Todd Spangler

Detroit Free Press

WASHINGTON — Elections have consequences, the saying goes. And last week’s stunning triumph by Donald Trump is no different when it comes to Michigan: If the president-elect makes good on his word, we could see lots of changes in metro Detroit and across the state in the years to come.

Whether those changes will be good or bad is an open question, depending widely on global developments, congressional buy-in, stock market gyrations and — as in all cases — the personal philosophies of those making the judgment.

What’s not in question, however, is whether Trump has made promises: Over the course of a half-dozen visits across Michigan since July and in allusions to metro Detroit and its signature auto industry throughout the campaign, the Republican businessman has made guarantees — vague though some of them have been — to revitalize industry in Michigan, create jobs and invest, specifically, in Detroit.

►Donald Trump supporters: Obamacare, jobs, security top concerns

►Related: Donald Trump supporters in their own words

►Related: How Donald Trump turned the tide in Michigan

It’s also important to keep in mind that President-elect Trump will come into office in January with Republicans in control of both chambers of Congress, meaning he should theoretically be able to follow through on many of those promises — though the GOP doesn’t have the 60-vote margin in the U.S. Senate President Barack Obama did when he came into office in 2009.

With all of that in mind, here’s a look at what Trump has promised Michigan on the campaign trail, his chances of following through with them and the potential impact on the state and its people.

Trade

“We will make Michigan into the manufacturing hub of the world once again,” Trump thundered just a week ago at a packed rally at Freedom Hill Amphitheatre in Macomb County, a working-class enclave where trade deals have long been held in poor regard as costing the state jobs in the auto industry. No doubt, in part, because of those promises, Macomb turned for the Republican after backing Obama in the last two elections.

So what has Trump promised?

He has said he will either force a better trade deal with Mexico to stop Detroit’s auto companies from moving production — any production — there, or tear up the North American Free Trade Agreement and impose a 35% tariff on cars and parts imported back into the U.S. as a way to stop it from happening. That’s a big deal considering Ford is moving the rest of its small car production to Mexico to hold down costs, and General Motors is doubling its production capacity there.

Trump has guaranteed the companies won’t go and he will recoup auto jobs in Michigan. If he can somehow deliver on that — somehow bring back hundreds of thousands of manufacturing jobs lost in the last two decades as he has suggested — it would, obviously, be an amazing development, though few, if any, experts see exactly how he could make that happen.

Meanwhile, hitting Mexico with a punitive tariff would violate World Trade Organization rules, which could lead to sanctions, and a 35% tariff on cars and parts could set off a trade war with Mexico and hike prices here, making U.S. products less competitive worldwide at a time when U.S. car sales have actually been breaking records.

Would it create jobs? Not in the short term. Companies make financial decisions about where to make their products years in advance and any turnaround takes a lot of time. And while high tariffs — Trump also has talked about putting high rates on Chinese imports — might lead to some job creation, it also could spur lower-cost imports from other countries not facing the same tariff to sell more in the U.S. All of which could lead to other tariffs against other countries, resulting in higher prices, higher inflation, etc.

As to whether he could do it, the answer, generally speaking, is yes. Congress has handed over much of the authority for deciding on tariffs to the president. As to whether he will follow through — that’s another question.

Immigration

Trump began late last year by suggesting the U.S. ban all immigration by Muslims, a comment that led even some members of his own party to reject him. Since then, he has backed off that position somewhat, but his underlying concern is the same: He’s worried that Islamic terrorists could use American immigration policy to enter the country and attack us. And he has promised to do something about it.

It’s a fair question whether Trump should have made any such promise: The vast majority of Muslims in the U.S. and worldwide have nothing to do with terrorism or violence in any way, and the U.S. already has a strong vetting system in place. Few, if any, attacks so far in the U.S. linked to the Islamic State or ISIS have been committed by immigrants — and there is a good argument that the U.S. has a humanitarian duty to help resettle some of the millions displaced by the civil war in Syria.

But if Trump wants to stop those immigrants and refugees from entering the U.S., he almost certainly can and will do so — a decision which will affect families in Michigan, which has been a prime destination for thousands of Syrian refugees, taking in more than any state other than California. And Michigan’s large Muslim and Arab-American population would certainly feel beleaguered by such an edict, especially considering Trump has also talked about increased surveillance of mosques in the aftermath of last June’s attack in Florida.

