July 10, 2026 | This Week in Government: Fund Shifts, Smattering of Cuts, Spending Alignment Stitched Budget Together

Much like the grounds crew cleaning up the litter remaining from a big fireworks show over the weekend, the Capitol community spent Monday picking through the budget the Legislature and the administration of Gov. Gretchen Whitmer slapped together in the early morning hours of Friday to see how they decided to spend $86.3 billion.

For starters, there’s not even a clean understanding of the total spending in the 2026-27 fiscal year budget.

Bob Schneider of the Citizens Research Council of Michigan, said if one were to look at the numbers in the budget and add them up, the topline is around $75.2 billion. Indeed, that’s what the official House Fiscal Agency and Senate Fiscal Agency analyses of HB 5630 and SB 878 say. House Republicans spent Friday and the weekend crowing about a greatly reduced budget from the current year.

But if people are just adding the numbers, they’re missing a substantial amount of spending, Schneider said.

There is about $9.3 billion related to Medicaid provider taxes, which used to be included in the line items, but now is in boilerplate appropriations, Schneider said. There’s also around $2 billion in federal K-12 appropriations that aren’t included in the topline. There is no indication the state would see a decline in federal aid for K-12 spending, but the budget reduces the estimated authorization for federal grants though it also authorized the state to spend whatever it receives from the federal government.

“It’s not a cut that’s going to affect how much you get to spend, but it’s affecting how much shows up in the final budget,” Schnider said. “Now, we don’t know exactly how much we’re going to get from the federal government every year, so those are estimates. Maybe they come in a little bit lower, but they’re not going to be billions of dollars lower.”

By Schneider’s estimate, a more realistic number to represent how much money the state of Michigan is working with for the 2026-27 fiscal year is $86.3 billion. This squares with a Gongwer News Service analysis of the budget.

The current year budget, including the most recent supplemental, now totals around $87.2 billion, Schneider said. The Legislature enacted around $84 billion last October, but lawmakers touted a topline somewhere between $81 billion and $82 billion.

“It is lower,” Schneider said about this year’s budget. “But it is not lower than what we enacted last year.”

House Speaker Matt Hall, R-Richland Township, has described the new budget as about $800 million less than the current budget.

There is no fiscal benefit to the budget math the Legislature has been doing with the topline for the past two years, Schneider said.

“We’re going to get what we’re going to get from the federal government. We’re going to get what we get from our Medicaid hospital and insurance provider assessment taxes that are all pushed into boilerplate,” he said. “There’s no benefit at all. I would say the detriment is it inaccurately characterizes the real size of the budget.”

The public isn’t going to have a good understanding of the state budget based on the numbers the Legislature is pushing, he said.

“It’s going to look much lower than (what it is),” he said. “Especially when I compare it to the budget from a couple years ago – it’s going to look $10 billion lower, when in reality, it’s right in the same vicinity.”

To find those $10 billion, people have to know how to read budget documents and where to look, Schneider said.

“And, I don’t know, how many pages was that omnibus?” he said. “Unless you know where to look for it, you’re not going to find it.”

The two bills, combined, total 1,545 pages.

The question going forward, Schneider said, is, given that no major cuts were made, how structurally sound is the budget the Legislature passed.

“There could be some challenges coming, and I’m working to try to define the magnitude of those right now,” he said.

Piecing it Together

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer called for $800 million in tax increases and the use of $400 million from the Budget Stabilization Fund to pay for the $88 billion in spending she recommended in February. House Republicans opposed both ideas. Senate Democrats did not act on new revenue but supported the use of $400 million from the BSF. In the end, neither made the budget.

The administration, House and Senate instead pulled the budget together with a mix of cuts, a pile of fund shifts, several moves to align spending authorizations with historic spending patterns and swapping out General Fund for restricted fund revenue.

The budget, on the whole, contains few cuts to actual programs. It does move in the direction of a priority House Republicans emphasized – reducing spending authorizations to align with what departments historically spend.

This doesn’t cut programs – unspent authorized funds just lapse to the next fiscal year and become available for later use. But it does bring authorizations more in line with what departments actually spend.

