As soon as the Trump administration assumed office, is has moved swiftly to implement new policies and executive orders — many of which are reversing policies of the Biden administration. Some of these actions are unprecedented with the effects and scope of several actions unknown.  

Michigan State University experts are available to provide commentary on the following topics and issues of high concern:

(Jump to each topic directly by clicking the link)

•       Economy, business and international trade
•       Federal workers and government structure
•       Education policy
•       Immigration and U.S. borders
•       Foreign policy and national security
•       Climate, energy and the environment
•       Diversity, LGBTQ and civil rights
•       First Amendment and technology regulation
•       Health care
•       Legality of actions

Economy, business and international trade

Jason Miller is the interim chair of the Department of Supply Chain Management and the Eli Broad Professor in Supply Chain Management in the Broad College of Business. Miller can comment on various supply chain issues and how tariffs could impact certain industries, including automotive, energy, food and trucking/logistics.
Contact: mill2831@broad.msu.edu

“Even with tariffs on Mexican goods postponed for a month, the motor vehicle and parts sector stands to be the most affected industry by proposed tariffs with Canada in terms of broad economic impacts. Automakers in the Great Lakes will be especially affected, as most Canadian auto parts are destined for plants in Michigan, Ohio, Kentucky and Indiana. The second most affected sector is energy, as Canada exported over $90 billion in crude oil to the USA so far in 2024. Other affected sectors are primary metals such as steel and aluminum, aerospace goods, lumber and fertilizers.”

David Ortega is the Noel W. Stuckman Chair in Food Economics and Policy and professor at MSU’s College of Agriculture and Natural Resources. Ortega is an expert in the decision-making processes of consumers, producers and agribusinesses to better inform food policies and marketing strategies. He can comment on what may be in store for food prices and the agricultural community under the new administration.
Contact: dlortega@msu.edu

“Roughly half of our farm workforce is undocumented, providing the labor-intensive tasks such as planting and harvesting that keep food on our tables. Removing these workers would disrupt our food supply at its most fundamental level. Many overlook that undocumented workers are also key contributors in food processing, transportation and retail. Mass deportations would strain every step, from the farm to the supermarket.

“Undocumented workers fill critical roles that many U.S.-born workers are unwilling or unable to perform. Without this workforce, farms would face severe labor shortages, leading to decreased crop yields and unharvested fields, especially in fruits and vegetables, which depend heavily on human labor. Replacing these workers would drive up labor costs, ultimately leading to higher food prices at grocery stores.”

Antonio Doblas-Madrid is an associate professor of economics in the College of Social Science. Doblas-Madrid is an expert in macro and international economics. He can comment on not only the impact of tariffs and potential trade wars with other countries, but also on fiscal and monetary policy.
Contact: doblasma@msu.edu

“Uncertainty is perhaps highest in fiscal policy, where there has been talk on the one hand of eliminating the federal income tax, which would increase the budget deficit to record levels, to on the other hand sweeping austerity programs favored by Elon Musk, which would be a major force in the opposite direction.

“Regarding monetary policy, Trump has been less accepting of Federal Reserve independence, openly challenging its decisions. This has opened the question of whether the Fed will be able to resist pressure from the Executive, and potentially the Legislative branches. The consensus among economists in this area is that more independent central banks are more hawkish — that is, more willing to raise interest rates to fight inflation. A less independent Fed would be likely to loosen policy, lowering interest rates seeking economic stimulus in the short-run, at the risk of higher inflation in the future.”

Federal workers and government structure

Angela Hallis an associate professor in the School of Human Resources and Labor Relations, where she is an expert on issues relating to employee accountability, inclusive workplaces and skills and technology at work. She can comment on the Jan. 28 directive to federal employees and related concerns.
Contact: athall@msu.edu

“The new directive to federal employees has caused much concern among these workers, many of whom have become accustomed to a remote, or more likely hybrid, work design. Living up to one of his campaign promises, President Trump’s administration has stated that federal workers must return to the office “as soon as practicable.” This change in work policy has heaped additional pressures on federal workers as they navigate new policies related to DEI and to the fear of losing their jobs, as 2 million federal workers were recently offered a payout opportunity to resign (and told that if they did not resign, their positions may still be in jeopardy of being reclassified or eliminated).

