Columns

Tariffs are on, until they are not. Military force is an option … and then it's off the table.

(THE CONVERSATION) — Tariffs are on, until they are not. Military force is an option … and then it's off the table.

Erratic behavior and unpredictability are having a moment in foreign policy circles. In the White House and elsewhere, it is seemingly being viewed as a strategic asset rather than a weakness.

But it is far from a new strategy. Wild threats, sudden policy reversals and intentionally confusing language have long been used to keep adversaries off balance and gain leverage.

In fact, the concept has its own name in international relations: "madman theory." As outlined by Cold War strategists Daniel Ellsberg and Thomas Schelling, it holds that projecting a readiness to take extreme action can shape an opponent's calculations by heightening fears of escalation.

While the theory was meant to be explanatory, in the sense that observers used it to explain apparently irrational behavior, it has sometimes been used in a prescriptive way, as an approach consciously adopted by leaders.

—————

The 3 conditions for madman success

The madman theory has historical roots going back to Machiavelli, but it is most closely associated with Richard Nixon, who, as incoming president, reportedly used the term to explain his approach to trying to force North Vietnam's surrender in the Vietnam War.

Historians see evidence of the theory's limited applicability in episodes such as Nixon's 1969 placing of the U.S. military on nuclear alert, which appeared to have reinforced Soviet caution even if it did not bring about an end of the Vietnam War.

The theory was more applicable in Nixon's era because of three background conditions that were in place.

The first was information scarcity. During the Cold War, signals traveled more slowly than they do today and through narrow channels. Messages were filtered by professional diplomats, intelligence analysts and military officers.

Ambiguity could be sustained. A country's leader could appear possibly unhinged without being instantly decoded, contextualized or publicly dissected. "Madman" signaling depended on this controlled opacity.

The second condition was a stable adversary with a shared notion of risk. Nixon's gambit worked, when it worked at all, because Soviet leaders were deeply conservative risk managers operating inside a rigid hierarchy. They feared miscalculation because they believed it could lead to the Soviet Union's fall — or at least their fall within it.

The third condition was credibility built through restraint elsewhere. The madman pose only works if it is exceptional. Nixon appeared dangerous to adversaries precisely because the American system normally appeared controlled. His apparent erratic behavior was exceptional in a context of bureaucratic orderliness.

But the world of those three conditions is gone.

Threats today are tweeted, clipped, reframed, leaked, mocked and talked about in real time. Unpredictability doesn't have time to breathe public fear into existence. Rather, it can devolve into noise.

And nations such as Iran, Russia and China operate in a world they already regard as unstable and unjust. Volatility does not frighten them; it is the environment they expect. In such conditions, apparent irrationality can invite probing, hedging or reciprocal escalation.

Meanwhile, erratic behavior is no longer exceptional or unexpected.

—————

Many a madman would struggle today

Unpredictability only works if it's strategic rather than designed on the fly. Trump has blustered, contradicted himself publicly, ramped-up rhetorically and then backed down, mostly without receiving obvious concessions.

The more this happens, the more predictability he creates about unpredictability.

And once unpredictability becomes expected, it loses its coercive force.

This dynamic is evident in Trump's handling of both Iran and Greenland. In the Iranian case, pressure — including military strikes — has been applied without clearly defining where escalation would end.

With Greenland, coercive threats aimed at an ally only strained NATO without producing compliance.

In neither instance did unpredictability translate into durable leverage. Instead, it generated uncertainty about objectives and limits.

A bigger problem for any leader wishing to adopt a madman strategy is that today's international order and media ecosystem are more inured to volatility. Threats no longer freeze opponents into caution.

Friendly nations hedge their bets. For example, faced with U.S. threats over tariffs, India strengthened ties with China.

Meanwhile, enemies test boundaries. Russia, for example, has treated Trump's ambiguous signaling on Ukraine as little more than a green-light for it to continue its campaign to conquer the Donbas region.

—————

Does the madman have a future?

There are still limited circumstances in which ambiguity can serve a strategic purpose.

Limited uncertainty about specific responses can reinforce deterrence by keeping adversaries cautious. U.S. strategic ambiguity toward Taiwan, for example, leaves it unclear whether Washington would intervene militarily in the case of an attack by Beijing, discouraging the locking of any side into automatic escalation.

