Photo Credit: Matheus Bertilli

In recent years, there has been a noticeable rise in the amount of political conspiracies among Generation Z. Whether it’s the resurfacing of the old or the peddling of new ones, social media has changed the way Gen Z interacts with information, government, and well, everything. As a member of Generation Z myself, I’ve noticed this rise and feel a bit uneasy about our future.

Take the flood of theories in the wake of the Epstein Files release back in January. If you’re at all familiar with conspiracy theories, then Alex Jones is a household name. He’s been talking about a cannibalistic, satanic ring of pedophiles for decades. As you can imagine, the Epstein Files have rehashed these ideas and, in many people’s eyes, confirmed what Jones had been saying all along. Many of these theories also harken back to Pizzagate and QAnon, with Jones’ and others’ continued propagation on social media. Even some of my friends have said that the Epstein Files open the door for many theories they would’ve dismissed just a few years ago. That’s scary.

Then there’s the flood of theories surrounding recent assassinations and attempts. Starting with the then Republican Nominee Donald Trump’s would-be assassin, Thomas Crooks. Many speculate that it wasn’t the bullet that hit the president’s ear, but a glass shard from the impact of the bullet hitting something else. Others drew connections to Israeli Mossad agents, or even accused leftists of planning the affair. There are even those that cast blame on the president and the conservative party itself, posing the idea that the whole event was a staged attempt to win more votes.

Of course, I’d be remiss if I didn’t mention Charlie Kirk and his assassination at the hands of Tyler Robinson. On social media, videos of bullet tracking analysis argue that Robinson never fired the bullet, as the real assassin was standing in the crowd with a remote-controlled, gerry-rigged wrist gun waiting to fire on a hand signal given by one of Kirk’s personnel—making it a massive inside job. Others speculate that Israel is to blame (this is a common theme). Many of these conspiracies are peddled by Mr. Kirk’s former friend and conservative commentator, Candace Owens, who, in the wake of his death, maintained that Robinson did not act alone. Digging deeper, conspiracies about Erika Kirk, Mr. Kirk’s grieving widow, ran rampant as she reportedly acted “off” in later interviews and events. She directly addressed Mrs. Owens and her theories, urging her to “Stop. That’s it. That’s all I have to say. Stop,”. Mrs. Owens responded by claiming that she would not back down from the truth. Famous streamer and personality Druski recently capitalized on the conspiracies of Mrs. Kirk as an odd, evil figure by dressing up as her and mocking her appearance, mannerisms, and faith. His skits got hundreds of millions of impressions on social media.

Lastly, we can’t forget the murder of the CEO of United Healthcare, Brian Thompson. While people argued whether the family man deserved to be murdered, an obviously ridiculous debate, others theorized that the man captured and held in custody was not the same person who killed the CEO in the street video that was circulating. They argue that side-by-side comparisons of photos of the perpetrator, Luigi Mangione, and the man that shot the CEO reveal differences in facial features, specifically in the eyebrows.

Conspiracy theories are not new by any means. They have been part of the American zeitgeist since JFK and the moon landing. However, with social media’s instantaneous proliferation of material, as well as the easy creation of so-called “echo chambers” (isolated algorithmic communities), they are becoming more deranged and more common. These algorithmic pockets have begun to easily radicalize young Americans.

I’ve only discussed a few recent theories here…but there seems to be an infinite amount constantly out on social media. These range from COVID-19 conspiracies to federal election fraud to deep-fakes or an AI takeover. These countless ideas spread like wildfire, gaining serious traction.

One thing to make clear: we absolutely should not blindly follow and agree with our government, popular media, or all the things we’re told to believe. Some of this country’s most valuable reforms stem from questioning and directly disobeying our government and popular media. The First Amendment grants us this right, but just like screaming fire in a crowded theater, there’s a point where it becomes harmful. The successful movements of change in this country: such as civil rights in the 60s, universal suffrage in the early 1900s, or abolition in the 1800s, were built on strong ethical and legal grounds. These conspiracies and online movements can hardly be equated with these, lacking major standing and real evidence.

With each of the theories I covered, the evidence is usually faulty, highly subjective, slim, and widely inconclusive. This is unlike past reasons we’ve had to distrust our government or media reporting. In this modern age, where everything is videoed, and millions of people analyze every angle of any given event, it’s not surprising that conspiracies are more plentiful than ever. However, that doesn’t mean they have any more credibility than before. Social media works by paying the creators of videos that draw the most attention, so it’s in a creator’s interest to make the most interesting product, not the most truthful one. Don’t believe the first thing you see or read, especially on social media. Maybe a conspiracy is intriguing, and you really want to know more—fine, now actually do your own research and find a plausible explanation.

I seriously doubt Israel tried to kill President Trump; he’s their biggest ally. I also seriously doubt a wrist contraption killed Charlie Kirk…because we have footage, confessions, and direct evidence that put Robinson at the scene of the crime and as the perpetrator. Is it possible that these conspiracies have some real substance to them? Maybe. Maybe not. What’s important is to stay informed, and to not let a random TikTok radicalize you. It’s good to be skeptical, but blatant ignorance and echo-chambered conspiratorial shielding are destructive. Over time, this erodes the trust we need in each other, the government, and the media reporting we have as a unified democratic republic. It’s not surprising that so many of these mass shootings are at the hands of social-media conspiracy-fed, radicalized Zoomers.

And, if you really do buy into these theories, don’t abandon the system–help change it. Vote, demonstrate, and talk to others. That’s always been our right, so use it.

Photo credit: Michigan Men’s Basketball Instagram

NATIONAL CHAMPIONS: Michigan Basketball ‘26 NCAA Tournament Review

“Hail to the champions! Hail to Michigan!” This quote from Ian Eagle rang over the broadcast, as the 2026 national championship came to an end, with Michigan prevailing over UConn 69-63, capturing their first title since 1989.

With the Wolverines’ historic season coming to an end, it is only right to recap their tournament run, which ended with the nets being cut down in Indianapolis.

After falling to Purdue in the Big Ten tournament championship, Michigan was awarded the 1 Seed in the Midwest Region…

16 Seed Howard

After seeing fellow #1 seed Duke experienced a scare vs 16th seeded Siena, it was clear that the Wolverines had full focus in their own first round matchup. Despite Howard shooting a blistering 48% from beyond the arc, Michigan was able to pull off a 101-80 victory.

9 Seed St. Louis

Michigan’s next opponent was the midmajor St. Louis, led by Robbie Avila, a tough opponent that spent a lot of the season inside the AP top 25. Thanks to every Michigan starter scoring double figures, the Wolverines went on a big run late in the game, pulling away for a 95-72 victory, advancing to the Sweet 16.

4 Seed Alabama

Alabama brought a high paced, run and gun style, with future NBA point guard Labaron Philon Jr. detonating for 35 points. The duo of Yaxel Lendeborg and Elliott Cadeau helped spur Michigan on to a 90-77 win, with both stars stuffing the box score in multiple categories.

6 Seed Tennessee

Tennessee was a bit of a surprise to see in the Elite 8, after taking down the 2 and 3 seed in the region. Michigan had absolutely no problems with Tennessee, winning by a score of 95-62, and punching their ticket to the Final 4 in Indianapolis.

1 Seed Arizona

In one of the most anticipated matchups in NCAA tournament history, the two favorites to win it all going into the tournament faced off, with many assuming that the winner would go on to take home the championship in the next game. However, despite the hype of the game, and despite Michigan’s best player (Yaxel Lendeborg) playing only 14 minutes due to injury, Michigan would lead the game wire to wire, ending the game with a score of 91-73.

This game was a bit of a disappointment for many fans, as Michigan dominated Arizona the entirety of the game, taking advantage of the inside, and holding Arizona to just 37% shooting on the night. Aday Mara was the star in this game, dropping 26 points and 9 rebounds, along with 2 blocks.

2 Seed UConn

The final test for Michigan was against the 2 seed UConn, who against all odds had upset Duke on a last second heave, and defeated Illinois, to set up a date in the championship. This matchup was a clash of history, with UConn entering the game undefeated in national championships, and Michigan having 6 losses in the finals.

Despite UConn being the underdog, they were on the verge of a dynasty, with Dan Hurley leading them to 3 of the last 4 national championship games, winning the whole thing in 2023, and 2024. Dusty May was looking for his first national championship, in his 2nd Final 4 appearance, after leading FAU to the Final 4 in 2023.

The game itself was a bloodbath, both teams playing extremely physical, and struggling to create offense. Lendeborg was limited in his impact, due to an injury he picked up in the semifinal, and UConn did a fantastic job taking Mara out of his comfort zone, holding him to 8 points.

