Gov. Gretchen Whitmer said she was caught by surprise last week to walk into the Oval Office for a meeting with President Donald Trump to find she was in a televised press conference.

The New York Times published a striking photo of Whitmer trying to hide her face behind a blue folder.

She told the Detroit Economic Club that people ask “what was going through your mind at that moment and it was ‘I don’t want my picture taken.’ That’s all it was. I kind of wish I hadn’t put a folder in front of my face, but whatever.”

Whitmer told the group in a luncheon address that she does not regret the visit because she was there to make an in-person ask for federal disaster assistance for Michigan following ice storms that left much of northern Michigan without power. She and the President also spoke about Selfridge Air National Guard Base in Macomb County and managing the invasive carp.

But Whitmer said she was also able to express her concern about tariff fights with Canada, which is Michigan’s largest trading partner.

“I do think that all of that is taking a toll on the relationship,” she said. “It’s one that I recognize is incredibly important to us as people and as Michiganders and to our economy. I’m going to do everything I can to keep it strong, but there’s no question it’s having a negative impact.”

Whitmer said she has been in touch with Ottawa Premier Doug Ford on the situation.

Whitmer also told the group she remains “in productive conversations” on getting a road funding deal with state legislative Republicans. She told the group her negotiation lines are setting money aside for economic development and not cutting funding for public safety.

That drew a rebuke from a key Republican lawmaker, who said cuts to public safety and housing are not part of the proposal the House GOP put on the table.

“We understand the importance and necessity of a bipartisan effort to get anything passed through our divided Legislature and ultimately signed into law without a veto from our Democrat governor,” said Rep. Pat Outman (R-Six Lakes), who chairs the House Transportation and Infrastructure Committee. “We believe there is a compromise out there, and we are eager to find it before one more tire falls victim to a Michigan pothole.”

Regardless, a major sticking point in road funding negotiations is Whitmer’s desire to maintain a business attraction fund to help finalize economic development deals. 

The Michigan Supreme Court ruled Thursday that mandatory life-without-parole sentences for 19- and-20-year-old defendants violate the state Constitution.

The majority decision by a divided Supreme Court held that the sentences constitute “unconstitutionally harsh and disproportionate punishment” and will require resentencing hearings for roughly 580 prisoners convicted of murder. This follows similar decisions recently by the Supreme Court affecting inmates handed automatic life-without-parole (LWOP) sentences for crimes committed when they were 16, 17 and 18.

“Mandatorily condemning such offenders to die in prison, without first considering the attributes of youth that late adolescents and juveniles share, no longer comports with the ‘evolving standards of decency that mark the progress of a maturing society,’” wrote Justice Elizabeth Welch in the majority decision, adding that violates the cruel or unusual punishment clause of the Michigan Constitution. She also wrote, “We do not foreclose the possibility that LWOP could be an appropriate punishment under rare circumstances.”

Justice Richard Bernstein wrote in a separate opinion that he would draw the line at 25 years old, based on “a consensus of relevant scientific studies.”

But Chief Justice Elizabeth Clement said the majority focused too much on the offender versus the offense.

Clement wrote in her dissent that “the majority downplays the gravity of first-degree murder.” She said, “The premeditated taking of a life is an act of the highest moral and legal consequence. A punishment of great severity is therefore proportionate.”

The cases originated in Wayne and Genesee counties. Andrew Czarnecki was 19 years old and Montario Taylor was 20 years old when they were charged with first-degree murder in separate cases. Their appeals were combined because the constitutional questions were similar.

Attorney Maya Menlo with State Appellate Defender Office said research shows young adults and older teens are very similar and the Supreme Court’s decision in these cases reflects that.

“Adolescents have brains that are not fully developed, which results in them being more reckless and also more likely to rehabilitate,” she told Michigan Public Radio. “The court adopted the scientific consensus that 19- and 20-year-olds have the same reduced culpability and the same capacity for rehabilitation as people who are 18-year-olds and younger.”