“A possible roadblock to this return-to-office mandate is the existing collective bargaining agreements between the federal government and unionized employees which provide for work-from-home arrangements. Union officials have vowed to litigate return-to-office mandates that they interpret as violating valid collective bargaining agreements. Although the Trump administration argues that federal workers should be in the office like many other nonfederal employees, this mandate may not have the intended consequences that the administration anticipates. Such quick and radical changes to work policy may cause the mass departure of the best and brightest employees, as they seek better opportunities outside the federal government. Moreover, those who do remain may feel more anxious, have lower organizational commitment, lower performance, and may also be planning to quit, should they find something better. A mass exodus of career federal employees could result in short-term instability in the federal government as countless years of institutional knowledge suddenly disappear.”

Matt Grossmannis the director of MSU’s Institute for Public Policy and Social Researchand a professor of political science. Grossmann is an expert on issues in American politics, and he can comment on the impact the Trump administration’s actions could have on federal workers.
Contact: grossm63@msu.edu

“Federal workers associated with relevant offices will be affected right away because these offices are being eliminated. In addition to that, Trump has told agencies to investigate businesses and nonprofits who he says are going too far in this regard. Those consequences won’t fully materialize for a while. But there is also a wave against diversity programs right now in a lot of companies and nonprofits in response to the election results, with some using the executive actions to further the retrenchment.

“There have already been people let go in federal government offices. That is the type of executive order that can have a bigger impact, because it directly controls the federal workforce and bureaucracy, and it overturns some actions that President Biden took, also via executive action. So those are the kind that tend to have more action, more results, but you also have a lot of people just anticipating potential impacts and kind of trying to comply in advance, and that makes the reach of the executive orders initially much broader.”

Education policy

Josh Cowen is a professor of education policy in MSU’s College of Education. Cowen’s expertise includes working across the country on policy issues related to school choice, teacher quality and education reform. He can comment on the push for school vouchers and school of choice, as well as the future of education policy.
Contact: jcowen@msu.edu

“This is about Trump pushing school vouchers into states that have not adopted them. The Department of Education and HHS pieces in particular are threats to discretionary funding programs for states. And some of this is just recycled orders/threats from the first Trump term. That said, federal childcare funding is already useable at private providers, and Trump’s other EO earlier in the week paused all that. It’s expanding, not contracting the federal footprint in education and pushing something on to states that they don’t want. So much for states’ rights.

“Both the Trump administration and its adjacent Project 2025 (a “blueprint” for policy and staffing assembled by conservative think tanks) have demanded the elimination of the U.S. Department of Education. They also call for universal school vouchers and an end to “gender ideology” as well as an assortment of attacks on racial justice. The federal education department is the chief national antidiscrimination authority when it comes to schools and colleges. So, ending it — whether Trump is successful doing so or not — is really a dog whistle for ending big oversight programs on discrimination. I’ve called this the ‘politics of humiliation’ and an effort to ‘cast out’ vulnerable children, and I think we’re unfortunately entering a period where that is going to be a priority for this new administration.”

Brendan Cantwell is a professor in the Higher, Adult and Lifelong Education program at the College of Education. Cantwell’s research interest is in the political economy of higher education and he can address topics including organization and governance, policy and academic labor. 
Contact: brendanc@msu.edu

“The Trump administration has issued a set of restrictions that indirectly impact all universities’ capacities to pursue diversity and inclusion programs, which have long been the basic tools for integration and desegregation in higher education. No one knows how serious the follow-through on these threats is going to be, but no university wants to be the first to find out.”

Immigration and U.S. borders

Veronica Tobar Thronson is a clinical professor of law who directs the Immigration Law Clinic at the MSU College of Law. Thronson is an expert who can comment on the impact of immigration law changes.
Contact: veronica.thronson@law.msu.edu

“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.”