Elliott Cadeau was the star of the championship game, scoring 19 points and taking home the Most Outstanding Player award for the NCAA tournament. Star freshman Trey McKenney hit the dagger 3 pointer at the end of the game, sending the crowd into a frenzy, and putting the exclamation point onto the legendary 2026 Michigan basketball season.

Aftermath

Michigan’s national title marks the first title from the Big Ten since 2000, and it also marks one of the more dominant seasons we have ever seen. The Wolverines’ +114 margin in the tournament comes in at the 7th highest all time, and according to KenPom’s net season rating, this Michigan team is the best since 1999.

This Michigan team was a joy to watch throughout the season, and will go down in history, for bringing the national championship back to Ann Arbor. Dusty May has led Michigan from the worst team in the Big Ten, to national champions in just 2 seasons, and will look to continue building his legacy in the upcoming seasons.

Michigan will likely lose all 3 of the frontcourt starters to the NBA next season, along with veterans like Nimari Burnett, WIll Tschetter, and Roddy Gayle Jr. However, the duo of Elliott Cadeau and Trey McKenney will be back for the Wolverines next season, poised to be one of the top backcourts in the nation.

Michigan also has a strong recruiting class, highlighted by Brandon McCoy Jr., a 5 star PG from California, who committed during Michigan’s game against Arizona. The rest of the roster will be finalized after the transfer portal, where Dusty May has historically leaned on in finding key roster pieces, like the 4 transfers from this national championship team.

Michigan basketball is on top of the world again, for the first time since 1989, and this 2025-2026 team will never be forgotten, going down as one of the most iconic Michigan teams of all time, and hopefully the first of multiple championships for head coach Dusty May.

Photo credit: Medium

You get home from a long day of school. You pick up your phone, which your generation spends an average of over 6 hours on daily. You open up Youtube, or Instagram, or TikTok and…scroll. And scroll. And scroll some more. And scroll so much that your brain feels fried. Eventually, you come across a peculiar video. It looks funny at first, but feels unnatural. The voices are a little too robotic, and the images are a little too shiny. Most likely, it’s what Merriam Webster defines as brainrot: “mindless digital content; the fixation on it and harmful mental effects of it.” However, as you open the comment section, you are met with a gif that says “Your AI Slop does not amuse me.” With that, comes a haunting realization: you just watched something made completely by AI.

This new wave of AI-generated content has taken over social media. As of March 2025, 71 percent of all social media content was created by AI. This year, some experts expect that the number will skyrocket to 90 percent. The “Dead Internet Theory,” the idea that a vast majority of all online content will eventually be created by AI, has already become a reality. With that, a new, sickening genre of content has begun to take over. It’s called “AI Slop.”

AI Slop is defined as “low- to mid-quality content…created with AI tools, often with little regard for accuracy.” Entire channels produce AI Slop, with one in India called “Bandar Apna Dost” accruing 2 billion views–equivalent to over $4 million for the “creators.” To someone that’s chronically online, it is clear that this content is not real. However…it is an epidemic far worse than it may seem. Not only have some channels become disgusting production factories, but AI Slop has become analogous with scams on the web. One scammer will make 200+ AI slop websites in one go. Research has shown that the ability to detect AI declines dramatically with age, leaving the elderly particularly at risk.

The impacts of this are clear. The internet, once a vibrant sphere for creative expression, has now become a cesspool of low quality, low effort, slop. When we once had to debrief our grandparents about internet scams made by humans, we now have to explain what AI is to them…knowing our advice is falling on deaf ears.

It is to this writer’s opinion that within the next five years, 99.99% of content on social media will be AI generated. It’s a pure numbers game. There are channels pumping out 100s of videos a day as I write this very article. As someone that values art and creative expression, this is a nightmare come true. In five years…how will we be able to tell what art is human-created and what uses AI? Not only will it become next to impossible, but the fact that that is a question that will have to be asked is terrible.

So, what do we do? There is a silver lining: humanity has not taken a liking to AI Slop. Far from it. As alluded to in the introduction, almost every comment section under AI created posts is filled with disapproving viewers. Even more than that–people are starting to actively seek out non-AI content. As a result, there has been a creative revolution. Content that’s flawed, messy, and human is now in high demand. Leaning into our own humanity is how we must revolt against AI. And in a way, that’s beautiful.

Watch hand animated movies. Read poetry. Support real causes, not computer generated “people” on a screen. By giving our attention and money to things that are real, we signal to companies that producing real products is what is most profitable for them. Beyond that…we signal to society at large that we will take a stand against AI.

Basically, be human. The rest will follow.

Photo Credit: Michigan Men’s Basketball Instagram

Saturday, April 4th marks the University of Michigan’s ninth ever Final Four matchup. The team has not scaled the mountain since 2018, where, thanks to the efforts of Charles Matthews and NBA star Mortiz Wagner, Michigan bested Loyola Chicago 69-57 to return to the National Championship game for its seventh time in program history. Now, the Wolverines return to college basketball’s biggest stage with a chance to replicate that success, and potentially punch their ticket to the Final.

The University of Arizona Wildcats are 36-2 over the course of the regular season, logging just one more win than the Wolverines. On paper, this is as even as a match-up gets. Arizona has been extremely dominant offensively. Over the season they have averaged roughly 82 points per game, compared to Michigan’s 74, while allowing 70, compared to Michigan’s 66. Whoever controls the tempo early will come out on top.

Michigan is coming into this game with a slight edge according to most analysts, with bettors putting them as 1.5 point favorites. Since almost every one of our players is matched up perfectly, this game will come down to the margins.

At the center of Arizona’s attack is Jaden Bradley, a player who can singlehandedly dictate the momentum of the game. He is inconsistent, but if he gets hot, Michigan will need to try everything they can to limit his touches and pressure him into rushed passes and shots. If Bradley gets comfortable early, Arizona’s offense can quickly become overwhelming.

While much of the attention will be on Arizona’s firepower, Michigan’s ability to match that production lies in the versatility and balance of our own players.

Yaxel Lendeborg will be crucial for this matchup. He brings a physicality that Arizona will not be able to defend against. His ability to rebound, defend multiple positions, and finish through contact gives us a reliable, efficient, and effective gunman that can be relied on throughout the game. If he can hold his own on the glass and limit second-chance opportunities, one of Arizona’s main strengths will be neutralized.

For Michigan, the formula is clear. Their biggest challenges throughout the season have been turnovers and inconsistent three-point shooting. Against a team like Arizona, those weaknesses become even more critical. Live-ball turnovers could fuel Arizona’s transition game, while cold shooting from beyond the arc would allow the Wildcats to pack the paint and control rebounds.

On the flip-side, Michigan has distinct advantages. Their defensive efficiency and ability to stay composed in late-game situations give them a strong foundation in close contests. They have consistently shown the ability to grind out wins, even when the shooting game falters. In a Final Four setting, where the nerves and the pressure is tangible, that composure could be what decides the matchup. Dusty May’s side brings an experience in clutch moments…which will prove extremely valuable on the biggest stage.

Rebounding will also play a major role. Arizona’s physical presence inside gives them an edge on second-chance opportunities, and if Michigan fails to box out effectively, those extra possessions could swing the game. At the same time, if Michigan can neutralize that advantage and limit Arizona to one shot per possession, they significantly increase their chances of controlling tempo.

Ultimately, this matchup is about margins. One or two key turnovers, an accidental brick or two, or a single defensive stop in the final minutes could determine who advances. Michigan’s path to victory is simple in theory but difficult in execution: protect the ball, control the pace, and capitalize on open shots. If they can do that, then this game is more than winnable.

There is also a larger narrative surrounding this Michigan team. While the program has consistently reached the sport’s biggest stages, converting those opportunities into championships has been a challenge. Michigan has appeared in the national championship game seven times in its history, but has secured just one title.

That history adds an extra layer of urgency to this run. For this group, it is not just about reaching the championship. This team has an opportunity to rewrite the narrative that has followed Michigan for decades. A win over Arizona would not only send Michigan back to the title game, but also give the Wolverines a chance to write a new story for the program.

The 2026 midterm election is rapidly approaching, with both the Republican and Democratic parties engaged in a vigorous contest for control of the U.S. House of Representatives and Senate.

As is customary, the redrawing of congressional districts following the decennial census has proved contentious in both battleground and deeply divided states. For instance, California enacted Proposition 50, which authorizes the California legislature to redraw its federal congressional districts for use from 2026 to 2030, superseding the independently drawn map from 2020. This action followed Governor Abbot of Texas directing the state legislature to redraw their map for the upcoming election, a move intended to increase the number of Republican seats in Congress. The Supreme Court has since intervened to resolve several disputes.

