Donald Trump has been elected the next president of the United States and will return to The White House in 2025. As pundits will continue to debate the strategies of the campaigns, President-elect Trump will begin to assemble his transition teams. Shortly, the focus will shift to how a Trump Administration will govern and what policies and changes will be implemented on the biggest issues Americans face.

Michigan State University experts are available to comment on how the president-elect could impact issues when they take office in January. Specifically, MSU experts can comment on the following issues ranging from the economy and immigration to education and foreign policy.

Economy and food prices

David Ortega, professor and Noel W. Stuckman Chair in Food Economics and Policy at MSU’s College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, is an expert in agricultural and food policy. He can comment about the complexities of food prices and how the next president could impact prices.
Contact: dlortega@msu.edu

“In advising the next president on high food prices, it’s important to understand that they have limited influence over food prices, especially in the short term. However, there are strategic actions that can help address some of the underlying causes in the long run and provide immediate relief to those most affected. One critical area they could focus on is ensuring our food system is resilient to future shocks, like climate change. For example, investments in agricultural innovations can better prepare our producers for a changing climate and help reduce labor costs, which are significant drivers of food prices.

“Another key focus should be on strengthening and expanding social safety nets like the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program, or SNAP, which directly supports the most vulnerable and ensures food affordability. Expanding these types of programs will provide critical assistance to those most affected by higher prices. Finally, fostering economic growth is key to helping wages keep pace with rising costs. As wages rise, consumers will have more purchasing power, easing the burden of higher food prices.

In my view, making our food system more resilient to future shocks, reinforcing social safety nets and driving economic growth should be central to any strategy on this issue.”

Read more from Ortega.

Immigration and reform

“Immigration is a very complex issue and there has not been sufficient political will to fix it. The last major legislative change to immigration law took place in 1996. The changes we have seen since then have mostly contributed to making the system more complicated, often adding severe restrictions that prevent people from regularizing their immigration status without having to leave the United States. Given the political climate, the outcome of this upcoming election is vital. So far, nobody seems to have an appetite for comprehensive immigration reform. So, we should advocate for small fixes in the application and enforcement of immigration law that could have a major impact.

“For example, in June, the Biden administration announced a program under existing law for Parole in Place for undocumented spouses of U.S. citizens to be able to obtain lawful permanent residence without having to leave the United States and triggering bars for having been living in the United States unlawfully. That program was expected to help over 500,000 people who are eligible for lawful status but barred from processing due to quirks of immigration law. The program was prevented from taking effect due to a lawsuit filed by the state of Texas, so nobody has been helped yet.”

Read more from Thronson.

Foreign policy and national security

“The U.S. should be thinking about its long-term interests in the Middle East in a context of negative public opinion brought about by a generation of direct American intervention, and now, followed by the casualties inflicted by its ally. Other governments allied with the U.S., like Jordan or Saudi Arabia, only ignore the opinions of their publics up to a point. And even if Israel eliminates the leadership and disrupts the organization of groups like Hamas or Hezbollah, the grievances that animated their resistance to Israel, and the U.S., have only been given even deeper meaning. In the end, people judge American foreign policy by what the U.S. has done — or not done.”

Read more from Lucas.

Technology regulation

Anjana Susarla, the Omura-Saxena Professor of Responsible AI in Michigan State University’s Broad College of Business, is an expert in information systems and artificial intelligence. She can comment on how the next president will likely address AI and technology regulation.
Contact: asusarla@broad.msu.edu

“Across the U.S., several states have tried to pass legislation addressing aspects of data privacy. At present, there is a patchwork of statewide initiatives and a lack of comprehensive data privacy legislation at the federal level. The lack of federal data privacy protections is a stark reminder that while the candidates are addressing some of the challenges posed by developments in AI and technology more broadly, a lot still remains to be done to regulate technology in the public interest.

“Thus far, Biden’s AI executive order calls on Congress to adopt privacy legislation, but it does not provide a legislative framework to do so. The Trump White House’s American AI Initiative executive order mentions privacy only in broad terms, calling for AI technologies to uphold “civil liberties, privacy and American values.” The order did not mention how existing privacy protections would be enforced.

Overall, the Biden-Harris administration’s efforts at antitrust and technology regulation seem broadly aligned with the goal of reining in technology companies and protecting consumers. It’s also reimagining monopoly protections for the 21st century. This seems to be the chief difference between the two administrations.”

Read more from Susarla.

Heath and drug administration

Jamie Alan, an associate professor in the Department of Pharmacology and Toxicology at the MSU College of Human Medicine, can comment on how the Trump Administration could affect the Federal Drug Administration.
Contact: alanjami@msu.edu

“Healthcare is complex and hard to navigate for even the most highly trained health care professionals. There is work to be done at the FDA. Whoever fills this role needs to make sure that the FDA is doing their job to protect the public. The person who fills this role should be able to put the interests of the American people above their own and should listen to scientists and healthcare providers. Overseeing the FDA is a big responsibility that should not be taken lightly, and this job should only be filled by a compassionate,empathetic, highly trained, and responsible individual who is willing to evaluate and accept scientific evidence.