Foreign policy and national security

Russell Lucas is a professor at MSU’s James Madison College and the College of Arts and Letters, where he is an expert in foreign policy and Middle Eastern politics. He can comment on the foreign policy goals associated with the Middle East.
Contact: relucas@msu.edu

“The initial pronouncements of the Trump administration – especially that of the U.S. owing the Gaza Strip and expelling the Palestinians from it – are likely most certain to fail.  Instead, 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, Egypt, 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 – especially in the U.S. military moves into doing this. In the end, people judge American foreign policy by what the U.S. has done — or not done.”

Matt Zierler is an associate professor at James Madison College where he is an expert in issues relating to foreign policy, international security, international law and international cooperation. He can comment on the impact of the new administration’s foreign policy objectives.
Contact: zierler@msu.edu

“The issue about renaming is much more political rather than legal. The United States has a process for renaming place names but does not have the authority to rename an international body. So renaming Denali to McKinley is within the United States’ purview, but the Gulf of Mexico is a different issue. Internationally, there have always been differences among countries about what to name specific bodies of water, islands, etc. Again, these are typically political debates. Names reflect culture, history and identity, so the disagreements between countries on what to refer to a place are real, but again it is about politics rather than law.

“Google and other mapmakers are not focused on the law. They want to remain in business and will tend to follow the direction of the countries they are operating in. Thus, depending on where you are accessing a website could determine which place name you are seeing. Does this create confusion? Perhaps to some, but I think it is quite clear to most that names are symbolic. And individual states will make their own decisions as to what to call a particular place.

“The potential for this to be a major dispute between the U.S. and Mexico is real. But the core is not about the name change. It is secondary to other issues the U.S. president has with Mexico over immigration and trade. Mexico, as well as other countries, are concerned about the United States’ unilateralism and being pushed around. The naming dispute is emblematic of that. The naming issue is a bit of a sideshow, but it does reflect the potential for geopolitical shifts given the goals of the current U.S. administration.”

Climate, energy and the environment

Daniel Ahlquist is an associate professor at James Madison College where his expertise centers on land use, engaging issues related to agriculture, conservation, development, displacement, migration and climate change. He can comment on what U.S. economic policy could look like under the Trump administration and the decision to leave the Paris Climate Agreement.
Contact: dba3@msu.edu

“President Trump’s decision to withdraw from the Paris Climate Agreement wasn’t a surprise. Even so, it is concerning because the Paris Agreement, despite its many shortcomings, was the most ambitious international climate agreement to date aimed at curbing emissions to avoid runaway climate change. Pledges made by the Biden administration to reduce US emissions and invest in renewable energy are out the window now. To be clear, though, the US withdrawal from the Paris Climate Agreement is only the beginning of the Trump administration’s pro-fossil fuel, anti-science, and anti-climate  agenda that will almost certainly take us backwards in our fight against climate change. On his first day back in office, he declared an “energy emergency” to pave the way for expanded oil, gas, and even coal extraction and transportation. But there is no energy emergency. Yes, gas prices are high, and so are oil companies’ profits. But we are not facing fuel shortages – indeed, the US is the biggest oil and gas producer in the world and a net exporter of oil. If we were facing a real energy emergency, renewables would be an essential part of the solution, but the “energy emergency” executive order does not include solar and wind in its definition of energy, which means renewable energy will not see the kind of federal investment it needs to become a viable cornerstone of our energy economy.”

“Despite Trump’s best efforts to deny climate science and to disentangle the US from its international relationships and commitments, the US cannot isolate itself from climate change. Americans, including Michiganders, will feel the effects of climate change for the next four years and beyond, though we won’t all feel them equally. Climate change is occurring over a highly unequal social and economic landscape, and vulnerability to the worst impacts of climate change correlates with race and class. Here in Michigan, as elsewhere, communities of color and of low socio-economic status are more likely to live in floodplains, in substandard housing and in areas with fewer green spaces, and to have less protection from extreme heat and other hazards than white and wealthier communities. When food prices rise, or when disasters like floods and destructive storms strike, these communities will be the most vulnerable and least protected. As the Trump administration  pushes to weaken our social safety net, dismantle key federal agencies, and reduce regulation on industry, this vulnerability will only deepen as climate change accelerates.”

