May 22, 2026 | This Week in Government: Senate Passes House Selfridge Supplemental Containing $152M

Photo credit: U.S. Air Force

About two-and-a-half months after passage in the House, the Senate voted Wednesday to pass a $152 million 2025-26 fiscal year supplemental to fund improvements to Selfridge Air National Guard Base.

HB 4572 passed unanimously. The resolves a standoff over supplemental funding dating back to early March, when the House passed the bill with just the single line item.

House Republican leadership demanded that a supplemental consisting of only the Selfridge funding be passed. Senate Democratic leadership had previously balked at that stance, saying Selfridge funding should be part of a larger discussion on supplemental spending.

Last month, the Senate passed a $1.036 billion supplemental including the $152 million for Selfridge, which also included $511.7 million in Medicaid caseload adjustments.

Senate leadership on Wednesday opted to pass the House supplemental.

Separately on Wednesday, the Senate voted 33-2 to pass HB 5797, which would allow certain school districts in the state to excuse an additional four days on their school calendars due to extreme weather.

The supplemental and HB 5797 were both ordered enrolled by the House.

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer had previously cited a June 1 deadline for ensuring the project would be able to be completed this year. House Speaker Matt Hall, R-Richland Township, echoed that deadline in remarks earlier this month while urging the Senate to move on the bill.

Sen. Kevin Hertel, D-Saint Clair Shores, told reporters following the vote that the funding is critically important not just for the base and his district but the entire state.

“We’re talking about nearly $1 billion in economic activity generated from that base,” Hertel said. “We’re talking about employing thousands of people across the state, and this unlocks a ton of opportunity once we make these investments, and the new planes arrive. There’s so much more that can be done, but we had to make sure this got done.”

Hertel said there has been significant investment by the state in the last few years at Selfridge, and it was important to ensure the funding was there so the project could be completed on time.

As to the other funding items in the Senate’s proposed supplemental proposal, Hertel said those “are still alive for negotiation to get figured out.”

He said the Selfridge funding was turned into a political talking point in recent weeks, but his focus was on the funding getting across the finish line.

Senate Minority Leader Aric Nesbitt, R-Porter Township, told reporters that Senate Democrats had been “dragging their feet for months and months on this issue” before Wednesday’s vote.

“I just don’t understand what took Kevin Hertel and the Senate Democrats so long to actually come up to the deadline of when this funding was actually needed, but fortunately it passed, and it’s going to be sent on to the governor’s office,” Nesbitt said.

Nesbitt said since the bill passed the House, the Senate Republicans had its members ready to vote for it.

“It’s unfortunate it’s taken so many months to get here, but it’s fortunate that the goal is to get this done this construction season, so we can make sure we have the fighter mission in place by 2028,” Nesbitt said.

Whitmer in a statement said she was pleased the funding bill will arrive at her desk ahead of June 1.

“Today, we landed the plane,” Whitmer said. “Delivering this funding by June 1 was critical to securing the fighter mission and protecting Selfridge for the future. This supplemental is more proof that when we work across the aisle and focus on the issues that matter to Michigan families, we can make a difference.”

Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks, D-Grand Rapids, in a statement said passage of the bill reaffirms the state’s support for the base.

“This is an investment in both our economy and our national security, and our actions today will ensure that the base is equipped to support the next generation of high-tech, high-powered missions,” Brinks said.

Rep. Alicia St. Germaine, R-Harrison Township, told reporters she was glad the House bill finally made it across the finish line.

“There was no politics, there was no pork,” St. Germaine said. “It shouldn’t have taken this long, but I’m glad some of my colleagues in the Senate finally came to their senses and decided to push this through.”

Department of Military and Veterans Affairs Director Paul Rogers said the funding approval will allow the project to proceed on schedule.

“These runway and taxiway improvements are essential to ensuring Selfridge is fully prepared for the arrival of the F-15EX mission,” Rogers said in a statement. “This investment strengthens our nation defense capabilities, secures the future of Selfridge, and demonstrates Michigan’s continued commitment to supporting the current and future needs of the warfighter.”

Michigan’s U.S. senators also praised the Senate votes in statements, saying the spending will ensure the base is well positioned long-term with the new fighter mission.