In several departments, smaller amounts were eliminated from various spending items to align with historical spending levels. This totaled about $94 million General Fund, including the net $5 million saved in Corrections: $1 million for the Department of Education, $500,000 from the Department of Attorney General, $14 million from the Department of Technology, Management and Budget, $34.5 million from the Department of Health and Human Services, $14 million in the judiciary budget, $530,000 from the Department of Lifelong Education, Advancement and Potential, $100,000 for the Department of Natural Resources, $24.5 million for the Department of State Police.

In some cases, reductions in the budget were not net cuts. Funds were then moved elsewhere. In the Department of Corrections budget, $35.8 million (all General Fund) was eliminated from several line items that historically saw appropriated funds go unspent by the end of the year. Reducing this spending has been a House Republican priority. But $30 million of those funds were then shifted to pay for a 3% increase in the department’s contract for prisoner healthcare.

Another $12 million was cut in Corrections spending and instead shifted to other line items, too.

There were some bona fide spending cuts.

There were $479.2 million ($185 million General Fund) in Medicaid “efficiencies”. Some of the moves were described more as savings and restructurings, particularly in pharmaceutical programs.

DTMB will cancel $26.7 million General Fund in lease payments.

There was a $24.2 million (all General Fund) reduction to the Michigan Indigent Defense Council.

The state will close two of the Department of State Police’s seven forensic labs, in Northville and Grayling, saving $1.5 million General Fund.

The Pure Michigan tourism promotion will take another hit with $17 million ($16 million General Fund) in ongoing fund eliminated and replaced with $11 million (all General Fund) in one-time funding.

Replacing General Fund with restricted funds was a significant feature of the budget.

About $87 million General Fund was saved in DHHS through the use of swapping in restricted funds to replace the General Fund monies, mainly $75 million from the Merit Award Trust Fund, but also $10 million School Aid Fund to support the MiDocs program and $1 million in Newborn Screening Fee revenue.

In the Licensing and Regulatory Affairs budget, $16.3 million General Fund was replaced with funds from the Construction Code Fund, corporation fees and the Health Professionals Regulation Fund.

In the judiciary budget, almost $5 million General Fund was swapped out, with funds from the Court Fee Fund, Juror Compensation Fund and Judicial Tech Improvement Fund used instead.

In the Department of Military and Veterans Affairs, $2.9 million in federal funds replaces that amount in General Fund for the state’s veterans homes.

The incentive for owners of companies making substantial renovations or new construction to house their employees on blighted sites will restart after the Legislature voted Friday for a revised transformational brownfield program.

The program enables owners of these companies to keep the income tax withholdings of employees at the new job site instead of remitting them to the state. There has been a big push to reauthorize the program, which expired a few years ago, particularly from Dan Gilbert, who’s eyeing it as a way to defray the cost of demolishing a portion of the Renaissance Center.

House Speaker Matt Hall, R-Richland Township, called the bills a win for Democrats.

“Gretchen Whitmer has been on a mission to tear down the Renaissance Center for a while now, but I think we put some important safeguards in there,” he said. “We’re putting protections in place because what was happening is like, GM, they leave the beautiful Renaissance Center to go move into the Hudson Building, and they get huge incentives to do that. But they’re not actually bringing in any new workers… under this new version of transformational brownfields they will not get compensated for that. They will only get compensated for real new jobs.”

Passing the House were SB 721 (96-12), SB 722 (97-11), and SB 723 (82-26). The House adopted several changes to SB 723 before passing it, and then the Senate concurred in those changes, 24-12.

The revamped transformational brownfield program includes some new safeguards to avoid abuse of the credit. Employers would not be able to receive income tax withholdings from employees if the employer has more than 50 employees in Michigan or is receiving an economic incentive from the MSF and is not in a new job. The relocation of a job from elsewhere within the state to the property cannot be counted as a new job.

Additionally, entities that relocate a facility from one location in the state to another that don’t expand the size of the relocated facility, employ more individuals after the relocation or have another valid business reason for the relocation are ineligible for withholding.

A new definition for affordable housing is added – residential housing units rented or sold to income qualified households.

The MSF can cease all reimbursement if it determines whether an owner or developer acted in bad faith on the level of capital investment.

There would be an $80 million limit on new transformational brownfield projects with a total limit on $3.2 billion in total tax capture. There would be a $300 million limit on construction tax capture covering sales, use and income taxes.