That part of the madman approach remains effective. But what no longer works is volatility untethered from clear objectives and visible limits.

The madman theory was built for a rigid, rule-bound world. It is least effective precisely where today's politics feels most chaotic.

U.S. President Donald Trump has, for the moment, indicated a willingness to abandon his threat to take over Greenland through military force – saying that he prefers negotiation to invasion. He is, however, continuing to assert that the United States ought to acquire ownership of the self-governing territory.

By Michael Blake
University of Washington

(THE CONVERSATION) — U.S. President Donald Trump has, for the moment, indicated a willingness to abandon his threat to take over Greenland through military force – saying that he prefers negotiation to invasion. He is, however, continuing to assert that the United States ought to acquire ownership of the self-governing territory.

Trump has repeatedly raised the possibility of using military action, against both Greenland and Canada.

These threats were often taken as fanciful. The fact that he has, successfully, used military force to remove Venezuelan President Nicolas Maduro from power has lent some plausibility to these threats.

Crucially, these military possibilities have been justified almost exclusively with reference to what Trump’s administration sees as America’s national interests. Anything short of ownership in the case of Greenland, the president has emphasized, would fail to adequately protect American interests.

As a political philosopher concerned with the moral analysis of international relations, I am deeply troubled by this vision of warfare – and by the moral justifications used to legitimize the making of war.

This view of warfare is radically different from the one championed by the U.S. for much of the 20th century. Most notably, it repudiates the legal principle that informed the Nuremberg trials: that military force cannot be justified on the basis of national self-interest alone.

Those trials, set up after World War II to prosecute the leaders of the Nazi regime, were foundational for modern international law; Trump, however, seems to disregard or reject the legal ideas the Nuremberg tribunal sought to establish.

—————

Aggressive war as international crime

The use of warfare as a means by which states might seek political and economic advantage was declared illegal by 1928’s Kellogg-Briand Pact – an international instrument by which many nations, including both Germany and the U.S., agreed to abandon warfare as a tool for national self-interests.

After 1928, invading another country in the name of advancing national interests was formally defined as a crime, rather than a legitimate policy option.

The existence of this pact did not prevent the German military actions that led to World War II. The prosecution for the International Military Tribunal at Nuremberg, accordingly, took two aims as central: reaffirming that aggressive warfare was illegal, and imposing punishment on those who had chosen to use military force against neighboring states.

The first charge laid against the Nazi leadership at Nuremberg was therefore the initiation of a “war of aggression” – a war chosen by a state for its own national interests.

The chief prosecutor in Nuremberg was Robert H. Jackson, who at the time also served as a justice on the U.S. Supreme Court. Jackson began his description of the crime by saying that Germany, in concert with other nations, had bound itself in 1928 to “seek the settlement of disputes only by pacific means.”

More particularly, Jackson noted, Germany had justified its invasion of neighboring countries with reference to “Lebensraum” – living room, or, more generally, space for German citizens – which marked those invasions out as illegal.

Germany used its own national interests as sufficient reason to initiate deadly force against other nations. In so doing, said Jackson, it engaged in a crime for which individual criminal punishment was an appropriate response.

In the course of this crime, Jackson noted, Germany had shown a willingness to ignore both international law and its own previous commitments – and had given itself “a reputation for duplicity that will handicap it for years.”

Jackson asserted, further, that the extraordinary violence of the 20th century required the building of some legal tools, by which the plague of warfare and violence might be constrained.

If such principles were not codified in law, and respected by nations, then the world might well see, in Jackson’s phrase, the “doom of civilization.” Nuremberg’s task, for Jackson, was nothing less than ensuring that aggressive war was forever to be understood as a criminal act – a proposition backed, crucially, by the U.S. as party to the Nuremberg trials.

—————

The morality of warfare

It is fair to say that the U.S, like other nations, has had a mixed record of living up to the legal principles articulated at Nuremberg, given its record of military intervention in places like Vietnam and Iraq.

Trump’s prior statements about Greenland, however, hint at something more extreme: They represent an abandonment of the principle that aggressive war is a criminal act, in favor of the idea that the U.S. can use its military as it wishes, to advance its own national interests.

Previous presidents have perhaps been guilty of paying too little attention to the moral importance of such international principles. Trump, in contrast, has announced that such principles do not bind him in the least.