“This will not only pay for critical upgrades to the base but attract more defense companies to come do business at one of the country’s premier Air Force bases,” U.S. Sen. Elissa Slotkin, D-Holly, said. “A lot of good bipartisan work got us here, and this progress will have a generational impact for Michigan, our national defense, and Macomb County’s economy.”

U.S. Sen. Gary Peters, D-Bloomfield Township, agreed.

“Our persistent work to secure the new KC-46 tankers and F-15EX fighter jets for Selfridge was a huge success for the base and our entire state,” Peters said. “These investments will make Selfridge the most advanced National Guard based in the country and help ensure Michigan remains central to our national defense for years to come.”

U.S. Rep. John James, R-Shelby Township, in a statement called the funding approval a huge win for the state while touting efforts he has made on the federal level for Selfridge funding.

“Losing Selfridge was never an option,” James said. “Today’s state funding passage, in conjunction with the federal funding I secured in the U.S. House, is another major step toward securing this crown jewel for the next generation.”

Detroit Regional Chamber President and Chief Executive Officer Sandy K. Baruah called the bipartisan work to pass the funding an example of coming together for the benefit of the state.

“Selfridge is a critical part of the state’s booming aerospace and defense industry,” Baruah said in a statement. “This important investment will keep nearly $800 million annual economic impact in the region while providing a boost to our manufacturing base.”

Michigan Economic Development Corporation Chief Executive Officer Quentin Messer Jr. in a statement said the funding approval shows how strong the support is for the state’s defense and aerospace sectors.

“Michigan will continue its heritage as an arsenal of democracy, and this funding support coupled with other initiatives positions our state to win the competition for major investments in this and other advanced knowledge industry sectors,” Messer said.

Since Saturday, those who’ve been observing Mike Duggan have, however unwittingly, been watching a candidate searching desperately for a way to keep pushing toward November’s general election.

Duggan, who suspended his independent gubernatorial campaign Thursday morning, described how he and his advisers had spent the days since his son and campaign manager, Ed Duggan, sat down with him on May 15 and admitted he didn’t see a viable path to a win over major party candidates.

“He said, ‘I haven’t been wanting to say it out loud, but right now I don’t see a path,’” Duggan told reporters assembled for his campaign’s final press conference at Huntington Place Thursday afternoon. “He said, ‘What do you think?’ And I said, ‘I didn’t want to say it out loud either, but I’m reaching the same conclusion.’”

The days that followed were filled with calls to pollsters, strategists and donors around the country as the father-son duo tried exhausting every option before making the call to drop out of the race for governor, Duggan said. At every junction, the outcome looked the same: even though Duggan’s approval ratings remained positive, he lacked the funding infrastructure as a third-party candidate to succeed in a year where national conditions are causing voters to coalesce so strongly behind partisan candidates.

And, critically, Duggan said he never intended to be a spoiler, a candidate who ran simply for the sake of being a candidate.

“I absolutely believed in February we were going to win this election, it was going to be by a large margin,” he said, flanked by campaign staff, many of whom had learned of the suspension only hours prior to the news becoming public. “Today, I can’t say that.”

Democratic momentum, he acknowledged, will continue to grow as long as turmoil at the federal level remains front of mind for many Americans. President Donald Trump’s continuation of the war in Iran and the higher gas prices that came with it were a major factor which became a source of frequent worries from voters Duggan met on the campaign trail.

He said he would meet with people who said they supported his ideas and identified with his post-partisan message, but they feared voting for an independent would result in Republican victories in a year where that was simply too costly.

“I would explain over and over that you could vote, in Michigan, straight-ticket Democrat and vote for me, and those votes would all count. It didn’t have to disrupt your support nationally, and it would work,” Duggan said, sounding rueful as he described convincing the state’s labor groups of this logic only to see it fail to stick with the general public. “Every town hall, people would take the petition packets, they’d sign up, the unions would sign up. If I had an hour to spend with everybody, we were doing fine. But of course, we have a state with 4 million voters, and we got a poll back in April that said I was down five points.”

