Ford, General Motors and Toyota, among others. We also have a group called the AEV, which has these incredible modified vehicles that go off-road. It’s a really exciting space. It’ll be a cool setup in terms of the display. It really showcases that outdoor culture.

QK: Back in the day people would come to the auto show, look at the vehicles and see if maybe there was one they wanted to buy. Is there more of a thrust now to give people these “experiences” as opposed to them just looking and going, “Man, that’s a cool car?”

SK: Absolutely. I think that’s how people’s relationships with cars are now. They want to see every intricacy of it. They want to see the technology and the dashboard. They want to get under the hood, they wanna see the tires, they wanna see every bit of the vehicle. And our show offers them that access. Not only to see the ones that are being displayed on the floor, but to get into them on our test tracks and feel what they’re like to a degree. The show is very much more hands-on than think what it’s traditionally been, a lot more activations and engagement.

QK: You yourself were a bit hands-on recently, riding along with a caravan of custom cars coming to the Detroit Auto Show from California.

SK: This is the centennial of Route 66 and we kicked off the auto show in Santa Monica. We have nine historic vehicles, Detroit-based vehicles, that made the drive all the way along Route 66. They’re ending the trip in Detroit, which isn’t a part of Route 66. But we’re the Motor City and we’ve got a great partnership with the group that’s doing the drive, America’s Automotive Trust.

Those vehicles that are coming across country will be on display in our concourse at the auto show. We’ll have videos from the entire ride. If you follow us on social media, you can see the day-to-day recaps of what that experience has been like.

And I think that’s been great because it connects our auto show across the country. And along the way, we’re telling these incredible stories of people’s relationships with vehicles, their relationship with driving and how it all connects back to Detroit. It’s been an exciting way to kick off the auto show this year.

QK: It’s no secret that the automotive industry has faced some uncertainty over the past year with President Trump’s use of tariffs and rolling back some regulations. Some consumers used to say that they thought of the auto show as kind of a one-stop gigantic dealer showroom. They would actually buy vehicles after they saw them there. In this current climate, do you see those kinds of sales continuing now at the auto show? Or is there a different purpose for such an event?

SK: I think this is a place first and foremost where people can come and see the cars that are on the market and see what’s coming in 2026 and beyond. Having an event like our Mobility Global Forum is a perfect stage to get a pulse on the industry, where people from all over the world come and talk about the direction automakers are going. And consumers get to interact with these vehicles, whether they’re in the market to buy one or they just want to see how the technology is evolving. I think that’s what an auto show is all about.

But as we evolve, we also want to be a place where people can come down even if they’re not in a market for a car, to learn about the vehicles and also have some fun. That’s why we added so much more entertainment, so much more arts and culture to the show, just kind of on the periphery of what we have on the main floor with our vehicles.

One of the new elements we have this year is our Visit Detroit interactive experience. That’s intended to engage young people with the auto industry. We’ve had people like Ford’s CEO talk about the need to have more auto technicians across the country. And we see this as an opportunity to engage young people in the science, technology, engineering, and math skills that are needed for those careers. So we serve a multipurpose, not only to showcase vehicles, but hopefully to uplift the industry at large through workforce development and other things.

QK: Some people I’ve spoken with say the auto show sounds nice, but they can look up all the details about the vehicles on the internet. So, they say, why even have an auto show? What’s your response to that?

SK: You can get all the information in the world online, there’s no doubt about that. But to actually interact and see the vehicles in person, I think, really does change a perspective. So I think the more that people can engage with these vehicles, the better. And actually I would encourage people to do some research about them before they come down to the auto show. It’ll give them a fuller picture and then they can most closely identify the vehicles that they want to key-in on when they get there. So I think that you can blend all of those things.

I know there’s a big push for nostalgia nowadays. But I would tell people that the 2026 auto show is not a show like we’ve had before. It’ll be very unique, a very different positive engagement experience that we haven’t had in a number of years. I think it’ll be a show that really resets the tone of what a Detroit Auto Show is all about.

We’ve paid attention to every single detail. From the minute people walk into the concourse to the minute they get to the back of the hall, everything is much more immersive. We have more brands on the floor. We have more vehicles. We have more opportunities for people to engage with content. I just think it’s bigger. It’s more robust. There’s more to do. There’s more to see. And there’s more information to be gathered.