Columns
How ICE’s policy on raiding whatever homes it wants violates a basic constitutional right
January 26 ,2026
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.
:
John E. Jones III
Dickinson College
(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.
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.
Not into spicy? The hot honey trend might change your mind
January 26 ,2026
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.
:
Lisa MarcAurele
Food Drink Life
Food Drink Life
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.
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.
LEGAL PEOPLE
January 26 ,2026
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.
Give credit where due on the roads deal
January 23 ,2026
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.
:
James M. Hohman
Mackinac Center for Public Policy
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.
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.
Trump’s insistence on personal loyalty from ambassadors could crimp U.S. foreign policy
January 23 ,2026
Just before Christmas, President Donald Trump fired more than two dozen
career ambassadors. The action was unprecedented, providing a clear
signal that when it comes to diplomacy, Trump values loyalty above all
else.
:
David Lindsey
Baruch College, CUNY
(THE CONVERSATION) — Just before Christmas, President Donald Trump fired more than two dozen career ambassadors. The action was unprecedented, providing a clear signal that when it comes to diplomacy, Trump values loyalty above all else.
All ambassadors face a persistent tension in their roles – having to represent the viewpoints of the president while also winning the trust of leaders in the countries where they serve. Presidents, unsurprisingly, often favor loyalists, in whom they have greater confidence.
Trump has pursued this to an exceptional degree, making more purely political picks than normal. Of the nearly 70 ambassadors he has appointed to date during this term, fewer than 10% have been career professionals with experience in the Foreign Service.
But as I have argued in my book “Delegated Diplomacy,” there is value in working through diplomats who disagree with you.
A diplomat who unfailingly follows the Washington line contributes little to a bilateral relationship, becoming nothing more than an expensive substitute for a secure phone line. A skilled ambassador knows when to soften a message, recognizes when pushing too hard will backfire, and sees the value in compromise.
At times, this diplomatic approach may sacrifice short-run gains available through more aggressive means. But in precisely those moments when leverage is most necessary, an ambassador who’s established trust can push harder and gain more as a result.
—————
All the president’s men
The idea that U.S. career diplomats place too much weight on foreign interests, rather than putting American, or presidential, interests first, is a perennial suspicion.
Presidents have felt this way themselves. In 1952, President Harry Truman wrote, “The State Department is clannish and snooty and sometimes I feel like firing the whole bunch.” Two decades later, President Richard M. Nixon told Henry Kissinger, his national security adviser and soon-to-be secretary of state, that he intended “to ruin the Foreign Service. I mean ruin it.”
Neither of those presidents followed through. With his mass firing of career diplomats, Trump has come closer. His administration has made it clear that loyalty will dominate its diplomatic personnel policy, with the State Department itself asserting the “president’s right to ensure he has individuals in these countries who advance the America First agenda.”
Not only has Trump weighted the diplomatic corps with political appointees, but he’s often bypassed even his own ambassadors in favor of working informally through members of his inner circle.
The administration’s most delicate tasks, such as dealing with the wars in Gaza and Ukraine, have often been delegated to Steve Witkoff, a real estate developer whose primary qualification appears to be his close friendship with the president, and Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law.
—————
Close personal ties
A preference to work diplomatically through intimates is understandable. Close personal knowledge of the president can provide credibility and weight to an envoy’s word. There is ample precedent for such selections, such as John F. Kennedy’s reliance in 1962 on his brother Robert as his crucial intermediary during the Cuban missile crisis, in which the U.S. ultimately convinced the Soviet Union to remove nuclear weapons from Cuba.
Such ties are likely to be all the more important in the current administration, where the president maintains such an openness to unconventional foreign policy choices. Career ambassadors who know no more about the president’s intentions than whatever the world can read in his latest Truth Social posts may not be able to do their jobs effectively, whether they ultimately keep them or not.
—————
Career vs. political
American ambassadors receive their posts through two tracks. Historically, a minority of ambassadors have been political appointees selected by the president, often as the result of close ties to him. These ambassadors routinely leave their positions when a new administration takes office.
The majority of ambassadors – including those who were recently fired – are career Foreign Service officers, most of whom have spent decades working their way up through the ranks of the diplomatic corps under presidents of both parties. Selected internally by the State Department – but subject to White House sign-off – these ambassadors serve on a nonpartisan basis and nearly always complete their tours of duty, informally set at three years, regardless of presidential turnover.
Diplomats have value to the president precisely because they have cultivated relationships, trust and expertise overseas through a willingness to understand and sympathize with foreign audiences. But this also means that they may rarely be in lockstep with the president’s view of the world. Hence, the friction ambassadors face in their in-between role.