So, with a whirlwind year-and-a-half of insurgent campaigning now abruptly over, one that began before he had even finished out his final term as mayor of Detroit, what comes next for Duggan?

He’s not thinking about it today.

“Sonia is planning a trip, so we’ve been discussing that,” he said somewhat absently when asked what the future had in store for him. “Two of my kids have called to plan trips. Since the day I declared for mayor, I have basically been around the clock last 12, 13 years, and so right now I’m going to spend some time making up for lost time.”

He did say, though, that he’ll be keeping tabs on the race he’s exiting, along with others across the state. Endorsements won’t be handed out until after the August primary is wrapped, Duggan said, but he’ll be looking to put his support behind candidates who embody the ethos of policy over partisanship he tried to put at the center of his own campaign.

“I am hopeful that this campaign will have an impact, even at 23%. That means 1.6 million Michigan voters are so angry at the two parties, they want to see change, they want to see problems solved instead of the toxic fighting,” he said. “And I am very hopeful that you will see Republican and Democratic candidates this fall embrace that. I’ve talked to a number of them already today, and I’ve said the same thing.”

Although recent polling from the Glengariff Group indicated independent likely voters were beginning to move in the direction of supporting Democratic candidates, particularly Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson in the gubernatorial race, there will still be a considerable chunk of Duggan’s supporters up for grabs now that he’s out of the ring.

“I’m going to be watching, along with a whole lot of my supporters, in the hopes that it proves this campaign made a lasting difference, but that’s where we are now,” he said. “The question is going to be in the fall, do we see candidates focus less on attacking each other and more about working together? I’ll make my judgment based on how the campaigns are going to fall. Whether they want my endorsement is the first question, but I do think you’re going to see, particularly state reps, state Senate, maybe some congressional candidates start to move in the direction that I think a whole lot of Michigan residents want.”

Duggan dismissed rumors that he’s been approached about the University of Michigan presidency, which is once again in need of a permanent candidate since Kent Syverud was diagnosed with an aggressive form of brain cancer earlier this spring and withdrew from assuming the role this summer as was planned.

“I have had zero conversation with anybody about any job, so I can’t control what’s out there, but it’s only been the last 48 hours that we realized we were (ending the campaign),” he said.

The shift out of campaigning seemed to still be sinking in for Duggan: he said when he broke the news to his staff Thursday morning there were four union endorsements that had yet to be announced. The Detroit Regional Chamber, which endorsed Duggan early in his candidacy, announced it would be shifting some agenda elements of its upcoming Mackinac Policy Conference to “feature several candidates for governor.”

Duggan emphasized that the decision to suspend the campaign was made when the conclusion was reached that there were no longer any realistic options to pursue that would lead to a victory in November, not to coincide with or in anticipation of any particular event or fundraiser.

“It didn’t matter what day it was, if it was one day after a fundraiser, one day before an announcement,” he said. “Once we came to the conclusion that (there) wasn’t a path, I just couldn’t see going to donors and supporters anymore and saying, ‘I believe I could win and I need your help.’”

When asked if, looking back on his campaign from the other side, it was a strategic error to run as an independent and leave his lifelong home in the Democratic Party, Duggan maintained the tone he’s had since late 2024, when he shocked Lansing insiders and his Detroit constituents alike with his gubernatorial announcement: confident, and a little defiant.

“I’ve gotten that question for the last year,” he said, laughing slightly. “I think there’s a good chance I could have won as a Democrat. I don’t think I could have changed politics that way. The nature of it is when you’re running as a Democratic governor, you’re trying to elect Democratic reps and Democratic senators. When you get there, all the Republicans are against you because you tried to beat them.”

That was the crux of why the conclusion was reached that it was time to bow out: from the beginning, Duggan believed he was going to not only win, but that he would change politics as Michiganders knew it. He said his son told him something that helped shift his mindset and ultimately decide to leave the race.

“Ed said, ‘You forget you were the guy that had a write-in (campaign) in the city of Detroit and won. They think you have a plan,’” Duggan said. “And I realized people were relying on my judgment that I thought I could win, and I just felt like I had to be honest when that judgment changed.”