Four days prior, on December 4, 2025, the Supreme Court issued its orders, including the granting of a stay for Abbot v. League of United Latin American Citizens. In this decision, Justice Alito permitted Texas to utilize the mid-decade map it had drawn for the 2026 midterm elections.

It is first essential to comprehend the types of gerrymandering permissible under the color of law in the United States. The Fourteenth Amendment prohibits states from denying “any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws,” which mandates that the government treat individuals equally. This principle is reinforced by the Voting Rights Act of 1965, which outlaws the dilution of individuals’ voting power on the basis of their race or color. Theoretically, and a position subsequently adopted by the Court, gerrymandering is defined as the political act of drawing maps to confer an advantage upon one political party, independent of race. Consequently, gerrymandering cases such as Rucho v. Common Clause have clarified that the Court has no Constitutional power to rule on partisan gerrymandering, while does with racial gerrymandering. Indeed, in Abbot v. LULAC, Justice Alito stated, “the impetus for the adoption of the Texas map (like the map subsequently adopted in California) was partisan advantage pure and simple.”

It is important to note that Justice Alito is allowing California to also use its mid-decade congressional map it drew in response to Texas.

Nevertheless, the influence of race, even if indirect, on gerrymandering has been the subject of extensive study. A 2023 Cambridge University study, published in the American Political Science Review, determined that race accounted for sixty percent of the variation in voting behavior during the 2020 and 2016 presidential elections. Thirty percent of this variation was attributed to geography.

However, this narrative is more complex upon closer examination. The researchers found that Hispanic and white voters exhibited the greatest variation, even across different geographical areas. For instance, in the 2016 presidential election, forty percent of white voters in Massachusetts supported the Republican candidate, compared to eighty-four percent of white voters in Mississippi. This discrepancy highlights geography as a significant factor for Hispanic and white voters. Conversely, Black voters consistently voted for the Democratic candidate irrespective of their location. The researchers ultimately posited that “perhaps the racial divide—at least as a deciding factor in voting behavior—is receding relative to other factors.”

Other pertinent factors include group consciousness and linked fate. Group consciousness is defined as the political awareness of belonging to a racial group, sharing common experiences, and believing that the group should act in concert; linked fate is the conviction that the destiny of one’s group is inextricably tied to one’s own personal destiny. A 2016 National Institutes of Health paper reported that Black individuals demonstrate the strongest levels of group consciousness and linked fate belief. This finding helps to account for the enduring political cohesion among Black voters across geographical boundaries and over time, given the history of slavery, the Jim Crow era, the Civil Rights movement, and the pervasive systemic disadvantages that Black Americans continue to face. These historical and contemporary factors, combined with group consciousness and linked fate, contribute to the consistent and overwhelming Democratic voting pattern observed among Black Americans across different regions.

The same NIH study indicated that Latinos exhibit mixed results. Similar to Black Americans, they demonstrate high levels of group consciousness but considerably low levels of linked fate belief. This observation may account for the demonstrable influence of geography on their political identity, as evidenced by the Cambridge University study. Conversely, group consciousness and linked fate beliefs are weakest among white Americans; given the findings of the aforementioned study, this outcome is not surprising and is exemplified by the Cambridge University study.

Turning to Abbot v. LULAC, Justice Alito reversed the lower court’s determination that Texas’ redrawn map had considered race. He contended that the lower court failed to afford good faith to the government’s assertion that it did not directly consider race in its districting plan. Justice Kagan, in her dissent, argued that the nine days of oral arguments heard by the lower court supported its conclusion that race was ultimately a determining factor. The aforementioned papers suggest that the accurate interpretation lies somewhere between the positions of both justices. Race is strongly correlated with partisan identity for Black voters and a significant proportion of Hispanic voters. However, it proves insufficient as a sole indicator for Asian and White voters, for whom geography may offer a more robust explanation of their partisan identity.

Where does Michigan play into this?

The repercussions of the Texas-California dispute, coupled with the Supreme Court’s order, extend to Michigan. As a key swing state, Michigan is a pivotal factor in presidential elections. Similar to California, Michigan employs an independent redistricting committee. The Michigan Independent Citizens Redistricting Commission (MICRC) comprises four Democratic citizens, four Republican citizens—none of whom have held recent governmental roles—and five independent or non-majority party members. This configuration, featuring an equal number of Democratic and Republican commissioners alongside an odd number of unaffiliated members, is intended to ensure bipartisan representation while preventing impasses. However, since the commission’s adoption only eight years ago, the state has already contended with legal challenges concerning racial gerrymandering. The map drawing following the 2020 census marked the MICRC’s inaugural effort, for which they relied on hired expertise. In 2023, a coalition of Black voters from Detroit filed suit against the Michigan Secretary of State, the MICRC, and its members, alleging racial discrimination in the map-drawing process.

In Agee v. Benson, the federal court determined that the map had indeed violated the Voting Rights Act and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment by utilizing race as a determining factor. Consequently, the Commission redrew the maps, which the court subsequently approved. This immediate action resulted in a Democratic trifecta in the state for the 2023-2024 legislative session. Currently, Republicans maintain a slim majority in the lower legislative chamber. Prior to the commission’s adoption (from 2011 to 2018), Republicans held a trifecta in the state.

As both Republicans and Democrats intensely pursue additional seats in the House of Representatives, the question remains whether Michigan will follow a similar trajectory. Given that California, which also utilizes an independent redistricting commission, recently redrew its map to exhibit a high degree of gerrymandering, the possibility of Michigan replicating this pattern warrants examination. Multiple factors influence whether Michigan will redraw its maps; however, should the state proceed with redistricting, Michigan, as a Midwestern state, presents a strong argument that for its non-Black voters, the correlation between race and partisan identity is not strong. The Cambridge University study, complemented by the NIH paper, posits that for Midwestern voters, geography and the rural-urban divide exert a greater influence. Regarding race, it is noteworthy that even the researchers stipulate that it is a diminishing factor relative to others. Consequently, should Michigan follow suit, it could readily demonstrate that partisanship was the primary influence, and the courts appear poised to uphold the hypothetical maps following the precedent set in Abbot v. LULAC. Nevertheless, it appears likely that Michigan will avoid involvement in this controversy entirely.

This is the transcript of The Michigan Review's interview with Interim President Domenico Grasso, where we discussed AI data centers, the selection of Kyle Whittingham, free speech, divestment, and “framemogging.” The questions were provided beforehand, with the exception of two follow-up questions. Minor grammatical edits were made.

The Michigan Review: During your tenure as interim president, the university has undergone significant changes, including major investments through Look to Michigan. What do you think your greatest accomplishment during your tenure at the University of Michigan is or will be?

Domenico Grasso: Well, thank you for the question. First, I want to say that I think the university is in a much stronger and more stable place than it was a year ago when I took office. When I took office, we laid out some of our priorities. One was that we wanted to make steady progress on previously announced projects. We had this thing called Vision 2034. I took a look at that, and it looked like it was more of an anodyne description of what we were going to do, so we reinvisioned that, and it became Look to Michigan and Look to Michigan Strategic Plan, and then it became a media campaign. We invested money in it, and that was, I think, probably one of my biggest accomplishments.

Campus Plan 2050 and other efforts were also part of this as well. We made a very strong commitment to listening and engaging with individuals throughout the community. We can continue to pursue our mission and commitment to our values. I was attempting to lay a sound foundation for our next president, Kent Syverud, who is going to be starting here in just a few weeks.

MR: During your tenure with the University of Michigan, from serving as chancellor of the Dearborn campus to your current role as interim President of Michigan, you have witnessed the University both with and without AI. Are you optimistic about AI’s impact on academia? How will AI change the university in the coming years?

DG: AI is going to be a powerful force to reckon with. Let me just start by saying that those who cannot use AI effectively and responsibly are going to be replaced by AI. AI brings powerful tools that can enhance but not replace our teaching and research while also potentially improving operational efficiency. We’re taking a very deliberate and thoughtful approach by engaging faculty, students, and staff from across the university and ensuring that it is used responsibly and ethically in ways that add value and strength in our mission.

MR: One of the largest financial investments during your tenure so far has been in the computational facility in Ypsilanti, built in partnership with Los Alamos National Laboratory. In September, you stated that “it’s really not a data center.” Could you please expand on this distinction?

DG: Sure, first I would like to start by saying that actually it is not one of my largest investments. Our large investments are in the Biotechnology Innovation Institute which I’m investing 250 million dollars in, and another one is the American Dialogue Center, which we’re investing 50 million dollars in. So I don’t think that this is one of the largest investments.