Prosecutors say the decisions are also very painful for survivors who will have to relive their loved ones’ murders in resentencing hearings.

Jon Wojtala is the Wayne County Prosecutor’s Office chief of appeals. He said the decision is not a surprise, but still “a gut punch” in part because it will require survivors to relive the tragedy of the violent loss of a loved one. He said Wayne County has more than 400 cases to deal with.

“We’re going to have to hustle very, very hard to get these cases to a point of having the resentencings and when we do have the resentencings, it’s a punch to the victims’ families, to the victims’ loved ones, to have to once again be traumatized,” he told Michigan Public Radio.

Wojtala says most of the resentencing hearings will have to take place within six months. He expects the state Supreme Court decision to be the final word.

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer spent Wednesday in Washington D.C. to deliver an address where she warned about the dangers of sweeping tariffs before heading to the White House for a meeting with President Donald Trump.

At an event held a couple of blocks from the White House, Whitmer — in a speech billed “Build, America, Build” — warned that tariffs are a tax that are passed along to consumers and would have sweeping affects across the economy.

Whitmer said Trump’s unilateral tariff orders would pose a particular threat to manufacturing states like Michigan that rely heavily on border-crossing supply chains.

“You can’t just pull out the tariff hammer to swing at every problem without a clear, defined end goal,” she said.  “We cannot underestimate or under-appreciate the time and capital it’s going to take to actually bring jobs and supply chains back home. So, there’s not a shortcut here.”

Whitmer also spoke about the need for cooperation in a sit-down with television journalist Gretchen Carlson.

Not long after that, Whitmer was at the White House for an Oval Office meeting with Trump and Michigan House Speaker Matt Hall (R-Richland Twp.). There was none of the trash-talking reminiscent of the first Trump term when she described him as a threat to democracy and he famously called her “that woman from Michigan.”

In fact, Trump said the Democratic governor who’s often mentioned as a prospective presidential candidate has done an “excellent job.” Trump also paused some of the tariffs he had just ordered.

But Glenn Stevens Jr., the executive director of the Detroit Regional Chamber’s MichAuto, said the tariffs eased by Trump won’t provide much relief to Michigan’s automotive sector.

“The tariffs that are affecting our industry directly, and that is a stack-up of tariffs — the Canada-Mexico tariffs, the steel and aluminum tariffs, the imported vehicle and imported component tariffs — those are all still in place,” he told the Michigan Public Radio Network. “So, we’re still in the situation that we were.”

A Whitmer spokesperson called the pause “a step in the right direction” that “will provide relief to so many businesses across the state.”

Still, the aide said, “we remain concerned about tariffs that will hurt American auto companies.”

Watch a replay of the full address below.

U.S. Rep. John James (R-Shelby Township) will not seek reelection to Congress in 2026, running instead for Michigan governor.

The two-term U.S. House member posted his announcement on social media Monday

“It’s time to get Michigan out of fantasyland and back to common sense,” he said. “President Trump and I have been in each other’s corner through thick and thin for eight years — no reason that will end now.”

In a statement, the Democratic Governors Association took aim at James’ support for Trump.

“John James has spent his time in Congress putting his own extreme partisan politics first, and now he’s running to bring the chaos and dysfunction of D.C. to Michigan,” said the DGA.

The 10th Congressional District encompasses southern Macomb County and Rochester and Rochester Hills in Oakland County. It is a swing district and James’ decision gives Democrats a larger hope of flipping it in November.

James is currently the only Black member of Michigan’s congressional delegation. He previously lost two successive runs for a U.S. Senate seat — the 2020 race by a narrow margin — before running for and winning a U.S. House seat.

State Senate Republican leader Aric Nesbitt (R-Porter Township) and former U.S. House candidate Anthony Hudson have also announced they are seeking the GOP nomination. Former Michigan Attorney General Mike Cox has also formed a campaign committee and 2022 GOP gubernatorial nominee Tudor Dixon — who lost by more than 10 points — is considering another run for statewide office.