There was a moment, though, of parapraxis – a Freudian slip – before Duggan wrapped up his remarks by thanking his staff and shaking the hands of reporters who’d followed his trajectory for decades, which indicated how foreign it was for the former mayor to step out of the horserace. “I am running,” he faltered momentarily, “I was running to change politics.”

A Senate committee reported a bill Thursday that would ban companies that have entered agreements with the state of Michigan from engaging in stock buybacks of their own stock.

Senate Economic and Community Development Committee Chair Sen. Mallory McMorrow, D-Royal Oak, said the idea behind SB 783 was simple: to have companies that are provided economic development incentives should not enrich themselves through stock buybacks.

McMorrow listed several examples of businesses in Michigan laying off hundreds of employees while at the same time or shortly after offering stock buybacks for stockholders.

She added that the state has also awarded $2.5 billion in economic development incentives to companies since 2019 to bring projects to Michigan.

“Stock buybacks don’t create jobs,” McMorrow said. “They don’t build facilities, they don’t invest in R&D or wages, they boost stock prices in the short term and reward executives and investors while the workers those subsidies were meant to help are shown the door.”

Members voted 6-1 to report the bill, with Sen. Jonathan Lindsey, R-Coldwater, voting with the Democrats, while Sen. Michael Webber, R-Rochester Hills, abstained and Sen. Roger Victory, R-Georgetown Township, was opposed.

Provisions within the federal Securities Exchange Act of 1934 prohibit many forms of market manipulation. For most of the 20th century after implementation of the act, stock buybacks were largely prohibited until the Securities and Exchange Commission loosened the restriction under a rule change in 1982.

Stock buybacks have steadily grown since the 1982 federal rule change. Reports late last year projected that stock buybacks by corporations in the United States exceeded $1 trillion during 2025.

Under SB 783, recipients of state economic development incentives would not be able to conduct buybacks of their own stock “during the period the recipient is receiving the economic incentive or subject to a written agreement regarding the economic incentive.”

The ban covers incentives through the Michigan Strategic Fund. This would include a grant, loan, tax capture agreement or tax abatement, or any other economic assistance during the period of an agreed upon contract.

Lisa August-Schmidt with the United Auto Workers Research Department said the rise in stock buybacks has skyrocketed since the 1980s deregulation.

“When companies are buying back shares, those inflated stock prices are not benefiting working people in Michigan. That money goes directly to Wall Street,” August-Schmidt said.

She said buybacks are a redistribution of wealth from the workers to management, which she added also comes at the expense of worker wages.

Adam Majestic, director of public policy and business advocacy with the Detroit Regional Chamber, said the bill mischaracterizes corporate finance and would threaten the state’s economic momentum.

Majestic said stock buybacks do not solely enrich Wall Street or executives, saying those who have pensions or a 401k have some form of stock investment.

“This bill ignores the hypercompetitive reality of the national economic development environment,” Majestic said. “If we force global companies to choose between standard capital allocation strategies or expanding Michigan, they’re going to just take their jobs elsewhere. This bill creates a poison pill for economic development, adding these additional hoops that Michigan already has for development.”

House Republicans passed legislation Wednesday that would make dramatic property tax cuts – and even got Rep. Karen Whitsett to show up to work for the first time in 267 days to help pass the bills.

Whitsett arrived on the House floor shortly after 9 p.m. to put HB 5879, a bill that would require public utilities to reduce residential rates in correlation to personal property tax savings, at 57 yes votes, one more than the minimum needed for passage.

Whitsett was last present at session on August 26, 2025. Her appearance Wednesday ended a 267-day streak covering 63 House sessions where attendance was taken where she did not show up in the chamber.

Almost all the bills in the property tax cut proposal – HB 5872, HB 5873, HB 5874, HB 5875, HB 5876, HB 5877, HB 5878, HB 5879 – were approved 57-46. Whitsett voted with Republicans, and Rep. Jaime Greene, R-Richmond, voted against the bills. Rep. Joseph Fox, R-Fremont, was not present.

Overall, the bills would cut more than $5 billion in property tax revenue. Although House Speaker Matt Hall, R-Richland Township, has said his intent is for the plan to be revenue neutral, a sales tax expansion did not clear committee or the House on Wednesday.