There also would be a series of new transparency requirements.

The Republican gubernatorial debate Thursday night did not offer many policy proposals but instead a look into gripes between the candidates ranging from business contracts, use of AI and data center donations.

The debate marks the first time all the principles in the race – U.S. Rep. John James, former Attorney General Mike Cox and Perry Johnson – have been in the same room in a televised debate format. Both Cox and Johnson have pressed James in the past on skipping other forums. Johnson missed a spring forum James attended.

The candidates called each other out for lying, evading questions, not understanding each other’s background and dollars and cents on their business connections.

James said in his opening statement that while his opponents are focused on him, he’s focused on the people of the state.

Cox countered that the frustration was pent up over James not attending the forums in the past.

The host of the debate, Fox 2 Detroit, and “The Pulse” anchor Roop Raj had to intervene at the peak of the finger pointing.

“The one thing we get on ‘The Pulse’ is the pulse of what people are sick of,” Raj said. “You know what they’re sick of? It’s people screaming, all three of you. Here’s the bottom line. The majority of people outside the camera don’t care as much about some of the dollars and cents we’re talking about.”

The race has become increasingly negative in the last two weeks, with both James and Johnson lobbing attack ads on each other and Cox and James trading shots too.

The first 30 minutes of the debate were broadcast on Fox 2 Detroit. The remaining 30 minutes were streamed online.

Many of the references made in the debate were political insider baseball, including Cox calling James the “pre-Fay Beydoun” for receiving $2 million in business subsidies and not creating the jobs he said he would and which candidate was using outsourcing in their personal businesses, either Johnson or James.

Even questions from the audience came from people within the political insider bubble. Republican strategist Jamie Roe, who had James as a client when he ran for Senate in 2020, asked a question. It’s unclear if he has a client in the race this cycle though earlier this year he criticized James for not attending a candidate forum. Abby Mitch, a former James spokesperson, asked a question, as did Andrea Bitely, a public relations professional who was recently head spokesperson for the Mike Duggan gubernatorial campaign.

A source with the James campaign said they did not know in advance that Mitch would be there or ask a question and were equally surprised when Bitely was first on screen.

All the candidates have courted President Donald Trump’s support in the race, however, James recently secured that endorsement, something he said has surged his momentum in the primary. Cox and Johnson have both pushed back on the idea that the endorsement has hurt their chances at winning.

With this, the first question of the night asked candidates how they would fight back if Trump enacted a policy that would hurt Michigan.

James said he has a great relationship with Trump, and if he had an issue, he would pick up the phone and call him. He said he looked forward to speaking with Trump on securing the border and opting into the Education Freedom Tax Credit.

Cox said he has fought with others when he believed something was wrong such as former Gov. Jennifer Granholm who was governor while he was attorney general. However, he said James was defensive on his relationship with the president, despite having the president’s endorsement.

Cox said, instead, the president “respects winners.”

Unlike the other candidates, Cox did point out one disagreement he has with Trump: SALT, the State, and Local Tax exemption.

James responded by saying Cox would not admit that “the election was rigged in 2020,” a point of contention between Republicans. There has been no credible evidence that the 2020 election results are not valid. Former President Joe Biden won Michigan by more than 150,000 votes.

“Mike Cox hasn’t won an election since goodness before the iPhone was invented, and in the last statewide election he ran, he came in a distant third place, so frankly, we need to own up to reality. Mike Cox is a fighter. I’ll grant that, but he’s not a winner.”

Cox won attorney general races in 2002 and 2006 but lost the Republican gubernatorial primary in 2010.

James said he “can agree with the president without worshiping him” and “can disagree without attacking him.”

Johnson said he found it unlikely that he was going to disagree with Trump and would not arbitrarily say something could be bad for Michigan but instead ask people why they think it would be bad.

Cox called James a “trust fund baby” by inheriting his position in The James Group, the company Cox has been lambasting for outsourcing imported auto parts from China and avoiding American auto parts. James fought back by saying his success is not from being “a nepo baby,” but the American dream secured by his family.

James said Cox disrespected his workforce Tuesday, holding a press conference on the criticism outside The James Group office building in Detroit.