In a recent interview with The New York Times, Trump asserted that he did not “need international law” to know what to do. He would, instead, be limited only by “his own morality” and “his own mind.”

European leaders, for their part, have increasingly decried Trump’s willingness to go back on his word, or abandon previously insisted-upon principles, if such revisions seem to provide him with some particular advantage.

Trump’s statements, however, imply that his administration has adopted a position strikingly similar to that decried by Justice Jackson: The U.S., on this vision, can simply decide that its own moral interests are more important than those of other countries, and can initiate violence against those countries on its own discretion. It can do this, moreover, regardless of either the content of international law or of previously undertaken political 
commitments.

This vision, finally, is being undertaken in a world in which the available tools of destruction are even more complex – and more deadly – than those available during the Second World War.

It is, indeed, a historic irony that the U.S. of today has so roundly repudiated the moral values it both helped developed and championed globally during the 20th century.

As Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, agents continued to use aggressive and sometimes violent methods to make arrests in its mass deportation campaign, including breaking down doors in Minneapolis homes, a bombshell report from the Associated Press on Jan. 21, 2026, said that an internal ICE memo – acquired via a whistleblower – asserted that immigration officers could enter a home without a judge’s warrant.

(THE CONVERSATION) As Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, agents continued to use aggressive and sometimes violent methods to make arrests in its mass deportation campaign, including breaking down doors in Minneapolis homes, a bombshell report from the Associated Press on Jan. 21, 2026, said that an internal ICE memo – acquired via a whistleblower – asserted that immigration officers could enter a home without a judge’s warrant. 

That policy, the report said, constituted “a sharp reversal of longstanding guidance meant to respect constitutional limits on government searches.”

Those limits have long been found in the Fourth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution. Politics editor Naomi Schalit interviewed Dickinson College President John E. Jones III, a former federal judge appointed by President George W. Bush and confirmed unanimously by the U.S. Senate in 2002, for a primer on the Fourth Amendment, and what the changes in the ICE memo mean.

—————

Okay, I’m going to read the Fourth Amendment – and then you’re going to explain it to us, please! Here goes:

“The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.” Can you help us understand what that means?

Since the beginning of the republic, it has been uncontested that in order to invade someone’s home, you need to have a warrant that was considered, and signed off on, by a judicial officer. This mandate is right within the Fourth Amendment; it is a core protection.

In addition to that, through jurisprudence that has evolved since the adoption of the Fourth Amendment, it is settled law that it applies to everyone. That would include noncitizens as well.

What I see in this directive that ICE put out, apparently quite some time ago and somewhat secretly, is something that, to my mind, turns the Fourth Amendment on its head.

What does the Fourth Amendment aim to protect someone from?

In the context of the ICE search, it means that a person’s home, as they say, really is their castle. Historically, it was meant to remedy something that was true in England, where the colonists came from, which was that the king or those empowered by the king could invade people’s homes at will. The Fourth Amendment was meant to establish a sort of zone of privacy for people, so that their papers, their property, their persons would be safe from intrusion without cause.

So it’s essentially a protection against abuse of the government’s power.

That’s precisely what it is.

Has the accepted interpretation of the Fourth Amendment changed over the centuries?

It hasn’t. But Fourth Amendment law has evolved because the framers, for example, didn’t envision that there would be cellphones. They couldn’t understand or anticipate that there would be things like cellphones and electronic surveillance. All those modalities have come into the sphere of Fourth Amendment protection. The law has evolved in a way that actually has made Fourth Amendment protections greater and more wide-ranging, simply because of technology and other developments such as the use of automobiles and other means of transportation. So there are greater protected zones of privacy than just a person’s home.

ICE says it only needs an administrative warrant, not a judicial warrant, to enter a home and arrest someone. Can you briefly describe the difference and what it means in this situation?

It’s absolutely central to the question here. In this context, an administrative warrant is nothing more than the folks at ICE headquarters writing something up and directing their agents to go arrest somebody. That’s all. It’s a piece of paper that says ‘We want you arrested because we said so.’ At bottom that’s what an administrative warrant is, and of course it hasn’t been approved by a judge.

This authorized use of administrative warrants to circumvent the Fourth Amendment flies in the face of their limited use prior to the ICE directive.