“As Robert F. Kennedy Jr. is being discussed to lead the FDA, I would urge the administration to listen to and implement advice from scientists and health care professionals that fill the required prerequisites mentioned. Above all, healthcare is about taking care of people and providing access for all. It’s not a path to power. I would encourage the public to seek information and listen to information from reputable scientists and healthcare providers. While there are always improvements that can be made at government agencies, such as the FDA, placing someone like Mr. Kennedy in charge of this task is irresponsible at best.”

Vouchers and future of education

Josh Cowen, professor of education policy at MSU’s College of Education, is an expert on teacher quality, student and teacher mobility, and evaluations of state and local education programs. He can comment on the future of education and specifically school vouchers.
Contact: jcowen@msu.edu 

“School vouchers are any form of public spending (direct payments, tax credits, savings accounts) that fund private K-12 tuition. “Universal” vouchers just mean anyone is eligible, not lower income families that were recipients in the past. And contrary to public perception, the vast majority of voucher users thus far were already in private school before taxpayers picked up in the check. What this means is that vouchers are generally new costs to state budgets. And at the local district level, the few kids or so who do transfer from public to private school using a voucher, take with them crucial funding while costs like building and maintenance, transportation, and teacher salaries remain. We know that voucher advocates in the long term would like a U.S. Supreme Court ruling mandating vouchers in all states. That would drastically change the way we think about education and its purpose in this country.

“Overall, whoever is in charge of whatever level of government, the most important thing to do is commit to new investment in local communities and in local public schools. The evidence says that works, and I happen to think it’s also the right thing to do.”

Read more from Cowen.

First Amendment and school expression

Frank S. Ravitch, professor of law and the Walter H. Stowers Chair of Law and Religion at Michigan State University’s College of Law, is an expert in the First Amendment’s application in school settings and he can comment on the ways we may continue to see groups challenge First Amendments rights in educational spaces.
Contact: fravitch@law.msu.edu

“Prior to the 1960s, public school prayer was common in some states, and it was connected to significant discrimination against Catholics and other religious groups. Several state courts held that public school prayer violated state constitutions by favoring one religion over others. Still, in many states the practice continued until 1962 and 1963, when the U.S. Supreme Court ruled that school-sponsored classroom prayer and Bible reading violates the First Amendment of the U.S. Constitution. Contrary to assertions made by modern school prayer advocates, however, this does not mean students can never pray in schools. Students have a constitutionally protected right to say private prayers and the school cannot interfere with this unless the prayer somehow infringes on the rights of other students.”

Read more from Ravitch.

Media coverage of protests

"There are commercial reasons why some newsrooms focus on the spectacle and confrontation — the old journalism adage, ‘if it bleeds, it leads,’ still prevails in many newsroom decisions. During the initial weeks of the campus protests, this penchant for sensationalism was reflected by the media’s focus on chaos, clashes and arrests. In breaking news situations, journalists tend to gravitate toward — and directly quote — sources that hold status, like government and university officials. This is because reporters may already have an established relationship with such officials, who often have dedicated media relations teams. And in the case of campus protests in particular, reporters have faced difficulty connecting with protest participants directly.”

Read more from Brown.

Authoritarian politics

Erica Frantz, associate professor of political science at MSU’s College of Social Science, is an expert in authoritarian politics and international conflict. She can comment on questions surrounding what kind of leadership style we could see with a second Trump term.
Contact: frantzer@msu.edu

“Power-hungry leaders like Trump are common. What matters is less the ambitions of such leaders, and more the incentive and capacity of those in their support group to tame them. As an indicator of this, our research shows that when personalist ruling parties hold legislative majorities or curb judicial constraints, there is little that stands in the way of the grab for power. For example, if Republicans were to win a slim Senate majority, they might abolish the filibuster, limiting Democrats’ ability to hold up legislation they opposed.

“Longstanding and wealthy democracies are remarkably resilient to the challenges that confront them. Personalism in the support parties of elected leaders, however, undercuts these protective guardrails. The personalist nature of the Republican Party means that if Trump were to win office again, he is unlikely to face pushback from the party on any issue. 

“All signs indicate that Trump, if reelected, is likely to pursue a power grab by, for example, purging professional bureaucrats, expanding the Supreme Court or using the Insurrection Act to deploy the military against protesters. Party members may even support him in that power grab. With the Republican Party taking a personalist turn under Trump’s spell, democracy in the U.S. will likely suffer under a second Trump term.”

Read more from Frantz.