Jeremy Orr is an adjunct professor at the MSU College of Law. He is an expert on legal issues surrounding climate, energy and the environment. He can comment on the impacts of what could occur if the Environmental Protection Agency and the Department of Justice would remove climate justice policies.
Contact: orrjerem@msu.edu

"The legal implications of the Trump administration’s decision to dismantle the Department of Justice’s Office of Environmental Justice while simultaneously placing the Environmental Protection Agency’s Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights staff on leave are alarming. If the DOJ’s Office of Environmental Justice is eliminated, ongoing cases could be deprioritized or dropped altogether, leaving communities without federal support to fight polluters or assert their civil rights under Title VI. Agencies that rely on DOJ guidance for environmental justice cases would be left in limbo, leading to a breakdown in enforcement. This dismantling of key legal offices is a direct attack on the progress communities have made in holding polluters accountable and protecting vulnerable communities—it risks undoing decades of hard-won victories.

“On top of that, the impact on enforcement is dire. By putting 171 EPA employees, including 160 from the EPA’s Office of Environmental Justice and External Civil Rights, on administrative leave, the Trump administration has effectively crippled federal efforts to address environmental disparities in marginalized communities. Investigations into pollution violations and civil rights complaints could be delayed or abandoned, leaving these communities exposed and unprotected. Federal oversight of state agencies and industries is being severely weakened, allowing polluters to operate with less accountability.”

“Without a strong federal presence, state agencies—particularly in states with poor enforcement records—are left unchecked. These agencies control the permitting process and enforcement of environmental laws, and without the EPA’s intervention, industries can push through projects that worsen pollution in already vulnerable communities. This sets a dangerous precedent, emboldening states and industries to prioritize profit over people’s health, exacerbating environmental injustices across the country. The urgency of restoring these protections couldn’t be clearer."

John Besley is the Ellis N. Brandt Professor of Public Relations in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences and he studies public opinion about science and scientists’ opinions about the public. His goal is to help science communicators be more effective by helping them consider evidence-based and strategic communication choices. He also does research aimed at understanding how peoples’ views about decision-makers and decision processes affect their overall perceptions of science and technology with potential health or environmental impacts. Besley was the lead author for the 2014, 2016, 2018 and 2020 National Science Board chapters on public attitudes and knowledge about science and technology. This biennial report — Science and Engineering Indicators — is submitted to the executive branch and Congress and represents the definitive statement on Americans’ views about science and technology.
Contact: jbesley@msu.edu

“The scientific community is facing real and urgent challenges right now, but it is worth making sure that the ways in which we respond reflect the best traditions of science and do not make our long-term challenges more difficult. We need to find ways to engage in productive ways, even when we have deep disagreements and concerns.”

Diversity, LGBTQ and civil rights

Stephen Spates is an assistant professor of communication in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences and he is an expert on cultural communication — particularly diversity-related communication messages — and organizational communication.
Contact: spatesst@msu.edu

“Although cultural communication research shows an overwhelmingly positive impact on organizations, tensions over the perceptions of diversity, equity and inclusion, or DEI, programs have created doubt. My research on organizational culture and messages looks at how communication can be a strategic and valuable tool for healthy conversations on difference. How an organization chooses to communicate about diversity to its employees can have an impact on the way that policies and programs are interpreted.

“Following Trump’s executive orders and directives, many organizations were confused about how to communicate support and endorsements of diversity units in a way that was natural to the overall organization’s identity. Frustrations from those in opposing positions have been amplified as these units have been removed or eliminated by the executive orders. As a result, organizations struggle to support those working in these areas while still complying with the new orders.”