A judicially approved warrant, on the other hand, has by definition been reviewed by a judge. In this case, it would be either a U.S. magistrate judge or U.S. district judge. That means that it would have to be supported by probable cause to enter someone’s residence to arrest them.

So the key distinction is that there’s a neutral arbiter. In this case, a federal judge who evaluates whether or not there’s sufficient cause to – as is stated clearly in the Fourth Amendment – be empowered to enter someone’s home. 
An administrative warrant has no such protection. It is not much more than a piece of paper generated in a self-serving way by ICE, free of review to substantiate what is stated in it.

Have there been other kinds of situations, historically, where the government has successfully proposed working around the Fourth Amendment?

There are a few, such as consent searches and exigent circumstances where someone is in danger or evidence is about to be destroyed. But generally it’s really the opposite and cases point to greater protections. For example, in the 1960s the Supreme Court had to confront warrantless wiretapping; it was very difficult for judges in that age who were not tech-savvy to apply the Fourth Amendment to this technology, and they struggled to find a remedy when there was no actual intrusion into a structure. In the end, the court found that intrusion was not necessary and that people’s expectation of privacy included their phone conversations. This of course has been extended to various other means of technology including GPS tracking and cellphone use generally.

What’s the direction this could go in at this point?

What I fear here – and I think ICE probably knows this – is that more often than not, a person who may not have legal standing to be in the country, notwithstanding the fact that there was a Fourth Amendment violation by ICE, may ultimately be out of luck. You could say that the arrest was illegal, and you go back to square one, but at the same time you’ve apprehended the person. So I’m struggling to figure out how you remedy this.

More than half of U.S. adults have either tried or expressed interest in hot honey-flavored snacks. For decades, spicy food has been a polarizing topic; some love the burn while others avoid it like the plague. But the blend of sweet honey and chili peppers has recently moved from a niche condiment to a mainstream obsession.

More than half of U.S. adults have either tried or expressed interest in hot honey-flavored snacks. For decades, spicy food has been a polarizing topic; some love the burn while others avoid it like the plague. But the blend of sweet honey and chili peppers has recently moved from a niche condiment to a mainstream obsession.

Sales of hot honey surged 157% year-over-year in 2025, fueled by viral social media recipes and a growing appetite for “swicy,” or sweet and spicy flavors. Product launches have seen a 61% average annual growth rate over the past five years. A research projects that the global spicy honey market will reach approximately $166.41 million by 2030, up from $106 million in 2022.

Once reserved for hot honey chicken wings, this swicy sauce now shows up on breakfast tables, grocery shelves and even ice cream sundaes. For those who typically shy away from heat, this spicy-sweet sensation might just convert them.

—————

What hot honey actually is

At its simplest, hot honey is honey infused with chili peppers. That’s it. No complicated process, no obscure ingredients. But the magic is in how it tastes. Instead of an aggressive burn, you get sweetness first, followed by a gentle heat that lingers just long enough to be interesting.

For spice skeptics, that order matters. The honey softens the peppers, rounding out their sharp edges. The heat feels warm rather than painful, more like a background note than the main event. Think cozy rather than confrontational.

Now that you know what hot honey is, it’s worth noting that not all is created equal. Some versions lean bolder, while others barely register as spicy. That range is part of what makes the trend so accessible. You can start mild and work your way up, or stop right where you’re comfortable.

—————

Hot honey wins over non-spicy eaters

The biggest reason hot honey works for people who avoid heat is that it enhances food instead of overpowering it. Sweetness naturally balances spice, and honey does that better than sugar because it brings depth and floral notes along with the sweetness.

For someone who usually orders everything no heat, hot honey feels safe. It doesn’t hijack your taste buds. Instead, it makes familiar foods taste more exciting without changing their identity. Fried chicken still tastes like fried chicken, and pizza still tastes like pizza; you’re just getting a little extra something.

There’s also an emotional component. Hot honey feels indulgent but not intimidating. Drizzling it is optional. You’re in control. That alone lowers the barrier for people who have been burned by overly spicy experiences in the past.

—————

The foods that make hot honey click

Hot honey didn’t rise to popularity by accident. It shines brightest on foods that already benefit from contrast.

Pizza is the poster child. A drizzle over a cheesy personal pizza cuts through the richness and brings everything into balance. The crust tastes toastier, the cheese tastes creamier and the sauce tastes brighter. Even people who normally avoid chili flakes often find themselves asking for just a little hot honey.