HB 5880, which the package is tie-barred to, would expand the 6% sales tax to unspecified services.

Whitsett, who announced earlier this year she was not running for reelection and no longer aligned with the Democratic Party due to her faith, said she came to vote on the package because property tax relief was important to her constituents.

“To be able to do something like this today, to be able to go forward, and be able to make a difference to people who need to see relief immediately is extremely important,” she said during a press conference following session. “I’m very happy to be here, and like I said my voice is always in the power of my vote, and I come here, and I make sure I got that vote when it makes sense, and it has to be done to get something accomplished.”

HB 5872 eliminates the pop-up tax – the realignment of taxable value with the assessed value, removing the cap the previous homeowners enjoyed on annual property tax increases. It – was reported from committee Wednesday afternoon with a substitute that adds a new exemption in statute that exempts all property transfers from the realignment of taxable and assessed value.

Initially, the House introduced HJR T to end the uncapping of taxable value when a home was sold. That would have amended the Constitution, which House Speaker Matt Hall, R-Richland Township, said Wednesday night would no longer be necessary. A joint resolution also has a higher threshold for passage.

On HB 5880, Hall has repeatedly said the tax would only apply to “luxury” services, but there is no bill language outlining what those services would be or exactly how much revenue would be generated.

Because of the tie bar, nothing the House passed Wednesday can take effect unless the House eventually passes the services tax and Gov. Gretchen Whitmer signs all the bills.

The property tax plan has received push back from Democrats, local governments and school organizations who are concerned that without seeing further details, the plan to cut property taxes will leave the state with a budget hole that hurts schools and municipal governments.

The Michigan Municipal League, the Michigan Association of School Boards and the Michigan Association of Superintendents and Administrators all have opposed the legislation as written.

In a statement submitted to the House Government Operations Committee, John LaMacchia of the Michigan Municipal League raised concerns about eliminating what critics call the pop-up tax.

“Eliminating the ‘pop up’ may sound good, but as conceived, this proposal will create permanent inequities in our property tax system. The ‘pop up,’ while slow to recognize growth, over time actually equalizes values across a community,” he said. “Combined with the existing Headlee and Proposal A caps, eliminating the pop-up effectively removes any organic revenue growth for local government. A system that doesn’t track with the economy cannot fund police, fire, roads or any of the services residents expect.”

LaMacchia went on to say that HB 5880 lacked detail and specifics about what would be taxed and whether those revenues would be enough to fund local services. The elimination of the 6-mill State Education Tax and the Real Estate Transfer Tax would reduce revenues to the School Aid Fund. The elimination of the Personal Property Tax would slash revenues to the School Aid Fund and local governments.

“Any revenue proposal must provide for full replacement and a factor for growth,” he said. “Anything less will result in reductions to critical service all Michigan residents rely on.”

The Michigan Association of School Boards and the Michigan Association of Superintendents and Administrators released a joint statement opposing the bill package.

Despite the language of the legislation including a directive to backfill lost School Aid Fund revenue, both organizations said that provision was legally unenforceable.

“The reality is that the state budget cannot absorb a multi-billion-dollar hit of this magnitude,” said Don Wotruba, executive director of the Michigan Association of School Boards. “This package would directly impact the resources needed to help students succeed.”

Tina Kerr, executive director of the Michigan Association of Superintendents and Administrators, said although the organization understands the desire for property tax reform, the legislation as written would create an unsustainable gap in school funding.

“A 20% reduction in revenue directly impacts core classroom resources, including critical, state-level investments in early childhood literacy. We need a solution that protects our students’ academic progress,” she said.

Similarly, Greene said she could not vote for any of the bills in the package Wednesday night because there weren’t sufficient details on how the revenue would be replaced.

“I want property tax relief, but I want it done responsibly. Before we make major changes to Michigan’s property tax system, we need a dedicated, reliable and protected revenue sharing structure that makes sure local governments are not left holding the bag,” she said in a statement. “This is about protecting taxpayers, but it also about protecting the services taxpayers depend on. A good headline today is not worth a local budget crisis tomorrow.”