Heather Johnson is an adjunct professor at the MSU College of Law, where they specialize in issues at the interaction of gender, sexuality, education and law. Johnson can comment on what Trump’s policies and executive orders could mean for diversity, equity and inclusion efforts and programs.
Contact: john1981@msu.edu

Trump has already signed several executive orders that rescind prior orders or issue new orders that directly impact women and LGBTQ+ individuals, particularly transgender, non-binary, and intersex people. President Trump rolled back numerous executive orders of President Biden including Executive Order No.13988 that directed the federal agencies to implement the Supreme Court ruling in Bostock v. Clayton County. This ruling clarified Title VIII’s prohibition of discrimination on the basis of sex includes prohibitions of discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation and gender identity. While the executive order signals that Trump administration plan to not fully enforce the protections afforded by Title VII, the binding Supreme Court precedent in Bostock cannot be ignored or undone by this executive order.  Other executive orders repealed by Trump pertaining to sex and gender include orders that promote the advancement of equity for underserved populations including the LGBTQ+ people, terminating the White House Gender Policy Council, guaranteeing Education environments free of discrimination on the bases of sex including sexual orientation and gender identity and an order addressing the access of medically necessary care for LGBTQ+ people.

The new orders targeting women and LGBTQ+ individuals can be understood as constructing “gender ideology” or the malicious rhetorical construct that falsely asserts that women and LGBTQ+ people, and those seeking equal rights for these groups of people, constitute an ideological movement rather than an intrinsic identity.  The phrase “gender ideology” can be traced back to anti-feminist and anti-LGBTQ+ groups with roots in the extreme religious ideology and radical right social movements in South America and Europe. By framing sex and gender equality as “gender ideology,” the rhetoric seeks to erase the existence of those that signify the advances in sexual and reproductive rights to sustain and reinforce sex and gender-based discrimination and inequality. Advocates for sex and gender equity use liberty and equality arguments to ground protections for LGBTQ+ individuals it the 5^th and the 14^th Amendment’s Substantive Due Process and Equal Protection Clauses. This legal argument came to national attention in 1996 with a decision in Romer v. Evans where the Supreme Court of the United States struck down a Colorado Law as unconstitutional under the Equal Protection Clause because it classified LGBTQ+ individuals “not to further a proper legislative end but to make them unequal to everyone else.”

First Amendment and technology regulation

Nancy Costello is a clinical professor of law at the MSU College of Law, where she serves as the director for the First Amendment Clinic and the Free Expression Online Library and Resource Center. Costello is an expert on First Amendment law and can comment on the situation surrounding TikTok.
Contact: costel29@law.msu.edu

“Under the law, the president is charged with determining whether ByteDance has properly divested its holdings in TikTok. It is the Trump administration that will decide what that should look like. Four years ago, Trump wanted to ban TikTok, but he has done a 180 on that position and now wants to preserve the social media app. He has described it as an important platform for free speech — political speech in particular — and it certainly was for him in his presidential campaign. He has said TikTok should not be shut down because some speech that gets posted is disfavored.”

Anjana Susarla is the Omura-Saxena Professor in Responsible AI in MSU’s Eli Broad College of Business and she is an expert on social media and technology policy. She can discuss the changes to Meta’s content moderation policy and the serious large-scale social challenge of combating online harms on social media platforms. She is also available to discuss how a TikTok ban could impact content creators.
Contact: asusarla@broad.msu.edu

Susarla on content moderation: “With billions of people worldwide accessing their social media services, platforms such as Meta’s Facebook and Instagram have a responsibility to ensure that users are not harmed by consumer fraud, hate speech, misinformation or other online ills. Given the scale of this problem, combating online harms is a serious societal challenge. Content moderation plays a role in addressing these online harms.

“Moderating content involves three steps. The first step is scanning online content — typically social media posts — to detect potentially harmful words or images. The second is assessing whether the flagged content violates the law or the platform’s terms of service. The third is intervening in some way. Interventions include removing posts, adding warning labels to posts and diminishing how much a post can be seen or shared.

“Content moderation can range from user-driven moderation models on community-based platforms such as Wikipedia to centralized content moderation models such as those used by Instagram. Research shows that both approaches are a mixed bag.”