Fried chicken is another gateway food. The sweetness plays well with salty, crunchy breading, while the heat adds interest without masking the chicken itself. It’s the kind of combination that feels familiar yet new.

Cheese boards are where skeptics often become converts. Hot honey paired with sharp cheddar, creamy brie or salty blue cheese creates instant complexity. The spice doesn’t scream; it whispers, and suddenly that cheese course feels restaurant worthy.

Even roasted vegetables and salads benefit. A light drizzle over carrots, Brussels sprouts or even a mixed berry salad keeps things from tasting flat. For people who don’t love spicy food, this can be a revelation.

—————

Hot honey beyond savory dishes

One of the most surprising things about hot honey is how well it works with sweet foods. The heat is subtle enough that it doesn’t clash with dessert. Instead, it adds dimension. A spoonful over vanilla ice cream or yogurt creates a sweet-heat contrast that feels intentional, not gimmicky. Drizzled over biscuits, cornbread or pancakes, it replaces plain syrup with something far more interesting.

For non-spicy eaters, this is often the turning point. When heat shows up in a dessert-friendly way, it feels less threatening and more playful.

—————

Buy or make hot honey at home

You don’t need to be a culinary adventurer to bring hot honey into your kitchen. Most grocery stores carry at least one brand now, often with notes about heat level. Starting with a mild option is the safest move if spice isn’t your thing.

Making it at home is also simple. Gently warming honey with dried chili flakes or a mild fresh pepper allows you to control exactly how spicy it gets. Infuse briefly, taste often and strain if needed. You’re never locked into a level of heat you can’t handle.

The beauty here is customization. You can keep it barely warm or push it slightly further once you realize it’s not as scary as you thought.

—————

Why this trend has staying power

Hot honey isn’t just trendy; it solves a problem. People want food that feels exciting without being extreme. They want flavor that adds interest but still works for a Tuesday night dinner. It also fits perfectly into how many people cook now. It’s versatile, low effort and flexible. A single jar can upgrade pizza night, brunch, snacks and even desserts without requiring new skills or equipment.

“I love to substitute hot honey for regular honey in sweet-savory recipes like hoisin beef or sesame chicken,” says Robin Donovan, founder of All Ways Delicious. “It adds the sweetness I’m looking for but also a nice extra kick of spice. But my favorite way to use hot honey is to drizzle it on peanut butter toast. The combination of nutty, sweet and spicy is amazing and surprisingly delicious with coffee.”

—————

A gentle way to rethink spice

If you’ve spent years saying, “I don’t like spicy,” hot honey won’t suddenly turn you into someone who orders extra-hot wings. But it might soften that stance. It shows that spice doesn’t have to be aggressive to be enjoyable.

Sometimes all it takes is the right pairing, the right balance and a little sweetness to change your mind. Hot honey proves that heat, when handled thoughtfully, can be comforting, versatile and surprisingly approachable.

And if you still only drizzle a tiny bit? That’s fine. That’s kind of the point.

—————

Lisa MarcAurele is a blogger and cookbook author based in Connecticut. She created Little Bit Recipes to help people save money by minimizing leftovers when cooking for one or two people. Lisa enjoys hiking and taking scenic day trips around New England.

The Catholic Foundation of Michigan (Foundation) recently named Plunkett Cooney partner Laura L. Brownfield to its board of directors. 

Plunkett Cooney

The Catholic Foundation of Michigan (Foundation) recently named Plunkett Cooney partner Laura L. Brownfield to its board of directors. 

The Foundation’s board members, who serve three-year terms, provide governance, strategic oversight and financial stewardship. They guide the Foundation, which is a 501 (c)(3) non-profit organization, in its mission to inspire giving, manage endowments and help donors with charitable planning. 

Brownfield serves as the Trusts & Estates Practice Group leader of Plunkett Cooney. In addition to 30 years of experience in estate planning and estate administration, Brownfield has experience in the areas of business and nonprofit law, counseling closely held businesses and tax-exempt organizations. 

Utilizing her in-house experience as the former general counsel of the Community Foundation for Southeast Michigan, Brownfield’s nonprofit law practice includes establishing tax-exempt organizations, providing strategic and practical business advice, ensuring compliance with federal and state laws and regulations, and navigating the intersection of business and law to protect the interests of nonprofits in carrying out their mission. 