But let me just say that this is a specialized high-performance computing facility, not a commercial data center, as you point out. It uses only a fraction of the energy of a large-scale commercial data center. The work is to do advanced computer simulations not manufacturing or physical testing, and unlike a commercial site that is designed to generate revenue, this facility has a scientific mission. It enables our faculty and students to drive innovation in areas like medicine, cybersecurity, climate change, and national security. That improves society through discovery. It’s an investment in computational capacity to solve the world’s most challenging problems. And if you look around the country, many universities are investing in high performance data – high-performance computing centers.

MR: So there is just no revenue at all. Is it going to be purely just a research facility?

DG: We’re sinking money into it. It doesn’t generate revenue for us.

MR: As you probably know, there has been pushback against the computational facility, especially concerns around water, noise pollution, and increased energy costs. What specific guarantees is the University making to protect the environment and energy costs?

DG: We take these concerns very seriously, and they’re central to how we’re planning the facility. The facility is designed to minimize environmental impact, and as an environmental engineer, which is my discipline, I want to avoid the use of local groundwater, or the Huron River, and we want to use dedicated infrastructure that won’t impact residential grids and incorporate advanced technologies to manage noise and energy use.

The work is still in a due diligence phase of the project, so we will continue to engage with the community and regulatory partners to ensure these commitments are met. We want to minimize any adverse effects on the local community. We will want to work in partnership with the local community.

MR: The situation surrounding former Head Football Coach Sheronne Moore brought a lot of negative attention to the University. While the public saw the statement you gave following the situation, we were wondering if you could go a bit more behind the scenes, to the step-by-step process by which you dealt with the situation? Was this the biggest controversy you’ve had to deal with during your time at Michigan so far?

DG: Let me just say this: I’ve had a few controversies over my time here, and this was not a minor one, to be sure. But given the sensitivity of our ongoing review, I’m not really in a position to walk through the step-by-step details. What I can say, consistent with our approach, we’ve initiated an independent comprehensive review of the athletic department, both focused on the specific incident and on the culture of the athletic department. That work is ongoing. The review takes time, and it’s being handled with seriousness and independence. We have the goal of ensuring the department reflects our values and University of Michigan and is positioned to move forward in a positive and strong way.

MR: How involved were you in finding Kyle Whittingham? Did you have any input on his selection?

DG: Yes, over the holidays, I spent a lot of time with Ward Manuel, our athletic director, and when my wife is asked how our holiday was, she often replies that Domenico had a very nice holiday with Ward Manuel because we spent a lot of time talking about this. We made the final decision on Christmas Eve, and we pulled the trigger the day after Christmas. We decided not to do anything over Christmas. We made him the offer the day after Christmas, and I was involved in the interview process and the final offer as well.

MR: The investments inside university endowments have been the subject of criticism for decades. During your time here, there has been a push in the Central Student Government by students (who want to divest from Israel) to see how the endowment is invested. Why does the University of Michigan share little information on how its endowment is invested compared to universities like the University of California, which lists the size of its investment in weapons manufacturing, companies supporting Israel, and it lists its holdings?

DG: My understanding is that we provide actually substantial information about the endowment through annual investment reports, including companies-specific details for our public holdings. Our goal is to be as transparent as possible while also honoring the legal and contractual obligations tied to certain investments. Those requirements limit our ability to disclose every holding, but they’re essential for generating strong returns and supporting the university’s mission. I do want to point out that our endowment last year had the strongest returns of any endowment in the United States, public or private.

MR: Recently, the alt-right advocate Myron Gaines came to campus to debate any student on his opinions. Gaines performed a Nazi salute multiple times and defended many extreme ideas. As president of the University of Michigan, how much of a priority is it to you to defend the institution of free dialogue on a college campus with opinions as diverse as this one, and is there any line you draw?

DG: That’s an excellent question. First, you may know that I was in the military andI swore an oath to defend the Constitution. The First Amendment is a major part of that, and I’m committed to defending freedom of speech on this campus. As a public institution, we are bound by the First Amendment and cannot restrict or punish speech on the basis of viewpoint, even if our community finds it offensive or deeply disagreeable.

At the same time, we have a responsibility to ensure that free expression can take place without creating an imminent threat to safety, incitement of violence or disruption, or pervasive and severe harassment. So our role is to both protect free expression while maintaining a safe and respectful environment for our community. I also point out that a few years ago, we passed a new policy on diversity of thought and freedom of expression to really underscore this.

MR: As most of the campus knows by now, Kent Syverud is officially our new President Elect. How involved were you in the search to find him, and what are some pieces of advice you’d give? Is there anything you have already told him?

DG: So the board of regents led the presidential search, and they were supported by an advisory committee and an external search firm. I was not involved at all. My focus has been on ensuring a smooth and productive transition.

President-Elect Syverud and I are in regular contact as he prepares to step into the role. Given his extensive leadership experience and deep familiarity with the University of Michigan, he is well prepared to step in on day one. Of course, he knows that I’m always available if I can be helpful. I have great faith in his leadership.

MR: You’ve had quite the eventful tenure here at Michigan. What are your plans after? Do you intend to stay in academia, or is there another path calling your name?

DG: I don’t know what the future holds, but I can tell you what we have in the near term future. My wife and I bought a Sprinter van; it’s an off road sprinter, so it comes with solar power. We’re looking forward to exploring parts of the United States and Canada we haven’t seen yet.

MR: Do you have a first location you’re going to go to?

DG: We haven’t thought that through, although we just took it up to Sleeping Bear Dunes. It was very cold up there, and the van was beautiful in terms of keeping us warm. If you want to get a picture of it, it’s sitting in front of the president’s house, so it’s probably the first and only time there will be a sprinter van outside of the president’s house.

MR: Now, we wanted to end this interview with a funny question. What is your favorite slang term that you’ve heard as president of the University of Michigan?

DG: I can’t answer this one well. I’ve heard a lot of slang terms, and I’m not keen on a lot of them because I don’t think they’re good for public consumption. Let me ask you what your favorite slang terms are.

Reporter Isaac Gardner: Mine would probably be framemog. I don’t know if you’re familiar –

DG: What?!

Gardner: Framemogged is like when you’re bigger than the person next to you, and you look bigger than them.

DG: Okay… (laughs)

Reporter Luca Desanto: Mine is probably chud. A chud is someone who is lower. Like, if I’m just a chud, it’s just yeah, I’m just a disappointment. I’m a goober, that’s another slang term.

DG: I was just a goober! That goes back to the 1950s. I’ll just tell you one thing that you should consider. Go Blue. It’s not slang but.. are you Italian?

Desanto: Yes, sir, I’m Italian.

DG: So you know the word ciao, right? Everybody knows ciao. You say ciao when you meet somebody, you say ciao when you leave. Go Blue is the same thing. You see someone, you say Go Blue. You Go Blue when you leave. It’s all being part of the same family. I can be in Tokyo or Buenos Aires and somebody sees the block M and they’ll say “Go Blue!” It’s just like being in an Italian family and saying ciao. So I think Go Blue, it’s not slang, but it’s my favorite term.

Photo from: Mlive

At first, the two Big 10 powerhouses started the game trading blows. However, seven minutes into the game, Michigan went on a tear. They completed a 15-0 run over three minutes, and our Wolverines never looked back.

Michigan went on to win 91-80 over No. 7 Purdue in Mackey Arena. This was an impressive victory from the Wolverines, marking its first as the AP No. 1 team, and its third win over top-10 teams.

Nine players played minutes for Michigan on Tuesday, and all nine of them scored. Elliott Cadeau led the team with 17 points and 7 assists, while Aday Mara and Morez Johnson recorded a double-double.

This win was again an example of the incredible depth that Michigan has this year. Six players scored in double figures, and the team as a whole shot a scorching 57% from the 3-point line, hitting thirteen shots from distance.

Purdue star point guard Braden Smith was held scoreless in the first half, seeming to be affected by the size and length that Michigan provides on the perimeter. Purdue was led by Trey Kaufman-Renn, scoring 27 points despite Michigan’s defense holding him to sub-par efficiency.

Impressive Offensive Performance

If Michigan continues to shoot the way they did on Tuesday, they will be nearly impossible to take down. The trio of Elliott Cadeau, Yaxel Lendeborg, and Trey McKenney all hit three 3-pointers each, while four other Michigan players added another one each.

This offensive performance was the catalyst for Michigan to experience the success they had Tuesday, and should have the Wolverines’ confidence sky high going into the rest of the season.

When Michigan is able to pair this outside shooting with the quality in the frontcourt they possess, it becomes increasingly challenging to slow down the offensive attack. This is paired with the fact that you never know who will be Michigan’s best offensive player on any given night.