Susarla on TikTok: “Regarding TikTok, it has been estimated that a third of U.S. adults use TikTok, with 59% of adults under 30 reporting usage of the app. TikTok’s algorithm is seemingly designed for virality since it personalizes user’s feeds based on their prior engagement patterns. The app has seen phenomenal growth and popularity.

“This has also led to a thriving creator economy on this app, with small businesses, content creators and artists flocking to the app to build their brand and monetize their content. In today’s world, the creator economy has become a major economic force, and pivoting to other platforms may not be easy for content creators, at least in the immediate future. The Supreme Court decision may then be most consequential for digital content creators, marketers and influencers who rely on the app for future income and visibility.”

Health care

Felicia Wu is a John A. Hannah Distinguished Professor and University Distinguished Professor in MSU’s College of Agriculture and Natural Resources, where she is an expert in issues of food safety, nutrition, global health and the environment, and public health. She can comment on what services the World Health Organization offers, as Wu serves on three WHO committees:  Joint FAO/WHO Expert Committee on Food Additives, which does risk assessments of food additives and contaminants, to help the United Nations set regulatory guidelines in food; the WHO Food-Based Dietary Guidelines Committee, which set global guidelines on health-promoting diets, including intake of animal-source foods and plant-source foods; and the WHO Foodborne Disease Burden Epidemiology Reference Group that estimates the global burden of disease caused by different food contaminants.
Contact: fwu@msu.edu

“For decades, the United States has been the biggest financial contributor by far to the WHO, among all United Nations member states. As such, we have had a strong influence on global health policies on everything from the eradication of smallpox in the 1960s and 1970s to the distribution of vaccines worldwide during the worst of the COVID pandemic years. If the U.S. steps away from the WHO, this could mean a devastating loss to health services in low- and middle-income countries worldwide that rely on WHO funding to provide health care to their people.

“And we Americans face at least two risks. First is that we remove our political power in the global realm of health, and another nation may step in to take that spot, whose interests may not be aligned with ours. Second is that the health of the world affects the health of Americans. Even if we wanted to isolate, we could not evade infectious diseases that cross all national boundaries today. Even noncommunicable diseases and their treatment (or lack thereof) worldwide can affect us, such as cardiovascular and respiratory illnesses caused by pollutants.”

Maria Lapinski is a professor of communication in the College of Communication Arts and Sciences and is director of the MSU Health and Risk Communication Center. Lapinski can comment on the importance of health communication.
Contact: lapinsk3@msu.edu

“Health communication is a fundamental part of a functioning society. Health communicators carefully share information about health issues to help people make decisions to best keep themselves healthy and reduce their risks for bad health outcomes. Doing so can help prevent the spread of disease, keep people with various conditions safe, or even give people the tools they need to decide to get a cancer screening. With experts at federal agencies that safeguard our nation’s health directed to halt or significantly reduce their communications efforts, lives are at risk.” 

Legality of actions

Matt Grossmannis the director of MSU’s Institute for Public Policy and Social Researchand a professor of political science. He is an expert on issues in American politics, and he can comment on the immediate and long-term effect of the Trump administration’s executive orders.
Contact: grossm63@msu.edu

“We still do not know how much executive orders are going to affect things on the ground. Researchers who followed up on Trump first-term executive orders showed that he issued more total actions but did not have more impact than other presidents because many of those orders were just ceremonial actions or did not hold up in court. Already, two actions from this term have been invalidated by courts.”

Heather Johnson is an adjunct professor at the MSU College of Law where they specialize in issues at the interaction of gender, sexuality, education and law. Johnson can comment on what Trump’s policies and executive orders could mean for diversity, equity and inclusion efforts and programs.
Contact: john1981@msu.edu

“U.S. Presidents have long used executive orders as a tool to shape policy and direct federal agencies to implement defined directives. However, a President may not amend or override the Constitution, federal laws, or established legal precedent. Executive orders are subject to Judicial Review. Courts may strike down executive orders when the president lacks the authority to issue and in cases where the order is found to be unconstitutional. An executive order can only be undone when rescinded by a sitting president.”