Brownfield’s trusts and estate practice includes working with clients to develop comprehensive plans for the management of assets during their lifetimes, the protection of their assets in the event of disability, and the tax-efficient transfer of their wealth during their lifetime and upon death. She also assists individuals and families with succession planning for closely held businesses and with implementing charitable giving plans to protect their financial interests and to ensure a meaningful personal legacy for her clients. In addition, Brownfield assists fiduciaries and beneficiaries in trust and estate administration matters and in the resolution of disputes arising from the administration of wills and trusts. 

Brownfield received her law degree from Wayne State University Law School in 1995 and her undergraduate degree from Miami University in 1992.

—————

Butzel Long

Butzel employment law attorney Rebecca S. Davies discussed “Under­standing the New Employment Laws for 2026” during a free webinar on Wednesday, January 21. The program was presented by the National Association for Business Resources (NABR) and Corp! Magazine.

Davies concentrates her practice primarily on employment law and commercial litigation. Drawing on more than 30 years of experience, she advises clients on employment issues encountered in day-to-day business operations and in complex scenarios that can impact employers for years to come. 

Davies has represented and counseled employers of all sizes – from companies with two to 20,000 employees – in private and public sectors in a variety of industries.

Michigan Auto Law

Michigan Auto Law proudly announces that litigation attorney Alexander P. Kemp has achieved Board Certification in Truck Accident Law from the National Board of Trial Advocacy (NBTA).

With Kemp’s recent accomplishment, Michigan Auto Law is now the only law firm in Michigan with more than one board-certified trucking lawyer, and one of just three law firms in the country with multiple board-certified trucking lawyers.

Board Certification in Truck Accident Law from the National Board of Trial Advocacy (NBTA) is limited to lawyers who possess an enhanced level of skill and expertise in truck accident law and have demonstrated integrity and dedication to the interests of their clients. Lawyers must also pass a written examination that tests their proficiency, knowledge, and experience in truck accident law.

Having achieved Board Certification in Truck Accident Law, Kemp is one of only 87 lawyers throughout the entire U.S. to have Board Certification in Truck Accident Law. Kemp is also one of only two Michigan-based attorneys to have earned board-certification status. 

—————

Giarmarco, Mullins, & Horton, P.C.

John R. Fleming, an equity partner at Giarmarco, Mullins, & Horton PC, will host four small business workshop sessions in 2026. Fleming will present on a range of topics relevant to the Southeast Michigan business community. Each session will include a question-and-answer segment and open discussion.

The workshops are hosted by the Macomb County Chamber of Commerce and will take place on the following dates:

• February 9 – How to Avoid Being Sued: Preventable Business Disputes

• June 24 – Protect Your Business: Non-Competes & Trade Secrets

• September 17 – Legal Mistakes Growing Businesses Make and How to Avoid Them

• December 11 – Contracts That Protect You: Clauses You Should Have in Every Contract

Additional information and registration are available on the Chamber’s website at macombcountychamber.com.

Fleming serves on the Board of Directors of the Macomb County Chamber of Commerce, the Macomb Foundation, and Macomb Advocacy for Business. He is counsel for businesses of all sizes, litigating complex shareholder, trade secret, non-compete, and contract disputes. His practice includes the defense of physicians and hospital systems in medical malpractice cases. Fleming represents large financial institutions and manages a vast portfolio of commercial lending litigation. His experience extends to constitutional law and multifaceted class action litigation.

Cummings, McClorey, Davis & Acho PLC

Cummings, McClorey, Davis, & Acho is pleased to announce that Jim Acho has been named an equity partner/shareholder of the firm. 

Acho joined the firm in 2000 as an associate attorney and was elected a partner of the firm in 2015. He has continuously contributed to the growth of the firm over the past 25 years and has won cases of significant import and national attention. In 2025 Acho was awarded Michigan Lawyer’s Weekly’s Leader In The Law.

CMDA is also proud to announce that Alexander R. Karana has been selected to the 2026 Illinois Rising Stars List by Super Lawyers in the Intellectual Property practice area category. This is the third consecutive year that he has been named to the list. Karana is an Intellectual Property attorney and is admitted to practice law in Illinois and Michigan.