James also fought back against the question of whether he followed through on the Michigan Economic Development Corporation grant money stipulations on creating jobs, saying it was a lie and he was still in the military at the time.

“The more you lie doesn’t make it more true,” James said.

He accused his opponents of “flooding the zone with BS” before the debate.

James also swung at Johnson’s claims about what an income tax repeal would mean for Michiganders, saying he came up with “magic numbers” from Chat GPT.

Johnson called it “actually stupid.”

Shortly after the debate ended, the James campaign tweeted an edited clip from the “MichMash” podcast in which Johnson was asked how he determined the median income level to calculate the purported $4,747 annual median savings for a family of four in Michigan. He said on the show that one could Google the information or use ChatGPT.

James also said Johnson was the real culprit in outsourcing, highlighting one of his companies is called “Perry Johnson Outsourcing.” Johnson said he has not outsourced a single job to China.

One policy question posed was about data centers and accepting money from data center companies in their tenure as governor.

Johnson accused James of taking money from data center developers. James denied this.

Some states, like Indiana, have suspended their fuel taxes to reduce the price of gasoline during a time of high inflation.

The candidates were asked about using that same strategy in Michigan. James said he would want to cut other waste, fraud and abuse in the budget, not lower the gasoline tax. Cox also said he wanted to cut waste, fraud, and abuse but attacked James on not having specific programs to cut which he said is usual from Washington politicians.

In some specifics to cut, Cox called out MEDC spending and James highlighted pet projects and improper payments in unemployment.

Johnson told reporters after the debate it was hard to say if the night was too insider baseball because some of the issues are extraneous to the average person and the real issues at hands are if people can afford their expenses, and “sometimes we lose the forest through the trees.” However, he said it all comes down to there is a finite amount of money and there is government spending that is inefficient in places like the MEDC.

On negativity possibly hurting whoever wins the nomination in November, Cox said things will get a little ugly in a primary, and that in a general election, if James if the Republican nominee, there will still be ad spending on James outsourcing in his company.

James did not speak to press after the event. Jackson Gross, his campaign manager, said James said everything he had to, and the other two “need all the time they can get to clean up their mess.”

Democratic voters tuning into the first televised debate Tuesday between Abdul El-Sayed and Haley Stevens clearly saw the momentous decision facing them on who will best represent the party in perhaps the most important U.S. Senate race in America this year.

El-Sayed offered a new approach, focused more on upending the entire political system to achieve liberal goals. He seldom mentioned President Donald Trump or the Republican nominee in waiting, U.S. Rep. Mike Rogers, whom he said multiple times is not much different than Stevens.

Stevens presented a more conventional option for a purple state, more in the mold of the last three Democratic U.S. senators (Elissa Slotkin, Gary Peters, Debbie Stabenow). She spoke of understanding how to work the system, repeatedly saying she had the receipts for her legislative success, emphasized fighting Trump, chastised Rogers and said she has shown she can win the kind of tough race facing the winner of the Democratic primary.

The two candidates hit each other hard.

For Stevens, it was a chance to take the campaign outside of the confines of social media, where El-Sayed has thrived, and she has struggled. For the first five to 10 minutes, she hammered El-Sayed as a millionaire pursuing the position out of vanity without a record of winning races or delivering in the legislative branch.

El-Sayed, who initially seemed nervous and spoke unusually fast during his first answer before settling in, repeatedly pounded Stevens as captive of corporate influence, too corrupted by campaign donors to achieve the fundamental change Americans need. He referenced AIPAC – the American-Israel Public Affairs Committee whose support for Stevens has become a huge storyline in the race – eight times in the first five minutes of the debate.

There were many striking differences. President Donald Trump’s name was mentioned 20 times – 16 by Stevens, four by El-Sayed.

Corporate PACs or corporate money was mentioned seven times, all by El-Sayed. The words “corrupt” or “corruption” were mentioned six times, five by El-Sayed and one by Stevens.

“Michigan” or “Michiganders” was mentioned 51 times, 44 by Stevens, and seven by El-Sayed.

El-Sayed worked in seven mentions of Medicare for All.

Rogers was referenced 12 times, 10 times by Stevens and twice by El-Sayed with one of those mentions to say he and Stevens essentially were the same.

