As President Donald Trump crosses the 100-day mark of his second term, a Michigan political expert is taking a closer look, especially at the executive orders issued early on.

President Trump has signed 139 executive orders, more than any president in their first 100 days. Some of his most controversial moves include banning transgender women from female sports, ending birthright citizenship for children of undocumented immigrants, and pulling the U.S. out of the Paris Climate Agreement. So far, more than 255 lawsuits have been filed against the president's policies and orders.

Matt Grossman, director of the Institute for Public Policy and Social Research at Michigan State University, said many of Trump's first-term executive orders were symbolic, but recent ones have "more teeth."

"They've been followed with a lot more executive action," Grossman explained. "The record so far is very poor in terms of getting pretty immediate restraining orders and other blocks and pauses on the administrative's actions."

On Tuesday, Trump rallied in Michigan, where supporters praised his accomplishments, from mass deportations to tariff enforcement and cutting federal bureaucracy.

Grossman pointed out in contemporary society, countries often move toward authoritarianism or democratic backsliding when elected leaders push the limits of executive power. He argued the growing concentration of power is a key reason for widespread global concern.

"They see this global pattern, where it's not the case that you have to have a revolution to change the, the governing system," Grossman observed. "The Executive Branch takes more and more power; you sort of slowly descend from a democratic starting point."

Many political analysts said early legal challenges are common when presidents issue controversial executive orders, especially when changes are rolled out quickly.


get more stories like this via email

Women who recently graduated from college are earning significantly less than their male counterparts.

A new study revealed women from Pennsylvania and other states who earned bachelor's degrees within the past seven years earn an average of 18% less than similarly-educated men. Research from the National Association of Colleges and Employers found segregated work environments are the main reason for the disparity.

Mary Gatta, director of research and public policy for the association and co-author of the report, said the problem is so prevalent, job analysts gave it a formal title.

"Some of that, as we see in our survey, is attributed to men and women working in different industries and different types of work," Gatta explained. "We called it 'occupational sex segregation.'"

The Early Career Talent Survey interviewed 1,400 professionals who graduated between 2017 and 2023, including about 500 men and 900 women. It found the gap brings financial challenges for women, who are more likely to have student loans but are less confident of their ability to repay them.

Despite financial disparities, career satisfaction was similar between genders among early-career professionals. Both men and women share comparable views on the speed of their career progression, although they cited different factors affecting their advancement.

Gatta noted it can cause long-term problems.

"The pay gap continues as women continue in their careers, with less money they are paying into Social Security, it's less money they are putting into their retirement," Gatta emphasized. "It has immediate impacts around economic security but also economic security as we age."

Nearly three-quarters of men surveyed work for private-sector companies, while just over half of women do. It found 30% of women work for nonprofits, where compensation is typically lower than in private industries. Gatta argued women need to gain more opportunities to explore nontraditional roles.

"The importance of helping introduce women and men to atypical occupations is really important," Gatta stressed. "Introducing women to STEM at an early age, getting that career exploration, we know that is important in helping to break some of that."

Support for this reporting was provided by Lumina Foundation.


get more stories like this via email

Groups opposed to NorthWestern Energy's latest rate-hike proposal plan to rally on Monday in Helena.

In an unusual move, the utility giant used a legal loophole to increase electric rates for its Montana customers without approval, just weeks before it was scheduled to argue for approval. Montana's Public Service Commission regulates utilities, including NorthWestern, which serves two-thirds of the state.

After the Public Service Commission failed to act within nine months of a request, NorthWestern announced a 17% rate increase, or more than $200 a year per customer.

Dick Maney, a resident of Butte, said while Montanans elect Public Service Commission members, he worries the commission is not always acting on the consumers' behalf.

"That is the problem," Maney asserted. "I don't think it has a lot to do with NorthWestern Energy. I think it has a lot to do with the regulators on the outside, not on the inside of the company."

The move follows a 28% rate increase in 2023 and precedes arguments starting Monday for another 20% increase. The Monday rally to oppose the hikes is being hosted by a coalition of groups: Montana Conservation Voters, Families for a Livable Climate, Forward Montana, Big Sky 55+, Montana Health Professionals for a Healthy Climate, Montana Sierra Club and Helena Interfaith Climate Advocates.

Maney noted the rate increases are troublesome on top of the many other increasing costs of living in the state. For example, the median residential property in 2023 saw a 21% higher tax bill than the previous year, according to the Montana Free Press.

"We have to deal with property taxes, which have increased substantially over the last couple of years and that is really affecting everyone," Maney pointed out. "An increase in electricity affects us a lot."

In the final days of the legislative session, state lawmakers passed property tax relief measures for most Montanans by raising taxes on second homes.


get more stories like this via email

A new Northwestern University study examining the history of labor laws for women says men ultimately benefited from laws meant to protect women in the workplace.

The study looks at protective labor policies across the history of the United States.

For about 60 years, those laws imposed restrictions on women's work.

Northwestern University Professor of Economics Matthias Doepke said the study questions whether these laws were genuinely put in place to protect women from harm.

"The main reason these laws were successful, indeed was less a need to protect women at work and more a need to protect men from competition," said Doepke, "because this happened when men and women were starting to increasingly compete for the same jobs."

Many old protective labor laws were eliminated alongside the rise of the Equal Rights Movement.

Doepke said the rise in gender equality was partly due to the alignment of men's and women's interests, influenced by factors like the increase of married women in the labor force, and a shared concern for children.

Doepke claimed that gender equality has historically correlated with economic growth. He said the female workforce rose in the mid-20th century, fostering support for increased opportunities for women and anti-discrimination laws.

However, he thinks this support may be weakening, due to falling marriage rates and differing views between men and women.

"Young women increasingly turn to the left and become more liberal," said Doepke. "Young men also used to be liberal, but they have started to turn further to the right. It's been talked about a lot, for example, in the recent presidential election -- that Trump had a lot of success with young men. And you can see this on particular issues such as gender equality."

Doepke added that recent legal changes and Supreme Court decisions also indicate a shift away from gender equality.