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, a Democrat, cannot run again because of term limits.

Lt. Gov. Garlin Gilchrist and Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson are seeking the Democratic nomination in the August primary. Detroit Mayor Mike Duggan is also running as an independent. 

Environmental groups and tribal nations are asking the Michigan Supreme Court to put the brakes on a Canadian company’s plans to bury an oil and gas pipeline under the Straits of Mackinac, a waterway that connects Lake Michigan and Lake Huron.

The appeal filed Thursday asks the Supreme Court to reverse a decision by the Michigan Court of Appeals and a determination by the Michigan Public Service Commission to allow Enbridge to move ahead with the Great Lakes Tunnel project, which would encase the company’s Line 5 oil and gas pipeline. The plaintiffs claim the public service commission failed to perform a thorough review before giving its permission.

“These failures jeopardize the sanctity of the Great Lakes and the Tribal economic and cultural interests and treaty-protected rights, which are inherent rights, including ‘the usual privileges of occupancy’ — such as the rights to fish, hunt, and gather, in perpetuity,” the complaint said. “They also threaten to harm everyone who depends on the Great Lakes for drinking water, recreation, or economic benefit because all likely effects of the proposed project, including oil spills, have not been considered.”

The tribes argue the commission’s review failed to fully consider the consequences of leaks or a spill in a waterway that could lead to widespread contamination of the Great Lakes.

“If you take a step back and you do that holistic review and analysis, I think people would understand that there are alternatives that could lead to a decommissioning of Line 5 and wouldn’t have to construct this one-off tunnel through the Straits of Mackinac,” said David Gover, a senior attorney with the Native American Rights Fund, which represents the Bay Mills Indian Community.

Gover told the Michigan Public Radio Network the tunnel’s location also violates long-standing treaty rights and disrespects “a sacred place” for tribes.

“So, any proposed tunneling and running of a pipeline through that area is a desecration of that sacred place,” he said. “It would like be putting an oil and gas pipeline under the Vatican or through the Garden of Eden.”

Enbridge spokeperson Ryan Duffy said in a statement e-mailed to MPRN that the Michigan Public Service Commission and the appeals court got it right.

“The February decision from the Michigan Court of Appeals correctly affirmed the comprehensive and detailed work of the Michigan Public Service Commission (MPSC) to approve the application for the Great Lakes Tunnel Project,” he said. “The Michigan Court of Appeals concluded that the MPSC appropriately examined the location of the Line 5 replacement segment within the Great Lakes Tunnel, consistent with Michigan law.”

He said the tunnel will make “what has always been a safe pipeline even safer.”

Enbridge faces other legal and procedural hurdles, including state and federal permits and other lawsuits. The protective tunnel was part of a agreement between Enbridge and the then-Gov. Rick Snyder’s administration. That was following revelations of known gaps in the existing line’s protective coating and an anchor strike in 2018 that damaged the line.

More than 250 felons sent to prison for life with no chance of parole for crimes committed when they were 18 years old must have their sentences reviewed under a decision released Wednesday by the Michigan Supreme Court.

The unanimous 6-0 decision expands an earlier ruling that lifers convicted of first degree- or felony murder when they were younger than 18 are entitled to resentencing hearings. (Justice Kimberly Thomas recused herself from the case because she was involved in it before joining the Supreme Court in January.) “

The same will now apply to 18-year-olds.

“And at that resentencing, they’ll have the opportunity to demonstrate to the circuit court that they are rehabilitated and capable of rejoining society,” said attorney Maya Menlo with the State Appellate Defender Office.

She told the Michigan Public Radio Network that life without parole still remains an option.

“The prosecuting attorneys in each county will review the cases and will decide whether they want to pursue a sentence of life without parole, but we expect that that sentence will be extremely rare.”

Special Assistant Wayne County Prosecutor Timothy Baughman said now prosecutors have to make some decisions on these cases.