As a registered patent attorney, Karana’s practice centers on patent and trademark prosecution, IP strategy, technology-driven business transactions, as well as business formations and business litigation. He also brings expertise in Entertainment and Sports Law, helping athletes, musicians, and influencers protect and monetize their assets.

—————

Honigman LLP

Several Honigman attorneys were recognized by the Legal 500 in it’s inaugural Elite City Focus listing in Detroit for excellence in Commercial Disputes and Corporate and M&A. 

The firm congratulates the following attorneys who received this honor:

—Commercial Disputes 
Joseph Aviv
Raymond Henney
Mark Stern
I.W. Winsten

—Corporate and M&A
Mike DuBay
John Kanan
Alex Parrish

—————

Office of Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer

Michigan Governor Gretchen Whitmer recently announced appointments to the following boards and commissions:

—State of Michigan Retirement Board 

Judge Leo Bowman is a retired judge, having served the 6th Circuit Court of Oakland County for fourteen years. Bowman earned a bachelor’s degree from Oakland University and a law degree from the University of Detroit School of Law. 

Bowman is reappointed as a member or retirant of the Judges Retirement System for a term commencing January 15, 2026, and expiring December 31, 2029. 

The State of Michigan Retirement Board was created by Executive Order No. 2015-13, and consolidated the State Employees’ Retirement System Board, the Judges’ Retirement System Board, and the Military Retirement Provisions. Housed in the Department of Technology, Management, and Budget, in the Office of Retirement Services, the Retirement Board provides oversight of the three systems that service nearly 88,000 active and retired employees. 

This appointment is not subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. 

—Michigan Indigent Defense Commission 

Coriann McMillen is an associate attorney at Nyman Turkish PC and is a member of the Wolverine Bar Association. McMillen was previously a staff attorney at the Neighborhood Defender Service. McMillen earned a Bachelor of Science in sociology and criminal justice from Central Michigan University and a law degree from the University of Detroit Mercy School of Law. 

McMillen is appointed to represent members nominated by state bar associations those whose primary mission or purpose is to advocate for minority interests for a term commencing January 15, 2026, and expiring April 1, 2028. McMillen succeeds Kimberly Buddin, whose term has expired. 

The Michigan Indigent Defense Commission was created as a result of efforts to improve legal representation for indigent criminal defendants. The Commission develops and oversees the implementation, enforcement, and modification of minimum standards, rules, and procedures to ensure that indigent criminal defense services providing effective assistance of counsel are delivered to all indigent adults in this state consistent with the safeguards of the United States Constitution, the State Constitution of 1963, and with the Michigan Indigent Defense Commission Act.  

This appointment is not subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. 

—Utility Consumer Participation Board 

Jeremy Orr is the director of partnerships at Earthjustice and a professor at the Michigan State University College of Law and University of Detroit Mercy School of Law. Orr earned a Bachelor of Science in human development and family studies and a law degree from the Michigan State University College of Law. 

Orr is appointed as an advocate for the interests of residential utility consumers for a term commencing January 15, 2026, and expiring January 12, 2027. Orr succeeds Sam Passmore, whose term has expired. 

The Utility Consumer Participation Board provides grants to qualified applicants that represent the interests of Michigan’s residential energy (gas, electric, and other fuel) utility customers at residential energy proceedings before the Michigan Public Service Commission. Funding is generated through annual assessments of certain regulated utility companies.  

This appointment is not subject to the advice and consent of the Senate. 

—————

Harness IP

Harness IP is pleased to announce that Colette Verch has been selected to participate in the Leadership Council on Legal Diversity (LCLD) 2026 Pathfinder Program. The program supports early-career attorneys through leadership development, career strategy, and access to a broad professional network, and identifies participants as emerging leaders within the legal profession.

As an associate attorney with Harness IP in the Detroit Metro office, Verch is focused on intellectual property litigation in matters concerning trademark infringement, copyright infringement, false advertising, and patent infringement. She also practices patent prosecution, and has experience preparing and prosecuting domestic and foreign patent applications, and preparing invalidity, patentability, and freedom-to-practice opinions.

Harness also congratulates Jeremiah Foley on completing the 2025 LCLD Pathfinder Program.