—————
Loss of experience
It is one thing to fire ambassadors who have impeded the president’s agenda in some way; it is quite another to clear them out preemptively as Trump did in December. Ultimately, the loss of the expertise and relationships accrued by career diplomats will likely bite.
Professional diplomats are trained and acculturated to set aside their own views. As former Under Secretary of State Stuart Eizenstat once observed, Foreign Service officers “bend over backward to follow every U.S. president’s leadership, even when they disagree with specific policies.”
This is precisely why previous administrations have not fulfilled their fantasies of dismantling the Foreign Service. Truman, despite his contempt, conceded that “it requires a tremendous amount of education to accomplish the purposes for which the State Department is set up.” During Kissinger’s time as secretary of state, the Nixon administration ended up selecting an uncommonly high number of careerists for key positions.
This has not been Trump’s approach. It’s unlikely that will change. He demands loyalty throughout his administration, but diplomats have given him particular reason to think they might flout his wishes. In 2017, a thousand U.S. diplomats signed on to a message arguing that the administration’s travel ban would be counterproductive. A similar number joined a message this year protesting the administration’s closure of the United States Agency for International Development, or USAID.
Clearly, some officers will dissent so vigorously as to be unwilling to advance certain policies. They can be expected to resign, as many of their colleagues have done already.
But the career diplomats who remain will speak with a louder voice on the international stage precisely because the world believes they are not lapdogs.
All ambassadors face a persistent tension in their roles – having to represent the viewpoints of the president while also winning the trust of leaders in the countries where they serve. Presidents, unsurprisingly, often favor loyalists, in whom they have greater confidence.
Trump has pursued this to an exceptional degree, making more purely political picks than normal. Of the nearly 70 ambassadors he has appointed to date during this term, fewer than 10% have been career professionals with experience in the Foreign Service.
But as I have argued in my book “Delegated Diplomacy,” there is value in working through diplomats who disagree with you.
A diplomat who unfailingly follows the Washington line contributes little to a bilateral relationship, becoming nothing more than an expensive substitute for a secure phone line. A skilled ambassador knows when to soften a message, recognizes when pushing too hard will backfire, and sees the value in compromise.
At times, this diplomatic approach may sacrifice short-run gains available through more aggressive means. But in precisely those moments when leverage is most necessary, an ambassador who’s established trust can push harder and gain more as a result.
—————
All the president’s men
The idea that U.S. career diplomats place too much weight on foreign interests, rather than putting American, or presidential, interests first, is a perennial suspicion.
Presidents have felt this way themselves. In 1952, President Harry Truman wrote, “The State Department is clannish and snooty and sometimes I feel like firing the whole bunch.” Two decades later, President Richard M. Nixon told Henry Kissinger, his national security adviser and soon-to-be secretary of state, that he intended “to ruin the Foreign Service. I mean ruin it.”
Neither of those presidents followed through. With his mass firing of career diplomats, Trump has come closer. His administration has made it clear that loyalty will dominate its diplomatic personnel policy, with the State Department itself asserting the “president’s right to ensure he has individuals in these countries who advance the America First agenda.”
Not only has Trump weighted the diplomatic corps with political appointees, but he’s often bypassed even his own ambassadors in favor of working informally through members of his inner circle.
The administration’s most delicate tasks, such as dealing with the wars in Gaza and Ukraine, have often been delegated to Steve Witkoff, a real estate developer whose primary qualification appears to be his close friendship with the president, and Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law.
—————
Close personal ties
A preference to work diplomatically through intimates is understandable. Close personal knowledge of the president can provide credibility and weight to an envoy’s word. There is ample precedent for such selections, such as John F. Kennedy’s reliance in 1962 on his brother Robert as his crucial intermediary during the Cuban missile crisis, in which the U.S. ultimately convinced the Soviet Union to remove nuclear weapons from Cuba.
Such ties are likely to be all the more important in the current administration, where the president maintains such an openness to unconventional foreign policy choices. Career ambassadors who know no more about the president’s intentions than whatever the world can read in his latest Truth Social posts may not be able to do their jobs effectively, whether they ultimately keep them or not.
—————
Career vs. political
American ambassadors receive their posts through two tracks. Historically, a minority of ambassadors have been political appointees selected by the president, often as the result of close ties to him. These ambassadors routinely leave their positions when a new administration takes office.
The majority of ambassadors – including those who were recently fired – are career Foreign Service officers, most of whom have spent decades working their way up through the ranks of the diplomatic corps under presidents of both parties. Selected internally by the State Department – but subject to White House sign-off – these ambassadors serve on a nonpartisan basis and nearly always complete their tours of duty, informally set at three years, regardless of presidential turnover.