Aday Mara was effective in the minutes he played, but only played 18 minutes, eventually fouling out. When a star player like Mara has foul trouble, it would spell trouble for most teams in the nation. Michigan is different though, as they have quality players throughout the lineup, and don’t miss a beat if one of them has an off night.

Overall, it was spectacular to watch the Michigan offense thriving on Tuesday, and I can’t wait to watch this team continue the season, on its goal to bring home the national championship to Ann Arbor.

Duke on Saturday

Michigan’s win over Purdue is a perfect setup for Saturday’s showdown against No. 3 Duke. This matchup will be one of the most anticipated games of the college basketball season, and could very well be a preview of the national championship later in April.

Michigan’s depth will come up against the star power of Duke, featuring Cameron Boozer and Isaiah Evans. The matchup between Yaxel Lendeborg and Boozer will be fascinating, and it will be interesting to see how many possessions we get to see those two go head-to-head.

The matchup vs. Duke will be played this Saturday in Washington D.C. at 6:30 p.m. EST on Fox.

Image Source: Gemini Nano Banana Pro generated image

The “Ross Curve”—a long-standing source controversy at Stephen M. Ross School of Business—is officially on its way out. In an email sent to students on February 12, 2026, Associate Dean Cathy Shakespeare announced that the school will eliminate its rigid grading distributions starting in the Fall 2026 semester.

According to Associate Dean Shakespeare, the move marks an important shift in how Ross assesses its undergraduates, moving away from forced rankings and toward a model centered on “mastery” and “collective success”.

Out with the Old

Under the current guidelines, faculty are required to keep class averages at or below a 3.1 GPA. The GPA guidelines are particularly tight for core classes, where no more than 40% of students can receive an A- or above, and at least 10% must receive a B- or lower. This system effectively forced students to compete against their classmates for a limited number of high marks, regardless of how well the class performed as a whole.

The incoming policy replaces these strict “buckets” with higher target GPA averages that emphasize academic rigor without the forced ceiling:

• Core Courses: Target average GPA of 3.40.

• Elective Courses: Target average GPA of 3.55.

The administration clarified that these are targets, not forced curves or required distributions. This allows faculty to determine grade distributions for their courses.

Why Now?

The change comes after years of advocacy from the Ross Undergraduate Student Advisory Board (RUSAB) and the Ross Registrar’s Office. The administration cited student well-being and a desire to foster a culture of “mutual achievement” as the primary drivers.

Picture from: @umichbball on Instagram

With 14:22 left in the 2nd half, a Northwestern floater brought the score to 42-58. Down 16 points, the game was starting to slip away from Michigan, which hadn’t been able to build any momentum throughout the night. From that moment on, Michigan scored on 20 straight possessions, closing out the game with an 87-75 victory over the Wildcats.

It seems like every game, someone new steps up to lead the Wolverines, and this game was no different. Wednesday night was all about L.J. Cason. The true sophomore guard led the team with 18 points, 13 of them coming in the 2nd half. He also added 3 assists and 4 steals while having a +21 plus/minus on the night.

Cason’s career night marks the 6th different player who has led Michigan in scoring in the past 7 games. This depth of talent is one of the biggest reasons that Michigan is projected to be a 1 seed in the tournament, and a favorite to win it all.

Yaxel Lendeborg also stood out in the second half, finishing the game with 15 points and 12 rebounds, marking his 3rd double-double in the last 4 games. Trey McKenney also deserves a shoutout for hitting 2 big threes in the second half to kickstart the Michigan comeback.

Dusty May’s Brilliance

​Dusty May deserves a ton of credit for Michigan pulling out the win on Wednesday. After the dreadful first half, it was obvious that changes were needed to turn the game around, and Dusty May found them.

​The first change that Dusty May implemented was playing the double big lineup more. Morez Johnson and Aday Mara played on the floor together for extended stretches of time, more than had been the case for most of the season.

​This double-big lineup gave Northwestern a lot of problems on both ends of the floor. Michigan was able to dominate the rebounding battle and was also able to get high-quality shots on offense.

​They were able to get to the free-throw line a lot in the second half, and when they weren’t at the free-throw line, they were getting open layups and quality 3 pointers. This is exactly the offensive philosophy that Dusty May wants for his team: layups, free throws, and open threes.

​The second change that Dusty May made was to ride with the backcourt of Cason and McKenney. Riding the hot hand of these two allowed Michigan to seize the momentum in the 2nd half.

​This backcourt depth is very important for Michigan. Having quality guard play is important when it comes to tournament time, and as the season goes on, Michigan has 4 guys they can trust in big minutes.

​It wasn’t the night for Elliott Cadeau and Nimari Burnett, but those nights happen. May’s ability to find what is working and to stick with it, is another example of why he is such a respected coach.

Not only did the Michigan coaching staff have the ability to find the successful lineups, but they also drew up plays that Northwestern had no answer to. Four times in the second half, Michigan scored on a back-screen play into a dribble handoff if the back-screen didn’t work.

Over the past 2 years, Dusty May has transformed the Michigan basketball program. The roster he has put together this season, alongside his coaching ability, will put Michigan in a prime position to have a lot of success the rest of the season.

Looking Forward

​

Michigan sits at a record of 23-1, and a 2 game lead in the Big Ten standings. Despite this, Michigan now faces the hardest part of their schedule. Michigan will still have road tests at No. 13 Purdue, and No. 8 Illinois, and a home game vs No. 10 Michigan State. Not only that, but Michigan will travel to Washington, D.C. to face No. 4 Duke next week.

These games are a valuable test for Michigan, and will help to prepare the team for the post season. Winning the Big Ten is the first step, but Michigan has bigger goals than that. Michigan hasn’t won a national championship since 1989, and is looking to bring the title back to Ann Arbor this season.

It will be fascinating to continue to watch Michigan over the next couple of weeks, with its opportunity to face high level competition. The Wolverines play again on Saturday vs. UCLA, looking to continue their win streak and get one game closer to winning the Big Ten regular season title.

After two wins over AP Top 10 teams last week, Michigan was in danger of delivering a let down performance when Penn State came to the Crisler. Spoiler alert: there was no letdown.

The Wolverines opened the game with a 15-2 run, leading the way to a convincing 110-69 victory over the Nittany Lions. Michigan pushes its record to 21-1 and continues the momentum in its quest to win the Big Ten regular-season title.

With this 41 point victory, Michigan has broken the Big Ten record for the most 40+ point wins in a season, a record that shows how dominant Dusty May and company have been all year long.

The biggest story in this game was Nimari Burnett, who detonated for a career high 31 points, hitting 7 shots from beyond the arc, and was the key to breaking the zone that Penn State was utilizing.

Yaxel Lendeborg also contributed with 6 points, 7 rebounds, 8 assists, 1 steal, and 1 block. This performance was another showing of how Lendeborg is the most versatile player in the country and the key to potential success for Michigan in March.

A Legitimate Title Contender?

​

There have been some question marks regarding Michigan in the past couple of weeks, especially after a tough loss to Wisconsin at home, however these critics have been silenced by the past few performances.

This performance has solidified Michigan as a Tier 1 contender to win the National Championship this year, joined by Arizona and Duke. Michigan has the opportunity to play Duke in Washington DC later this month, a game that will be a great test for the Wolverines as they continue through the regular season.

The threat of this team starts with the incredible frontcourt that Dusty May was able to put together through the transfer portal. Lendeborg and Morez Johnson are listed at 6’9”, while Aday Mara towers at 7’3”.​

This size, combined with the extraordinary athleticism of Lendeborg and Johnson, allows Michigan to switch screens on the perimeter, take away passing lanes, and also dominate the rebounding game.

Despite the Maize and Blue’s dominant front court, however, it will be the guard play that will make or break a deep tournament run in March.

​When the tournament starts, and the stakes are raised, teams start playing their quality players more minutes, and are dialed into game-plans for every matchup. Guard play becomes especially important at this time, when teams key in on star players, and every possession becomes more valuable.

This means that Elliott Cadeau and Trey McKenny, with their ability to create with the ball in their hands at the end of games, will be a key aspect for Michigan throughout the postseason.​

Cadeau and McKenny have already proven their ability to step up in big moments, as seen in the Nebraska and Michigan State wins from last week. Both of them delivered timely buckets, helping to propel Michigan to quality wins.

If this continues throughout the tournament, do not be surprised to see the Wolverines cutting down the nets in Indianapolis, bringing another national championship to the city of Ann Arbor.

​

#3 Michigan hadn’t seen a lead in 36 minutes and 32 seconds. Enter Trey McKenney. The star freshman took a pass from Yaxel Lendeborg, drove baseline, and finished a tough layup through contact, sending the Crisler Center into a frenzy. This gave Michigan a 74-72 lead, which ultimately resulted in a 75-72 win over undefeated #5 Nebraska.