The Immigration and Nationality Act, however, effectively gives the president authority to ban people or classes of people from other nations from entering the country. And it does get used from time to time. In 1993, President Bill Clinton used it to bar the entry of Haitian nationals interested in impeding negotiations to restore a constitutional government there. And in 2011, Obama used it to keep out anyone who had committed war crimes or otherwise violated recognized human rights and humanitarian laws.

Trump could have an issue barring people of a specific religion from entering the U.S. — that could be challenged in court. But if, as he has said, Trump wants to stop immigration from countries where terrorism has been a problem, he can do it.

It’s unclear, however, whether that would include an ally like, say England or France, where terrorist attacks have occurred, or simply be used for majority Muslim countries. Already, some allies are suggesting they will have trouble with any such move by Trump. Angela Merkel of Germany, which has taken in many more refugees than America, said her country’s continued cooperation with the U.S. depends on Trump showing “respect for the law and the dignity of man, independent of origin, skin color, religion, gender, sexual orientation or political views.” It also could hurt with the coalition fighting ISIS.

Urban issues

In recent months, Trump began to talk, a lot, about Detroit and other American inner-cities, urging African Americans to vote for him. He said that Democratic policies were responsible for higher crime, worse schools and failing infrastructure.

And he made a lot of promises about what he would do about it.

Specifically, Trump says his economic plans — primarily renegotiating trade deals — will help create jobs in Detroit and elsewhere. But he also has claimed that his tax plans — including simplifying and cutting tax brackets and providing a break on child care costs — will have a direct impact on inner cities.

He didn’t stop there, telling an audience in Charlotte, N.C., last week that “Whether you vote for me or not, I will be your greatest champion.” He proposed tax holidays for municipal investment, tax incentives for foreign companies to relocate in blighted neighborhoods and “a federal disaster designation for blighted communities” to “initiate the rebuilding of vital infrastructure, the demolition of abandoned properties and the increased presence of law enforcement.”

All of this sounds great and, if Trump can deliver on those initiatives, could very well make a difference to spur development in cities. The problem is, the president-elect has never spelled out how he would pay for these proposals or get a spendthrift Congress to back them. Detroit has already received more than $250 million in commitments to tear down abandoned buildings, but to get that, Democrats in Congress had to press colleagues to raid existing funds for other purposes.

And a federal disaster designation for blighted communities brings lots of questions: Congress would have to approve it, and funding would have to be allocated.

How long would these disaster designations last? What would the legal process be for tearing down presumably privately owned abandoned properties in short-order? Does vital infrastructure include schools, roads, the Internet? Would a city be given funding to hire more police, or would some other group be called on to police inner-city streets? When Trump made this bold proposal, the Free Press asked his campaign these specific questions: We were referred only to his speech, which didn’t address them, though he has said he will cancel payments to a United Nations climate change fund and put $100 billion over eight years into America’s inner cities.

But can we take the president-elect at his word on these promises, as well as those in which he has said, “I have heard and have listened to the concerns raised by African-American citizens about our justice system,” and that the law “will be applied fairly, equally and without prejudice.” Trump has talked about expanding the use of so-called “stop and frisk” tactics — which have long been criticized as targeting minorities. Ultimately, use of such policies would be in the purview of local officials, not the president, but some media reports have also suggested a Trump administration Justice Department may be less committed to bringing actions protecting civil rights than the Obama administration has been.

Other issues

Trump’s tax plan is seen as putting more money in the pockets of both individuals and businesses, which could be good for the economy: The Tax Foundation in Washington says it would “significantly reduce marginal rates and the cost of capital, which would lead to higher, long-run levels of GDP (gross domestic product), wages and full-time equivalent jobs.”

All of that could be good news for Michigan — if it could be achieved. Even the Tax Foundation, which is complimentary toward Trump’s plan compared with other groups, says it could increase the federal deficit by $4 trillion over the next decade unless it were cut from elsewhere. And that level of funding isn’t readily available without making deep cuts to social programs or defense, neither of which is likely to happen.

Trump also is calling for a moratorium on new regulations as part of his argument that they hurt business. But it’s unclear how that would work exactly. For instance, could rules regarding safer pipelines in and around the Great Lakes be put off, despite being called for by Congress? What about the EPA and its long-awaited revision to the Lead and Copper Rule, a regulation that resonates in Michigan considering unfiltered water still is considered unsafe to drink in Flint? Environmental forces intent on protecting the Great Lakes are certain to be on the lookout for any revisions that could hurt water quality.

Contact Todd Spangler: 703-854-8947 or tspangler@freepress.com. Follow him on Twitter at @tsspangler. Staff writer Brent Snavely contributed to this report.