“I will run through anyone and anything to lower costs – my no tariff on groceries bill, my bill to lower your utility bill,” Stevens said. “Look, I’m the only person running for United States Senate in Michigan who is not a millionaire. I am not trying to sell a book or a podcast. I’m the only one on this stage who doesn’t have a talent agent trying to pitch me for paid speeches, and unlike my opponent, I’m not running at the first mic or camera I see. Instead, my head is down doing the work for the people of Michigan who need the work to be done. We do not need a celebrity senator, we need a workhorse.”

The workhorse line was a favorite of Peters (and also Republican former U.S. Sen. Spencer Abraham).

But El-Sayed hit right back after Stevens lit him up.

“We also don’t need politicians bought off by corporations in this race,” he said. “You’ve probably seen ad after ad after ad. Not one of those ads was brought to you by the congresswoman’s campaign. All of them brought to you by corporate PACs and AIPAC trying to buy a politician who’s going to do their bidding instead of yours. That’s been the story of our politics for far too long. The question is not whether or not you’re a millionaire, the question is whether or not you are bowing down to billionaires. And for too long in our politics, we’ve watched politicians beg for those dollars only to do them that bidding when they actually get to office. That has been the story of my opponent. If you want politics that’s different, I’m the only one who’s never taken a dime from a corporation.”

Stevens tried to turn the financial transparency issue back at El-Sayed, hitting him for not having released his tax returns.

“Abdul, you talk about getting money out of politics but who is putting money in yours?” she said.

El-Sayed said he had taken a regular extension.

El-Sayed also twice referenced a story in the left-wing publication The Intercept, based on Stevens’ personal financial disclosure, that she and her mother traveled a conference hosted by the centrist group Center Forward, paid for by Center Forward, which is now paying for ads supporting Stevens.

Stevens never responded to the attack.

The Israeli-Palestinian conflict, as expected, was a significant topic.

El-Sayed again called for the United States to cease funding other nations’ militaries and accused Israel of genocide in its response to the Hamas attack on Israel in 2023.

The candidates were asked by moderator Rick Albin of WOOD-TV how the United States should try to help end the long-running Israeli-Palestinian conflict.

“We cannot continue to sell weapons to a country that is doing human rights abuses, genocide, and apartheid,” El-Sayed said. “I also believe that we need to stop running cover for what has become a rogue state that is now trying to end southern Lebanon, and I also believe that your money needs to be spent here, because at the end of the day, the ultimate losers are you and me, the taxpayers who paid that money to provide infrastructure, build schools, provide healthcare for our own kids, not to watch it get sent to buy bombs and tanks that end up annihilating other people and their children.”

Stevens hit El-Sayed for not supporting a two-state solution with Israeli and Palestinian states existing side by side.

It was a far more direct response than she has previously offered when she has dodged questions about Israel and AIPAC at forums and said she’s focused on Michigan.

“The goal has to be long-term peace, and this is what I have long worked for,” she said. “I stood alongside families who had relatives taken hostage by Hamas, and I’ve called for a permanent cease fire. The difference between my opponent and myself on this issue is that I believe in a two-state solution. I can say that Israel has a right to peacefully exist alongside the people of Palestine and in Gaza. It is very clear that Mr. Netanyahu has not made us safer, has not brought us closer to peace, and he’s endangered Jews here in America and around the world. This is why he was just trashing me today on CNN. I am not afraid of bullies, I am not afraid to stand up, and I continue to stand up for humanitarian aid, for the US to work with the countries in the region and get aid into Gaza.”

Netanyahu, the Israeli prime minister, criticized Stevens on CNN earlier in the day for her comments that his more than two-year counterattack that has leveled Gaza and killed tens of thousands has endangered American Jews.

El-Sayed suggested Netanyahu was trying to do Stevens a solid with a false flag attack.

“Look, I believe in equal rights to peace, dignity, and self-determination for Palestinians and Jewish Israelis alike,” he said, though he didn’t define whether that meant a two-state solution. “But the question I think the congresswoman needs to answer is why has she allowed $40 million of outside spending, the bulk of it coming from AIPAC, to come into this race, I don’t think Benjamin Netanyahu is attacking her to actually attack her. I think he’s attacking her to try and steer away the stink of how staunchly she stands for their policy. So, let’s take that opportunity. Explain what you’ve given away for AIPAC support in this race.”