This game was a story of two halves. At first, Crisler was dazzled by electric offense, with Nebraska shooting 10/19 from beyond the arc, leading to a 50-48 lead at the break. Nebraska executed offensively and hit excellent shots, but Michigan kept up. Morez Johnson Jr. and Aday Mara combined for 21 first-half points on 100% shooting, and it overall felt like a success for Michigan to be down only 2 with how good Nebraska was shooting.

The second half was the complete opposite. After 98 total first-half points, the two teams combined for only 49 second-half points. Michigan came out of the break playing sloppy, turning the ball over, and struggling to make a basket. When Nebraska’s Pryce Sandfort hit his fifth 3 of the night to put Nebraska up 9 midway through the second half, it was starting to look like Cornhuskers would pull away.

However, a quick 10-3 run for the Wolverines cut the lead back to 2, leading to a riveting last 7 minutes. Michigan stepped up its physicality, holding Nebraska scoreless in the last 3 minutes while also continually getting to the free-throw line. This enabled the Wolverines to pull off the comeback and hand Nebraska their first loss of the season. Morez Johnson Jr. led the way for the Maize and Blue with 17 points and 12 rebounds, while Nebraska was led by Pryce Sandfort and Jamarques Lawrence, each scoring 20 points respectively.

Areas for Improvement

Although Michigan showed a lot of grit to pull out the win, there were a few things that can be improved moving forward in the season. Yaxel Lendeborg had a particularly rough night shooting the basketball, going 0/6 from the 3 point line and scoring only 10 points. He was still a force in transition and elite defensively, but it was disappointing to see him be so passive in the half-court offense. The few times he attacked the basket, the results were positive for the Wolverines. He had a drive in the second half where he was able to follow his own miss for an easy layup, and he also created the go-ahead bucket by driving and kicking to Trey McKenney. Michigan could use a more assertive Lendeborg throughout the rest of the season, especially during the bright lights of March.​

Elliott Cadeau also had a subpar game vs. the Cornhuskers. Cadeau went 2/9 from the field, finishing with 7 points, and despite having 7 assists, he also turned the ball over 8 times. Cadeau is the key to Michigan’s offense, with his ability to pick out passes that most are unable to see. As the point guard, he is the motor of the team, and when he is playing below his standard, Michigan’s entire offense struggles.

Overall, for long stretches, Nebraska looked like the better team. Despite being down two of their best players, they were able to take advantage of Michigan’s switching defenses, resulting in plenty of quality shots at the rim and from beyond the arc. Michigan showed a lot of fight, however, and was able to defend its home court, pulling out the victory in the top five matchup.

Michigan State Looms Ahead

​Michigan’s rivals also pulled out a comeback victory on Tuesday vs. Rutgers, setting up an incredible matchup on Friday where Michigan will travel to the Breslin Center to face off against #7 Michigan State. Michigan has not won a game in the Breslin Center since 2018, and will be looking to avenge its 2 losses to MSU last season.

This matchup features the top 2 defenses in the country according to KenPom, and should be a stellar clash that will have major Big Ten standings implications. Michigan will have to take care of the basketball and hit open shots in order to see success on Friday. They will also have to shut down MSU’s Jeremy Fears, who has put up 36 points and 26 assists over MSU’s last 2 games. Look for Dusty May to face-guard Fears with Lendeborg, using #23’s defensive length to disrupt the MSU guard.

The game on Friday has the potential to be a classic, and Michigan has an opportunity to secure 2 top 10 wins in the same week, boosting its chances to win the Big Ten regular season championship and creating great momentum for the rest of the season. The game will be aired on Friday at 8:00 p.m. EST on FOX.

FBI agents executed a Halloween day raid on several homes and a storage unit in Dearborn and Inkster, stopping what prosecutors described as an ISIS inspired attack on Halloween day. Mohamed Ali (20) and Majed Mahmoud (20) were charged with receiving and transferring guns and ammunition for terrorism. Both stand accused of plotting attacks against LGBTQ+ bars in Ferndale.

The Detroit Joint Terrorism Task Force monitored digital communication, including encrypted WhatsApp chats, and then executed warrants on October 31st, according to court documents.

By November 5th, three more teenagers were arrested in relation to the Halloween plot—Ayob Nasser (19) from Michigan and two 19-year-olds in New Jersey.

This Dearborn case captures law enforcement’s post-9/11 prevention model in action. Authorities acted on credible online information before violence could happen by moving on encrypted chats pointing to a Halloween weekend attack, according to Politico.

The Detroit Joint Terrorism Task Force worked with state and federal partners to act quickly. FBI Director Kash Patel announced on X that agents had stopped a possible terrorist attack and praised the teamwork across agencies.

The decision to raid on October 31, based on fast-moving intelligence, prevented harm and showed that coordination and monitoring can save lives. The disruption avoided civilian harm, showing how time-sensitive intelligence can help the system work as intended.

Prosecutors used a layered charging approach common in preemptive counterterrorism cases, as seen in this case’s court documents. They first charged defendants with a firearms transfer conspiracy before adding material support to ISIS counts against Ali, Mahmoud, and Nasser.

The state’s strategy in a layered charging approach is to hold suspects quickly on gun charges, then add broader charges as digital and forensic evidence emerges.

Defense attorneys argue that the government overreached. Spokesmen claim the young men were gamers talking tough online, not would-be attackers, and argue the FBI “jumped the gun” in charging the suspects.

One key point of contention in the plot’s discovery was the interception of encrypted WhatsApp messages from the suspects. Encrypted messages can conceal planning details from oversight while still leaving digital trails accessible through warrants.

But the same tools that allow investigators to trace threats can also blur the line between vigilance and surveillance, and a reliance on encrypted message interception raises privacy questions among many. When does monitoring private chats become justified to protect communities, and when does surveillance cross the line into over-policing?

The Dearborn case demonstrates that early intervention and shrewd legal instruments can prevent violence before it occurs. It also serves as a reminder that there are tradeoffs to prevention. To protect the public, investigators require rapid access to online evidence in an increasingly digital age, but courts, legislatures, and communities must guard against overreach and maintain privacy.

As the case progresses, the true test will be whether law enforcement can properly balance both of these goals: being powerful enough to disrupt dangers while being cautious enough to protect privacy rights.

About the Author

David Mazur is a politics writer for The Michigan Review. He is an undergraduate at the University of Michigan - Ann Arbor studying computer science.

Retired Lieutenant General and former National Security Advisor H.R. McMaster delivered a stark warning about the dangers of American complacency during the 7th Annual Vandenberg Lecture at the University of Michigan’s Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy. His central message was clear: weakness is provocative.

In a lecture titled “Cascading Crises and Prospects for Peace,” he addressed US national security failures (e.g., Vietnam), the recently formed axis of aggressors, colloquially known as CRINK (China, Russia, Iran, and North Korea), and lessons learned from decades in the defense realm.

The retired Lieutenant General began his address with a reference to his book, Dereliction of Duty, in which he highlights the mistakes, lies, and false assumptions that led to the unsuccessful Vietnam War. He explained how unclear goals, flaws built on unchallenged implicit assumptions, and a failure to truly understand the nature of the challenge led to the unsuccessful American involvement in Vietnam.

In examining present-day national security challenges facing the United States, McMaster focused on each of the countries in CRINK and the erosion in strategic competence that is detrimentally impacting the U.S. right now. He pointed to post Gulf and Cold War false assumptions (strategic narcissism), loss of manufacturing advantage, and China’s entry into the World Trade Organization as catalysts. Moreover, McMaster highlighted an overarching theme of overoptimism, arguing that it ultimately gave way to pessimism and, in turn, led to retrenchment. He offered two solutions: understand the nature of the challenge (combating strategic narcissism) and a strong dose of “strategic empathy” from an outside perspective, especially concerning the United States’s “rivals.”

When analyzing the People’s Republic of China (PRC), McMaster argued that the greatest fear of President Xi Jinping, and the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is losing control. Furthermore, the retired Lieutenant General argued that the growing ties between the PRC and Russia are fueling a Chinese-American proxy war, with the PRC leveraging Russia to advance its interests. Moreover, the more the United States cooperates, rather than competes with the PRC, only allows China to become more emboldened.

McMaster also touched on Russia-North Korea relations, estimating that nearly half of all Russia’s heavy artillery was produced by the Democratic People’s Republic of Korea (DPRK). He emphasized the cause for concern, especially when considering the rapidly strengthening axis of aggressors.