“Prosecutors are going to have to look at them and determine, are we just going to accede to a resentencing to a term of years or is this one of the cases that we want to have a hearing on and argue that the defendant should still get life without parole? So there’s a lot of decisions that are going to have to be made by prosecutors,” he said.

The defendant is John Antonio Poole, who was 18 years old in 2002 when his uncle paid him $300 to shoot a man because his girlfriend owed him money. Poole is now 42 and being held at the Richard A. Handlon Correctional Facility in Ionia.

In a related case, the state Supreme Court will rule soon on whether to expand the ruling to include lifers sentenced for crimes committed as 19- and 20-year-olds.

The new state law that lifts Michigan’s 38-year-old ban on paid surrogate pregnancy contracts took effect Monday.

Michigan banned the practice after a Dearborn attorney gained nationwide notoriety in the 1980s for arranging surrogate contracts.

Surrogate parenting was new, controversial and misunderstood when it first became an option, said Stephanie Jones with the Michigan Fertility Alliance.

“And I really think people have changed their outlook on this significantly since then and it’s just become more of a norm,” she told Michigan Public Radio. “People have become more aware of infertility and the need for assisted reproduction to grow your family. So, I think it’s just become more palatable over the years and we, of course, want to be able to support people who need this to grow their families.”

The newly effective laws outline the legal rights and obligations of all parties to a surrogate arrangement. That includes automatic parental rights for couples without having to adopt after a child is born.

Advocates say that makes the arrangements enforceable and predictable. But some conservatives and faith groups say the development is not a welcome one.

Michigan Catholic Conference Vice President for Public Policy and Advocacy Tom Hickson said the church believes infertile couples should consider foster parenting or adoption. He said allowing surrogates to be paid will lead to exploiting vulnerable young women.

“That was the No. 1 amendment that we tried to get in was to strike the compensation aspect of this,” he said. “I mean that just really minimizes the dignity of motherhood and childbirth into a sale and delivery mechanism.”

Michigan joins the vast majority of U.S. states in allowing compensated surrogacy contracts.

The Michigan Supreme Court has agreed to hear arguments on whether the state’s felony murder sentencing standard is constitutional and what to do if it’s not.

In Michigan, people over 18 who is are of convicted of a felony such as armed robbery where someone is killed in the process are sentenced to life with no chance of parole.

In an order issued Friday, the court said the questions it will consider include whether life without parole for felony murder violates the Eighth Amendment, whether the state should require proof of malice or intent to commit murder in order to impose the sentence, and whether a decision might be applied retroactively.

The felony murder standard means prosecutors do not have to specifically prove malice or intent. If the court reverses that standard entirely or in part, it could affect the sentences of hundreds of inmates who’ve spent decades in prison.

Timothy Baughman with the Prosecuting Attorneys Association of Michigan told the Michigan Public Radio Network the challenge to that standard raises difficult questions. He said there are hundreds of inmates serving life without parole in Michigan.

“Should we overrule that and apply it to everybody who’s convicted and still in prison and alive,” said Baughman, “and some of those, they’re not like the getaway drivers, there are some very vicious murderers.”

But attorney Deborah LaBelle with the American Civil Liberties Union said some of the people convicted under the standard are not the actual killers even if they were involved in the underlying felony.

She said Michigan’s felony murder law is very sweeping in that it treats convicted killers and accomplices the same way when it comes to sentencing.

“If someone dies at the hands of someone else and you were in any way involved with the felony, the crime surrounding the homicide, you get punished the exact same way as the person who committed the murder.”

If the Supreme Court overrules its almost 50-year-old precedent, it would also have to determine the remedy.

“What should we do?” LaBelle said. “Should people be resentenced? Should there be a term of years that we determine is appropriate? How do we handle this?”

The court has not set a date for oral arguments.

The Michigan Supreme Court will hear arguments next month over who gets custody of a frozen embryo following a couple’s divorce.

David and Sarah Markiewicz had four children while they were married. Three were conceived via in-vitro fertilization using the husband’s sperm and the wife’s sister providing the eggs.