Stevens retorted any support for her is because of support for her record of fighting for Michigan.

“No one owns my vote, and no one owns my policies,” she said.

She then turned the attack toward ads from the National Republican Senatorial Committee widely seen as trying to boost El-Sayed and help him win the primary in hopes he would be easier for Rogers to defeat than Stevens.

“What my opponent needs to answer is why is the GOP spending thousands of dollars to prop up his campaign, saying that he will make Mike Rogers the next U.S. senator,” she said.

Responded El-Sayed: “I’m sure everybody out there thinks the Republicans want me to win this race. Sure.”

He also noted polls showing him as performing the best against Rogers.

However, the differences in how El-Sayed and Stevens performed against Rogers were well within the margin of error, and none came from a pollster with a track record of accurately polling a Michigan general election. Stevens scoffed the surveys were “false polls.”

The two found agreement in some areas, like the cost of childcare, the need to make life for affordable for Michiganders, criticism of Immigrations and Customs Enforcement activities, and the need to regulate artificial intelligence.

They did, however, offer far different prescriptions for how to address the rise of AI.

El-Sayed called for virtually nationalizing it.

“I want an agency, the government, like an FDA for AIs, and I want to make sure that we pass our terms of agreement,” he said. “I can say all this because I’m not bought off by the AI companies. You talked about the 2020 regulation that was a giveaway to the AI industry, so yes, if you want someone who’s really effective at giving giveaways to the AI industry, you have your option in this race.”

Stevens scoffed at the criticism of the bill El-Sayed referenced.

“I’m pleased that my opponent read my deep fake bill to better detect the use of AI, particularly with our children,” she said. “It was written alongside the National Institute of Standard and standards of technology, and I am proud that that passed, and you should be supporting it, not attacking it, but that seems to be the only thing and stunt that he can pull.”

Stevens said AI regulation is needed but also said officials must be careful not to choke off innovation and potential jobs.

“It is up to federal lawmakers to secure the tax code, so that these bajillionaire enterprises are paying their fair share,” she said. “It is unacceptable that rates would go up as a result. I want to force these data centers to pay the utility bills and to pay water bills for folks, and look, I also want to secure Michigan being on the forefront of innovation and manufacturing. I visited hundreds, uniquely hundreds, of manufacturing shop floors. They are using this technology. We want the jobs, we just can’t afford to force the workers to pay for it.”

There were a few moments when Stevens tried to jab El-Sayed for insufficiently supporting Vice President Kamala Harris in her 2024 presidential bid, at times awkwardly wedging a barb into an answer about a completely different topic.

El-Sayed said he endorsed Harris and campaigned for her.

So much of the difference in the debate was about tone and approach to politics.

Stevens, as is her calling card, referenced her work on the 2009 auto rescue many times.

“To every engineer watching tonight, I know how a CNC machine works and a robotic welder,” she said. “I am Michigan’s manufacturing geek, and nothing is motivating me more than standing up for our manufacturing sector and our jobs.”

El-Sayed spoke of building a movement.

“People say the same things,” he said. “It just shouldn’t be this hard. Shouldn’t be this hard to afford your groceries. Shouldn’t be this hard to pay your rent. Shouldn’t be this hard to see a doctor in the richest, most powerful country in the world. And that means we’ve got to build a movement of people to get money out of politics, put money in your pocket, and pass Medicare for All. I hope that you’ll join us in building that movement. It’s the many versus the money.”

Michigan State University President Kevin Guskiewicz will remain in East Lansing and will not assume the presidency of Clemson University, he announced Monday.

Clemson’s official social media accounts shared a statement announcing Guskiewicz, who had informed the MSU Board of Trustees in May that he would not be extending his contract but rather moving on to hold the position in South Carolina, was instead remaining at MSU.

In a statement from Board Chair Brianna Scott issued Monday afternoon, MSU confirmed the board “acknowledged Guskiewicz’s intention to leave MSU, (but) trustees had not yet outlined a transition plan or appointed an interim president.”

At an informal meeting on Monday, Scott’s statement said she informed the board Guskiewicz plans to remain as president and formally withdrew his letter of resignation.