Diplomats have value to the president precisely because they have cultivated relationships, trust and expertise overseas through a willingness to understand and sympathize with foreign audiences. But this also means that they may rarely be in lockstep with the president’s view of the world. Hence, the friction ambassadors face in their in-between role.
—————
Loss of experience
It is one thing to fire ambassadors who have impeded the president’s agenda in some way; it is quite another to clear them out preemptively as Trump did in December. Ultimately, the loss of the expertise and relationships accrued by career diplomats will likely bite.
Professional diplomats are trained and acculturated to set aside their own views. As former Under Secretary of State Stuart Eizenstat once observed, Foreign Service officers “bend over backward to follow every U.S. president’s leadership, even when they disagree with specific policies.”
This is precisely why previous administrations have not fulfilled their fantasies of dismantling the Foreign Service. Truman, despite his contempt, conceded that “it requires a tremendous amount of education to accomplish the purposes for which the State Department is set up.” During Kissinger’s time as secretary of state, the Nixon administration ended up selecting an uncommonly high number of careerists for key positions.
This has not been Trump’s approach. It’s unlikely that will change. He demands loyalty throughout his administration, but diplomats have given him particular reason to think they might flout his wishes. In 2017, a thousand U.S. diplomats signed on to a message arguing that the administration’s travel ban would be counterproductive. A similar number joined a message this year protesting the administration’s closure of the United States Agency for International Development, or USAID.
Clearly, some officers will dissent so vigorously as to be unwilling to advance certain policies. They can be expected to resign, as many of their colleagues have done already.
But the career diplomats who remain will speak with a louder voice on the international stage precisely because the world believes they are not lapdogs.
U.S. turns its back on global efforts for women and children terrorized by violence and conflict
January 23 ,2026
The Trump administration’s recent announcement that it is withdrawing
from 66 international organizations and treaties is another blow to the
global system where all countries unite to share concerns, agree on
rules of conduct and determine agendas for collective action.
:
Shelley Inglis
Rutgers University
(THE CONVERSATION) — The Trump administration’s recent announcement that it is withdrawing from 66 international organizations and treaties is another blow to the global system where all countries unite to share concerns, agree on rules of conduct and determine agendas for collective action.
Coming on the heels of the U.S. attack on Venezuela – considered a violation of international law – the White House claims, without specific justification, that these organizations and initiatives “operate contrary to U.S. national interests, security, economic prosperity or sovereignty.”
Some experts say many of these organizations are niche and peripheral initiatives. They say the groups receive little money from the U.S., anyway.
Additionally, most of the U.N. entities on the administration’s list are part of the U.N.’s main body, the Secretariat, which gets its funding primarily from membership dues that are required by legal obligations. In fact, the U.S. can’t technically withdraw from these groups without leaving the U.N. completely. It can, however, select not to participate in meetings of these bodies or finance them through additional funds.
Moreover, with the White House already defunding the foreign assistance that supported many of these organizations and the U.N. system, regardless of congressional appropriations, this stated withdrawal is unlikely to alter much for these organizations in the short term.
The loss is likely greater to America.
Foreign policy experts assert that leaving empty the U.S. seat at the table will result in an increasingly isolated America and enable its adversaries, such as China, to fill the void.
As a democracy and peacebuilding scholar, and from my years working at the U.N., I know U.S. withdrawal from these organizations also risks undercutting lasting peace and human rights accountability, especially for women and children terrorized by violence and conflict.
—————
Women and children die first
Peace and human rights-related groups loom large on the list of organizations the U.S. has withdrawn from.
The list includes key U.N. bodies that seek to hold states accountable for rape and use of child soldiers in conflict, among other crimes.
The U.N. offices of the Special Representative on Children in Armed Conflict and on Sexual Violence in Conflict are unique global repositories of detailed reporting used by countries, courts and advocates.
These offices can identify violations and trigger action to prevent rape and violence against women and children. This can lead to targeted sanctions against people and other restrictions, national action plans compelling reform, and even international criminal prosecutions.
Additionally, the U.S. will no longer support U.N. peacebuilding efforts. That includes the Peacebuilding Commission and its attendant Peacebuilding Fund. Yet by virtue of its permanent member status on the Security Council, the U.S. is a member of the commission.
Established in 2005 to help countries avoid a return to conflict, the Peacebuilding Commission claims among its successes formerly war-torn but now stable countries such as Sierra Leone and Liberia, which had Africa’s first democratically elected female leader. These bodies prioritize women and youth engagement in building peace.