Drawing on his decades of experience, McMaster underscored the importance of effective competition with our rivals, heightened competency (ending strategic narcissism), and avoiding weakness at all costs. He argued that a chain of events rooted in U.S. weakness began with the withdrawal from Afghanistan, which empowered Russia to invade Ukraine in 2023, and in conjunction with a tempered U.S. reaction, eventually culminated in the October 7th attacks.

H.R. McMaster’s address at the Gerald R. Ford School of Public Policy reminds us all that weakness leads to provocation, and thus, effective competition, not cooperation, is essential to securing peace.

About the Author

Jessica Finney is the lead Politics editor for The Michigan Review. She is an undergraduate student at the University of Michigan - Ann Arbor.

The University of Michigan recently hosted Nobel Peace Prize laureate Malala Yousafzai for a major event at the Michigan Union. Co-sponsored by the Weiner Diplomacy Center and the Ford School of Public Policy, the conversation drew a sold-out crowd of more than 600 guests, including U-M Interim President Domenico Grasso.

Malala spoke with former Ambassador Susan Page, Director of the Weiser Diplomacy Center, and Madhumita Lahiri, Associate Professor in U-M’s Department of English Language and Literature.

At just 15, Malala was shot on a school bus in Pakistan by Taliban militants. She miraculously survived and went on to dedicate her life to advancing girls’ education in Pakistan and around the world. At 17, she became the youngest recipient in history of the Nobel Peace Prize.

The conversation focused on Malala’s life after fame, as detailed in her new book, Finding My Way. Now 28, she reflected on her integration into Western society and the challenges of living a normal life under intense global scrutiny.

Malala described her time at Oxford University as a personal victory that proved she had overcome her fear of the Taliban. Yet, she said, her past continued to follow her. She recounted how an early experience at university triggered flashbacks of the attack, affecting her mental health and leading her to seek therapy.

She also spoke about the evolution of her public image as she became part of Western culture. Malala recalled being photographed without her consent while wearing jeans in college, a picture that sparked the “Shame on Malala” trend. Critics from her home country accused her of abandoning Pakistani tradition. “I felt part of two worlds,” she said, “and I embraced it. To me, home is everywhere.”

As Malala has matured, her view of activism has evolved as well. Once believing a single conversation could change the world, she now recognizes that progress requires patience and persistence. When asked by a student if she ever takes time to celebrate small victories, she replied, “We have to,” underscoring that meaningful change is incremental.

Today, Malala’s focus is on ending gender apartheid in the Global South and recognizing it as a crime against humanity. She called for the international community to hold the Taliban accountable, as girls and women in Afghanistan continue to face severe restrictions on education and basic rights.

Reflecting on her journey, Malala said her college years were a period of deep internal growth. Closing the evening, she left the audience of students with a message of hope:

“Stay ambitious, stay hopeful, have fun as well… and believe in yourself.”

About the Author

Luca Desanto is the Lead Campus Reporter for The Michigan Review. He is an undergraduate at the University of Michigan, an analyst at Ascent Consulting Group, and the Business Officer of Michigan Men’s Rugby.

Bryce Underwood didn’t come into this college football season as your typical unknown freshman. Instead, he arrived with the expectations and spotlight that follow a No. 1 quarterback recruit.

In large part, his high expectations came with his high price tag; Underwood will get paid between $10 million to $12 million through a record-breaking Name, Image, and Likeness (NIL) deal.

Bryce is also a ‘hometown hero’ as he was born and raised in nearby Belleville, Michigan. Underwood upended the recruiting world last November when he flipped his commitment from LSU to Michigan, a decision that immediately reframed the Wolverines’ post-title transition and put him in a clear spot to be the immediate starter.

Head Coach Sherrone Moore made it official by late August, declaring that Underwood would be Michigan’s starting quarterback to open the season. He would be the program’s first true freshman starter since 2009. Moore emphasized the choice was earned through Underwood’s poise and production demonstrated in camp training sessions—not his media hype.

So how has he fared so far in his first season? Mostly well. Through seven games, Underwood has thrown for 1,440 yards with seven touchdowns against just two interceptions.

The young quarterback is coming off his best game of the season against a solid Washington team this past weekend. The most encouraging part of this most recent game was his efficiency, as he completed a career high 77.8 percent of his passes, substantially higher than his season mark of 62.4 percent.

He has played relatively clean football, as evidenced by only 2 interceptions in 7 games, which is huge given that this is an area most young quarterbacks commonly struggle with.

Most importantly—in my opinion—is that Underwood looks the part. Despite turning 18 just before the season started, Underwood has looked like a seasoned veteran on the field and has made a couple of ‘wow’ throws that give Michigan fans a glimpse of what’s to come.

Michigan’s offensive game plan has enraged many fans, with the conservative play calling, which has not helped Bryce’s case, although it has also protected him from taking hits and being at a higher risk of turning the ball over.

Coming into the season, many fans were enamored by his ability to not only throw the ball but also by his running prowess. However, this has not been on full display this season. Underwood has only gone over 25 rushing yards twice this season.

He is definitely more than capable, as evidenced by his 114 yards and 2 touchdowns on the ground in a win over Central Michigan, but the lack of designed runs, along with his reluctance to take off, has led to less explosive runs so far.

Michigan entrusted a massive job to an 18-year-old quarterback and—seven games in—he’s shown flashes of the star many expected to see. The big plays will come with reps and more trust from the coaching staff, along with hopefully more weapons around him in the years to come. He clearly has all the ability that made him such a highly touted prospect, but he needs to be fully unleashed to reach his full potential.

The rest of his season will be interesting, as outside of Ohio State, the Wolverines have a relatively soft schedule. This should be used to start ramping up explosive plays and bolster confidence. Justice Haynes has been unbelievable in the run game, but eventually, defenses will key in on taking him away. Michigan doesn’t have an embarrassment of riches at receiver, but they have enough to start mixing it up a little more and to let Bryce take some of the load off of Haynes.

The start of a college career is never the whole story, yet the early chapters often tell you how the story will unfold. If the first half of 2025 is any indication, Bryce Underwood has brought a spark to the Wolverines that was non-existent last season, and he’s doing it faster than most quarterbacks his age even get to try.

For a program with National Championships aspirations, we fans have to be patient and realize this is more of a growth year. However, with what we’ve seen from Underwood, it won’t be long until Michigan is back in the National Championship conversation.

About the Author

Hayden Suslow is a sports reporter for The Michigan Review.

Subscribe to The Michigan Review for more candid conversations with today’s movers and shakers, brought to you by students.

Subscribe to The Michigan Review for more candid conversations with today’s movers and shakers, brought to you by students.

Marijuana emits the aroma of potential, but trouble lies ahead for Michigan producers.

While the legal distribution of the drug remains popular in social and political landscapes, its macroeconomic fortunes are worsening. It’s oversupplied, facing tax increases, and has seen a dramatic dip in prices.

The political and social landscape over the past decade has dramatically shifted to support marijuana use. A 2024 Gallup poll found that 57% of U.S. adults think marijuana should be legal for recreational purposes, and an additional 32% thought it should be legal for only medical use, a dramatic increase from a decade ago.

The reclassification of marijuana from a Schedule I drug, which includes heroin, LSD, and ecstasy, to a Schedule III has had bipartisan backing, with then-President Biden openly supporting it and President Trump hinting at the idea this year. Even in Florida, where Trump won by double digits in 2024, 56% of voters voted in favor of a 2024 amendment to legalize marijuana recreationally, though the amendment did not meet the 60% threshold to pass.

People are also consuming more marijuana. Michigan, the second-largest U.S. marijuana market based on sales as of July 2025, proves this point best. Between 2020 and 2024, revenue from marijuana sales in Michigan more than doubled. Even among older people from Michigan, marijuana consumption has increased. According to the Michigan Poll on Healthy Aging, over one-fourth of people from Michigan 50 and older have used cannabis in the past year.

Globally, marijuana has massive potential. Sales in Europe, for example, are forecasted to grow with a compound annual growth rate of 45% and reach €2.1 billion by 2027. The legalization of medical-only cannabis in Canada and the U.S. prompted other countries to legalize medical-only cannabis. Legalizing recreational use in Canada and 50% of U.S. states has triggered laws internationally to increase access to marijuana products.

Despite the positive direction of the industry, marijuana businesses are struggling to stay afloat. The marijuana sector seems to be suffering from its own success.

Put simply, the market is oversupplied. In Michigan, the 2020 recreational marijuana retail price was an average of $419. By 2024, the price dropped by 80%, down to an average of $83. The number of active growers in Michigan has nearly doubled, and the retail inventory of flowers has more than tripled. Other states have also seen a significant decrease in retail prices. However, other markets, especially more mature markets, such as Colorado and Oregon, have seen a less significant drop.