“President Guskiewicz has been transformational for Michigan State University over the past two years, and we are pleased to confirm that he has decided to stay and continue to chart a course forward for our institution,” Scott said in the statement. “When he initially told me he was leaving, I asked him to consider rethinking his decision. I am so happy that he did! I always knew that his heart was with MSU.”

Upon the May announcement of Guskiewicz’s resignation to the board, a gratitude campaign was launched by local stakeholders and university donors, including the Gillespie Group and Izzo Legacy Foundation, with the aim of sending Guskiewicz out on a positive note. At the time, organizers said they did not set out to convince Guskiewicz to stay at MSU, but expressed regret at his choice to depart the university.

Guskiewicz issued a statement alongside Scott’s comments.

“After much thought, countless conversations, and careful consideration, I have decided to remain at Michigan State University and continue serving as your president. When I came to Michigan State, I did so because I believed deeply in the promise of this university and in the people who make it exceptional,” he said. “Over the past two years, that belief has only grown stronger. Every day, I have the privilege of witnessing the remarkable work of our faculty, staff, students, alumni, and supporters. I have seen lives transformed through education, discoveries that improve our world, and a community that continually rises to meet challenges with resilience, compassion and purpose.”

The board’s previously approved negotiation of an amendment to Guskiewicz’s contract will remain in place since the trustees made no objection to his decision to stay, and no formal action is required upon the withdrawal of his resignation.

Guskiewicz will remain in his position with a salary of $1.5 million, the increase to which Budget and Finance Committee Chair Sandy Pierce reiterated will not come from the university’s general fund but is being “pursued through non-university resources.”

In a letter sent to MSU employees Monday afternoon obtained by Gongwer News Service, Guskiewicz said he’s had “productive conversations about the governance challenges (he) previously shared,” referring to turmoil amongst board members as one of his reasons for seeking a position elsewhere.

“The board has demonstrated a commitment to implementing a more robust governance structure, including recent improvements to the Code of Ethics and Conduct,” he said in the letter. “I am also grateful to the many individuals and organizations who have expressed confidence in Michigan State’s future and the importance of strong, stable leadership.”

Guskiewicz also nodded toward the ongoing discussion regarding Michigan’s democratically-elected governance boards of its three flagship public universities – MSU, the University of Michigan, and Wayne State University – in the letter to employees.

“I appreciate the thoughtful conversations taking place across our state about governance and how we can best position Michigan State and all of Michigan’s public universities to thrive for generations to come,” he said. “I remain committed to working alongside every trustee and every member of our community who is focused on moving Michigan State forward.”

Detroit Regional Chamber President and Chief Executive Officer Sandy K. Baruah responded to Guskiewicz’s decision to stay at MSU on Monday, saying he was “delighted that our state will continue to benefit from the leadership, perspective, and innovation mindset of Kevin Guskiewicz at the helm of Michigan State University.”

Baruah stressed, though, that concerns remain regarding the manner in which university boards are selected and how they operate at the Michigan’s largest research institutions. He said DRC leaders look forward to working with Guskiewicz on solutions for the state’s higher education system writ large.

“While we celebrate this news, the Chamber remains concerned about the governance model of our three largest R1 universities. It should not be this difficult to retain world-class leadership at our most prestigious public universities,” Baruah said in his statement. “Chamber leadership looks forward to President Guskiewicz’s leadership in our higher education system and on the Detroit Regional Chamber Board of Directors. Instability in our R1 university leadership remains an unaddressed issue, and the Chamber will continue its push with policymakers and opinion-makers to reform this critical system.”

Guskiewicz thanked Scott and Board Vice Chair Renee Knake Jefferson for their facilitation of conversations during his deliberation period and offered gratitude to the board and university administration and staff for their patience throughout the process preceding his decision to stay.

Guskiewicz’s change of heart won’t see outgoing MSU Athletic Director J Batt similarly stick around, though, despite a clause in Batt’s contract which puts his next employer on the hook for a $5 million buyout should Guskiewicz remain president. University of Kentucky President Eli Capilouto confirmed Monday he spoke to Batt, who “reinforced his commitment to UK” and said the university is “working fairly quickly to finalize his start date.”

Related |Chamber Statement on Guskiewicz’s Decision to Remain MSU President