Also on the list is the United Nations group focused on gender equality and women’s empowerment, known as UN Women. Established in 2010, the agency promotes women’s rights and helps women and girls prosper. UN Women has helped improve laws and policies for women in 83 countries and leads major efforts, including the Spotlight Initiative that aims to end violence against women and girls in more than 25 countries.
More than half of UN Women’s current budget of over US$2 billion for 2026 through 2029 goes to empowering women in war-affected societies and tackling violence against women and girls.
The U.S. served multiple times on the UN Women executive board, which steers the direction of the organization, including between 2023 and 2025. It does this, in part, by approving its strategy, plans and budget.
With the U.S. leaving its seat in steering the organization, Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently said that UN Women has failed “to define what a woman even is.”
With such an adversarial approach, the absence of the Trump administration seeking to spoil human rights protections might be advantageous for these groups in the short term.
But the lack of U.S. financial and political support may weaken these organizations in the long term, eroding their legitimacy and even opening the door for other countries to further undermine their efforts. That might endanger the already politically sensitive challenge of promoting accountability for serious violations of women’s and children’s rights.
—————
‘Adapt, shrink or die’
The specter of the U.S. further abandoning peace and human rights efforts remains.
Rubio said on Jan. 7, 2026, that the administration’s review of additional organizations continues. That reinforces a recent State Department statement to the U.N. – “adapt, shrink or die.”
Some key international and U.N. entities that promote peace and human rights were not on the list, including the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the U.N.’s chief human rights institution – a bully pulpit that has been used sparingly against the second Trump administration so far.
But the U.S. has recently been disrupting long-standing, U.N.-mediated agreements on human rights concerns, including for children.
In 2025, it voted against 38 resolutions in the General Assembly’s human rights committee alone. For example, for the Rights of the Child resolution, the U.S. took the unusual and divisive step of calling for a general vote, even though text had been previously agreed upon. Despite the U.S. “no” vote, the resolution passed, with over 170 states voting in favor.
The Trump administration has also selectively funded certain U.N. peace efforts. For example, of its $682 million contribution to U.N. peacekeeping, it has earmarked $85 million for Haiti – around half of what it actually owes.
It cherry-picked the conflict areas to fund – excluding Yemen, Afghanistan and Gaza – with its $2 billion in humanitarian aid, a steep decline from the U.S. contribution of around $14 billion in 2024.
And it refused to participate in the U.N’s Universal Periodic Review – the only global peer review process for all countries’ human rights efforts. The group’s recommendations, though voluntary, often trigger action to improve human rights. Failure to show up in November 2026 for a postponed review would mean that America becomes the first country ever to undermine this singular means of accountability.
For now, most other U.N. member states are not following suit.
While the U.S. has been able to force changes to language on sexual- and gender-based violence in Security Council resolutions – where it holds a veto – its efforts have gained little traction in the broader body. Losing that language erases years of progress in recognizing that men and boys are also subject to sexual violence and exploitation and deserve international protection.
Most tellingly, the Trump administration’s new Board of Peace – ostensibly for Gaza – appears designed to displace the U.N. itself without reference to the core principles, including human rights, on which the U.N. Charter stands.
Coming on the heels of the U.S. attack on Venezuela – considered a violation of international law – the White House claims, without specific justification, that these organizations and initiatives “operate contrary to U.S. national interests, security, economic prosperity or sovereignty.”
Some experts say many of these organizations are niche and peripheral initiatives. They say the groups receive little money from the U.S., anyway.
Additionally, most of the U.N. entities on the administration’s list are part of the U.N.’s main body, the Secretariat, which gets its funding primarily from membership dues that are required by legal obligations. In fact, the U.S. can’t technically withdraw from these groups without leaving the U.N. completely. It can, however, select not to participate in meetings of these bodies or finance them through additional funds.
Moreover, with the White House already defunding the foreign assistance that supported many of these organizations and the U.N. system, regardless of congressional appropriations, this stated withdrawal is unlikely to alter much for these organizations in the short term.
The loss is likely greater to America.
Foreign policy experts assert that leaving empty the U.S. seat at the table will result in an increasingly isolated America and enable its adversaries, such as China, to fill the void.
As a democracy and peacebuilding scholar, and from my years working at the U.N., I know U.S. withdrawal from these organizations also risks undercutting lasting peace and human rights accountability, especially for women and children terrorized by violence and conflict.
—————
Women and children die first
Peace and human rights-related groups loom large on the list of organizations the U.S. has withdrawn from.
The list includes key U.N. bodies that seek to hold states accountable for rape and use of child soldiers in conflict, among other crimes.