Greene said she wanted to keep working on property tax, but she could not support the plan as it currently exists.

“I cannot support a plan that shifts the burden onto local communities and asks taxpayers to simply trust that the new funding mechanism will work,” she said.

Hall said his intent was to negotiate the specifics of the new revenue with Whitmer as part of the budget process.

“It’s a luxury tax, and we’ve talked a lot about it. We know the lobbyists are going to pay for it. We know that the robo-callers, they’re going to pay for it. … People with private jets. We’re going to tax the limousine services,” he said. “We’re going to do that, but to really ensure that it’s revenue neutral, or a net tax cut, I feel more comfortable doing that with the Treasury Department.”

Hall said that the total amount of all taxable services was $18 billion, but the House Republican plan was $5 billion.

He brushed aside concerns from Democrats and others about a lack of specificity in the plan.

“The problem is the obstruction on the front end,” he said. “The want to obstruct it on the front end to make sure that property tax cuts is not even a reality because they don’t’ want me to get the credit. And then we push, and push and push, and we get it done, despite their obstructionism.”

Senators heard divided testimony Thursday on legislation that would prevent businesses from charging higher prices based on outside factors or a consumer’s personal data.

The Senate Economic and Community Development Committee took testimony only on SB 991, SB 992, and SB 993.

Under SB 991, businesses would be banned from using algorithms in setting prices for products.

Sen. Mallory McMorrow, D-Royal Oak, said the legislation would address what is known as dynamic pricing, a method in which prices for consumer items are changed based on outside factors including date, time-of-day and weather as well as factors including a consumer’s location, demographic or protected class information.

Opponents testified that the proposal, while well intentioned, could undermine the offering of discounts and deals to loyal customers through apps.

McMorrow used the examples of being charged more for a ride through a rideshare app due to one’s phone battery being low or being charged a higher rate for plane tickets due to doing some research to compare prices before booking.

She said if a person’s phone battery is low, they likely will try to book a ride quickly and accept whatever prices are being offered. For flights, she used the example of JetBlue last month being accused of surveillance pricing by sharply increasing the cost of a ticket for a person seeking to book a flight to attend a funeral.

“Michiganders deserve to know that the price they see is the price that everyone sees, not a number that an algorithm picked because it decided based on your user data that you would pay more,” McMorrow said.

Sen. John Cherry, D-Flint, described what SB 992 and SB 993 would prevent, using the example of products changing prices without warning based on external conditions.

“It means a store cannot change a price as the clock goes from 11:59 a.m. to noon, because data shows that more people are going to come in and buy that product after noon,” Cherry said. “It means that the store can’t change the price in the middle of the day, because a forecast has suddenly shifted, and now snow is predicted to fall that night.”

Sen. Jonathan Lindsey, R-Coldwater, asked the senators how they decided what provisions in the bill were appropriate in order to strike the right balance.

McMorrow said the bills are intended to address an increase in which sellers of products “weaponizes our own personal data against us.”

Jabari Cooper with the Chamber of Progress spoke in opposition to SB 991 as written.

“It remains drafted too broadly and too ambiguously to protect the everyday discounts that Michigan families rely on,” Cooper said. “We share the goal of making sure consumers get a fair deal, but Senate Bill 991 risks backfiring on the very families it aims to help by restricting the app-based deals and digital discounts that families use to stretch their budgets and that businesses use to compete.”

He said apps that offer discount prices to app users, or discounts to nearby customers via app could be affected by the legislation.

“We agree that businesses should not use personal data to charge people more, but that is fundamentally different from the routine use of technology to deliver discounts, rewards, and savings that customers would actively participate in,” Cooper said.

Drew Beardslee with the Michigan Retailers Association was also opposed to the legislation.

He used the examples of plane or concert tickets as well as hotel reservations, in which he said there is good reason for concern and anxiety by consumers.

“I would argue that in the retail landscape, and in grocery in particular, it can’t work the same way, because with airlines or concert tickets, you have very little competition,” Beardslee said. “With retail it’s vastly more competitive.”

Beardslee echoed concerns raised by Cooper, that the bills might create the unintended consequence of undermining opportunities for routine discounts offered to customers.