For producers, this is bad news. This year, Michigan is experiencing a net decrease in marijuana employees for the first time in years. Last year, 18 leading public marijuana businesses lost $2 billion collectively despite taking in $8.5 billion in revenue. For consumers, on the other hand, this is good news. This means marijuana, at least for now, is significantly cheaper than it was previously and is staying cheap despite consumption increasing.

However, it’s unlikely that marijuana will continue to be deflationary. The Michigan House just passed a bill that would implement a 24% wholesale tax on marijuana. This tax, passed with bipartisan support, aims to raise $420 million for state infrastructure projects.

This could be disastrous for the industry. Not only will this tax be partially passed onto producers via higher prices, but it will also cause the illegal cannabis market to begin crowding out the legal market. After all, black market products can not be taxed. In California—which had a similarly high marijuana tax until only a few days ago—the illegal market flourished. As a result, only 40% of cannabis consumed in California originates from a regulated marketplace.

Despite these challenges, producers can look forward to several silver linings. The rates of exiting businesses, emerging marijuana markets, and Michigan’s taxes will all likely increase—or at least stabilize—marijuana prices in the coming years.

As the market matures and businesses increasingly distinguish themselves, producers could see real profits return. But for consumers, marijuana’s cheapness is likely to be blunted in the near future.

About the Author

Isaac Gardner is a writer for the Economics Section. He focuses on the intersection between business and politics. His experience includes interning in the U.S. Senate Committee on Homeland Security, U.S. House of Representatives, U.S. Secretary of Senate, Michigan House of Representatives, and various Michigan political campaigns. He is also a finance committee member of Michigan Business group and an undergraduate studying at the Ross School of Business

The city of Dearborn, Michigan, just put up new road signs named after Osama Siblani, publisher of the Arab American News, along Warren Avenue. Not all residents appreciated the gesture.

This was made evident during a September 9th city council meeting when one resident, Ted Barham, rose in protest of honoring Siblani. He objected to Siblani’s past statements of sympathy made for terrorist groups Hezbollah and Hamas. Barham equated the honor to naming a street “Hezbollah Street or Hamas Street.”

Mayor Hammoud, present at the meeting, did not mince words in his response. He told Barham, a Christian minister, that “the best advice I can give you is not to drive on Warren Avenue or to close your eyes while you’re doing it.”

Mayor Hammoud then called the individual “a bigot,” “racist,” and an “Islamophobe.” Most astonishingly, Hammoud called for the resident to leave his city.

The mayor’s strong response raises some serious questions.

Holding the authority of a mayor, was Hammoud essentially speaking on behalf of the city government, or was he acting in his own individual capacity? Can his statements potentially subject him to a lawsuit? And what does this say about the boundaries of free speech for public figures?

First, observe that the government itself does not possess First Amendment rights. Supreme Court rulings, including in City of Pleasant Grove v. Summum (2009), held that “government speech” is not subject to the same free-speech protection as that of private individuals’ speech. The government is free to make its own statements without being accused of a First Amendment breach.

The harder question is whether the mayor’s outraged retort was official government speech or personal speech.

Hammoud’s very choice of words—”as a mayor”—unequivocally establishes that he was speaking as an official. The Supreme Court has just made explicit in Lindke v. Freed (2024) that the public official’s action is state action if they have authority to speak for the state and are claiming use of that authority. In delivering his official welcome or “not welcome” to a resident, Mayor Hammoud is likely to be interpreted as a government employee speaking on official business and not as a private individual.

This matters because when government employees speak in the scope of official business, their speech is not protected from employer corrective action under the guidelines established in Garcetti v. Ceballos (2006). Holding a city council meeting is a crucial official duty.

But Michigan law protects higher officials to a greater degree. State code MCL 691.1407 provides that high-level executives like mayors have wide immunity from suit for behavior in pursuit of their official duties. The Michigan courts have upheld this as well in cases like Donald Estill v Robert Davis (2012) and Timmis v. Bennett (1958).

So, while the mayor’s statement was likely government speech, Michigan immunity laws would presumably protect him from successful suit for, e.g., defamation or emotional distress.

Ultimately, it’s a stern lesson in the great responsibility and authority that go hand-in-hand with public service. A mayor’s voice is the voice of the city, and using that authority to personally denounce and exile a constituent, however objectionable their comments, is a bad precedent.

It illustrates how easily personal outrage can become government action.

About the Author

Peter Hnin is a contributing writer for the legal section. He is an undergraduate at the University of Michigan interested in constitutional law.

Members of The Review were lucky enough to be invited to attend the 2025 National Conservatism Conference, or NatCon, in Washington D.C.

We heard from speakers within the Trump Administration, prominent intellectuals, and popular journalists. This is what happened on Day 3:

First, we heard from the opening speakers:

• Sen. Jim Banks (Senator of Indiana)

  • Senator Banks talked about the necessity of conserving the American Dream, and what that means to the National Conservatism movement.

• Jack Posobiec (Senior Editor of Human Events)

  • Posobiec spoke on the meaning of America First in foreign policy.

• Doug Wilson (Pastor at Christ Church in Moscow, Idaho)

  • Wilson invoked American History and how it intersected with Christianity, urging that we bring that religious morality back into governing.

• Dir. Kelly Loeffler (Administrator of the Small Business Administration)

  • Director Loeffler spoke on the successes the Trump Administration has had thus far concerning small businesses, making clear that the economy is breaking records.

• Sen. Josh Hawley (Senator of Missouri)

  • Hawley gave a speech about the rise of transhumanism and how the national conservatism movement needs to rise against it and the tech barons that want to make it policy.

We then broke into 3 panels:

• “National Security and Tech”

  • Ben Weingarten (Chair)

    • Will Thibeau

    • Rob Greenway

    • Jeffery Nadaner

• “American Industrial Policy”

  • Ellen Fantini (Chair)

    • Michael Lind

    • Mark Diplacido

    • Theo Wold

    • George Bogden

• “The Counter-Revolution in Higher Education”

  • Steven Skultety (Chair)

    • Carolos Carvalho

    • Ben Merkle

    • Dorian Abbot

    • Aaron Zubia

We attended “American Industrial Policy”, where minds like George Bogden spoke on the importance of creating an economic “Monroe Doctrine” to remove adverse foreign influences. Other panelists called for the reindustrialization of American industry, the inflow of foreign capital, and the creation of a “value-added economy.”

We then broke into another session of panels. Here, we had the option to attend:

• “Energy Security”

  • Diana Furchtgott-Roth (Chair)

    • Alex Cranberg

    • Rupert Darwall

    • Amb. Carla Sands

    • Francois Baird

• “Tech and the Future of the Family”

  • Terry Schilling (Chair)

    • Tim Estes

    • Clare Morell

    • Michael Toscano

    • Dean Ball

• “Publishing and the New Right”

  • Andrew Beck (Chair)

    • Matt Peterson

    • Robert Bluey

    • Dominic Green

    • Titus Techera

We attended the “Energy Security” Panel, hearing speakers like Amb. Carla Sands discuss the importance of investing in American energy and becoming energy independent from the foreign resources of China and other markets.

Then we were thrown back into a Plenary Session, hearing from:

• Steve Bannon (Former White House Chief Strategist, Founder of War Room)

  • Bannon spoke about the current state of foreign policy within the Trump Administration. He focused on the threat of China, urging the Trump administration to detach from the Middle East and Ukraine.

• Gene Hamilton (Served in DOJ during first Trump Administration)

  • Hamilton called on America to fight against “Islamism” through a national preservation policy agenda.

• Patrick Deneen (Professor at Notre Dame)

  • Deneen spoke on how theology intersects with the task Conservatism has today to bring back traditional values.

Finally, we attended a VIP conference dinner, where we heard from:

• Sebastian Gorka (Deputy Assistant to the President and Senior Director for Counterterrorism)

  • Gorka spoke about his experiences working with President Trump as a decisive force against Islamic terrorists, and his role in counter terrorism operations.

The final day of NatCon did a lot to synthesize the different ideas that made up the conference. It was a day focused on the future of American policy, from protecting against Chinese influence to deprioritizing the Middle East, to even protecting against new ideas like transhumanism.

The national conservative movement is set to change radically over the next few years, and these changes will have monumental implications for Americans across the country.

Disclaimer: All takeaways were gathered from on-the-record speeches made by the conference’s speakers.

About the Author

Luca Desanto is the Lead Campus Reporter for The Michigan Review. He is an undergraduate at the University of Michigan, an analyst at Ascent Consulting Group, and the Business Officer of Michigan Men's Rugby.