The U.N. offices of the Special Representative on Children in Armed Conflict and on Sexual Violence in Conflict are unique global repositories of detailed reporting used by countries, courts and advocates.
These offices can identify violations and trigger action to prevent rape and violence against women and children. This can lead to targeted sanctions against people and other restrictions, national action plans compelling reform, and even international criminal prosecutions.
Additionally, the U.S. will no longer support U.N. peacebuilding efforts. That includes the Peacebuilding Commission and its attendant Peacebuilding Fund. Yet by virtue of its permanent member status on the Security Council, the U.S. is a member of the commission.
Established in 2005 to help countries avoid a return to conflict, the Peacebuilding Commission claims among its successes formerly war-torn but now stable countries such as Sierra Leone and Liberia, which had Africa’s first democratically elected female leader. These bodies prioritize women and youth engagement in building peace.
Also on the list is the United Nations group focused on gender equality and women’s empowerment, known as UN Women. Established in 2010, the agency promotes women’s rights and helps women and girls prosper. UN Women has helped improve laws and policies for women in 83 countries and leads major efforts, including the Spotlight Initiative that aims to end violence against women and girls in more than 25 countries.
More than half of UN Women’s current budget of over US$2 billion for 2026 through 2029 goes to empowering women in war-affected societies and tackling violence against women and girls.
The U.S. served multiple times on the UN Women executive board, which steers the direction of the organization, including between 2023 and 2025. It does this, in part, by approving its strategy, plans and budget.
With the U.S. leaving its seat in steering the organization, Secretary of State Marco Rubio recently said that UN Women has failed “to define what a woman even is.”
With such an adversarial approach, the absence of the Trump administration seeking to spoil human rights protections might be advantageous for these groups in the short term.
But the lack of U.S. financial and political support may weaken these organizations in the long term, eroding their legitimacy and even opening the door for other countries to further undermine their efforts. That might endanger the already politically sensitive challenge of promoting accountability for serious violations of women’s and children’s rights.
—————
‘Adapt, shrink or die’
The specter of the U.S. further abandoning peace and human rights efforts remains.
Rubio said on Jan. 7, 2026, that the administration’s review of additional organizations continues. That reinforces a recent State Department statement to the U.N. – “adapt, shrink or die.”
Some key international and U.N. entities that promote peace and human rights were not on the list, including the Office of the High Commissioner for Human Rights, the U.N.’s chief human rights institution – a bully pulpit that has been used sparingly against the second Trump administration so far.
But the U.S. has recently been disrupting long-standing, U.N.-mediated agreements on human rights concerns, including for children.
In 2025, it voted against 38 resolutions in the General Assembly’s human rights committee alone. For example, for the Rights of the Child resolution, the U.S. took the unusual and divisive step of calling for a general vote, even though text had been previously agreed upon. Despite the U.S. “no” vote, the resolution passed, with over 170 states voting in favor.
The Trump administration has also selectively funded certain U.N. peace efforts. For example, of its $682 million contribution to U.N. peacekeeping, it has earmarked $85 million for Haiti – around half of what it actually owes.
It cherry-picked the conflict areas to fund – excluding Yemen, Afghanistan and Gaza – with its $2 billion in humanitarian aid, a steep decline from the U.S. contribution of around $14 billion in 2024.
And it refused to participate in the U.N’s Universal Periodic Review – the only global peer review process for all countries’ human rights efforts. The group’s recommendations, though voluntary, often trigger action to improve human rights. Failure to show up in November 2026 for a postponed review would mean that America becomes the first country ever to undermine this singular means of accountability.
For now, most other U.N. member states are not following suit.
While the U.S. has been able to force changes to language on sexual- and gender-based violence in Security Council resolutions – where it holds a veto – its efforts have gained little traction in the broader body. Losing that language erases years of progress in recognizing that men and boys are also subject to sexual violence and exploitation and deserve international protection.
Most tellingly, the Trump administration’s new Board of Peace – ostensibly for Gaza – appears designed to displace the U.N. itself without reference to the core principles, including human rights, on which the U.N. Charter stands.
headlines Detroit
headlines National
- Understanding women in their lives is important for men’s happiness, divorce lawyer says in new book
- ACLU and BigLaw firm use ‘Orange is the New Black’ in hashtag effort to promote NY jail reform
- Federal jury awards $120M to coal company in defamation, RICO suit against lawyer
- Attorney suspended for allegedly pressuring client for sexual favors
- Client accuses Willkie of conspiring to commit $735M fraud scheme
- New deans led nearly one-quarter of law schools in 2025