Foley, also of the Detroit Metro office, devotes his time and energy to protecting his clients’ array of intellectual property rights. He uses his mechanical engineering background and previous work experience to provide efficient counseling that protects innovative ideas and hard-earned competitive advantages. His practice includes working with clients in the software, automotive, manufacturing, and mechanical industries.

Harness IP has been a member of LCLD since 2021 and remains committed to advancing diversity, equity, and inclusion within the legal profession.

The state government now spends $1.8 billion more on transportation than it did when Gretchen Whitmer entered office, a 30% increase when adjusted for inflation. This level means roads will likely be repaired faster than they fall apart. Yet the governor deserves little credit for the solution and plenty of blame for years of holding the road fix hostage to her quest for higher taxes.

The state government now spends $1.8 billion more on transportation than it did when Gretchen Whitmer entered office, a 30% increase when adjusted for inflation. This level means roads will likely be repaired faster than they fall apart. Yet the governor deserves little credit for the solution and plenty of blame for years of holding the road fix hostage to her quest for higher taxes.

Gov. Whitmer vetoed additional road funding, pretended fake solutions would address the problem and refused to press her Democratic allies in the Legislature for more road funding when they held majorities. Lawmakers got to a road funding goal despite her recommendations, not because of them.

Whitmer’s first proposal to increase road funding was to raise fuel taxes. This would have increased taxes by $2.5 billion and spent $1.9 billion on transportation, with $600 million going to other priorities.

The Legislature, then controlled by Republicans, did not approve her plan. Whitmer asked them to devise a different $2.5 billion tax hike if they did not like hers. “Show me the plan. If you don’t have one, let’s get serious about talking about this one, because it is real,” she said at a March 25, 2019, press conference in DeWitt.

The governor also posted an image on social media networks, including Facebook.

Legislators did not give her a $2.5 billion tax hike. Instead, they found $375 million more to spend on roads — without raising taxes. Whitmer vetoed the funding.

The following year she took the state into debt to pay for extra road repair. All told, Whitmer issued $2.8 billion in bonds for the purpose. The bondholders are paid with money that would otherwise be spent on roads, plus interest costs. Extra debt results in fewer resources available for long-term road funding.

Debt-financed repairs improve road quality over the short term at the expense of the long term. The state’s problem was that it did not spend enough money to fix roads faster than they fall apart over the long term, so debt makes the problem worse.

Not much happened in state road funding policy between 2019 and 2025. The federal government increased its road funding as part of COVID-19 pandemic relief, and it has remained at elevated levels.

Whitmer had a chance in 2023 to act when Democrats took majorities in both the Michigan House and Senate. She no longer had Republican-led chambers to stymie her proposals. Yet she did not advocate any tax hikes for roads, and both budgets enacted during the Democratic trifecta had little extra money for transportation.

Republicans took a majority in the House in the 2024 election and set out to do something that had been discussed for a long time: change the tax code as it relates to fuel. Michigan was a rare state that levied per-gallon taxes on fuel and an additional sales tax on the sale of fuel. The per-gallon tax was designated for transportation while sales taxes were earmarked for education. This left the state with the 6th-highest tax on fuel but without commensurate road funding. Republicans voted to replace the sales tax levied on fuel with a per-gallon tax on fuel, increasing road funding by substituting one tax for another.

House Speaker Matt Hall insisted on getting a road funding package as part of a budget deal. Democrats said that they would do this if the package included a tax hike, any tax hike. Republicans agreed to raise marijuana taxes.

The deal will increase road funding by $2 billion when phased in, and only $400 million will come from tax hikes. Exempting fuel purchases from sales taxes might have meant less funding for education, but lawmakers found more money for schools as well.

Michigan can now get to the point where roads are fixed faster than they fall apart. It is on a pace to keep improving roads steadily over the long term. After 15 years of debate on road funding, it looks like lawmakers finally made it to the goal.

The question is how much credit goes to Whitmer. She asked for more spending on roads and didn’t veto an increase when the Republicans’ budget delivered it. It was her preference to raise taxes to pay for roads rather than use the state’s existing resources. It was Hall’s preference to fix roads without raising taxes. Both officials compromised. Eighty percent of the money came without tax hikes and 20% came from tax hikes. So 20% credit seems appropriate for Whitmer.

—————

James M. Hohman is the director of fiscal policy at the Mackinac Center for Public Policy.