The final unresolved issue left from their 2020 divorce is possession of the final frozen embryo.

The Michigan Court of Appeals ruled 2-1 in December of 2023 that the frozen embryo would go to the ex-husband because he had the most direct biological connection. The court also rejected an argument that the embryo should go to Sarah Markiewicz under Michigan’s reproductive freedom amendment.

The dissenting opinion argued the ruling ignored a contractual agreement and should be sent back to a trial court to consider the contract in light of the state’s reproductive freedom amendment.

Attorney Liisa Speaker, who chairs the Family Law Section of the State Bar of Michigan, told the Michigan Public Radio Network that people often avoid tough conversations when planning pregnancies using assisted reproductive technologies.

“What if one of them dies before the embryo is implanted and what happens then? They need to be thinking about what happens in the event of a divorce,” she said. “If we have multiple embryos that haven’t been used, what are we going to do with them?”

Speaker said a Supreme Court decision could help set some clear guidance for judges to follow in disputes as IVF pregnancies continue to become more common.

A group of Republican state lawmakers is asking the U.S. Supreme Court to clear the way for them to challenge two voter-approved amendments to the Michigan Constitution. This is a last-ditch effort by the GOP legislators to pursue their challenge without the full backing of a politically divided House and Senate.

The legislators are asking the high court to accept the case and rule that state lawmakers have individual standing to file the challenge and do not have to wait on formal action by the GOP-controlled House and the Senate, which is controlled by Democrats.

“Unless you have an agreement of both chambers of the Legislature, there’s no way to get an answer to this question except by going through individual legislators,” said Sen. Jim Runestad, who is also the Michigan Republican Party chair. “The only hope we have of a good clear look at the legality of this is the U.S. Supreme Court.”

The underlying controversy is the fate of two ballot proposals adopted by voters in 2018 and 2022. The voting rights proposals include provisions that include making it easier to register to vote, to vote absentee and to use early voting options. The Republican lawmakers say those ballot questions usurp their constitutional authority of the Legislature to set “the time, place and manner” of federal elections.

University of Michigan constitutional law professor Leah Litman said the legislators can’t show an individual harm that would give them standing to pursue a federal lawsuit.

“That injury is to the institution, not to the individual legislators, and for that reason, the institution has to be the one who is the plaintiff because the Legislature, the institution, is the one that is injured,” Litman told Michigan Public Radio.

The lawsuit names Gov. Gretchen Whitmer, Secretary of State Jocelyn Benson and Bureau of Elections Director Jonathan Brater in their official capacities. Benson said in a statement released by her office that she will defend the ability of voters to amend the Michigan Constitution through ballot initiatives.

“Michigan voters have a right to enact laws that reflect their values, and politicians have a duty to stand by the will of the voters,” she said. “The idea that the time, place and manner of federal elections law-making is beyond the right of voters to self-determine is anti-democratic, and already multiple courts have reaffirmed this under law.”

Most appeals are turned away as the U.S. Supreme Court agrees to hear just a fraction of the requests that are filed.

Saturday is the 11-year wedding anniversary for more than 300 gay and lesbian couples who were married in Michigan following a landmark court decision.

The evening before, in 2014, a federal judge in Detroit ruled Michigan’s same-sex marriage ban violated equal protection and due process rights in the U.S. Constitution. U.S. District Court Judge Bernard Friedman’s decision went into effect immediately, which sent hundreds of couples dashing to clergy and courthouses to get married while they could.

The first documented wedding took place at 8:05 a.m. at the Ingham County Courthouse in Mason.

“By the authority invested in me by the great state of Michigan, I pronounce you married,” declared a teary-eyed Ingham County Clerk Barb Byrum to newlyweds Glenna DeJong and Marsha Caspar.

Byrum was one of four county clerks who opened their doors that Saturday to issue licenses and perform same-sex weddings. Clergy also showed up at courthouses to officiate ceremonies and some newlyweds spent their wedding day acting as witnesses for other same-sex couples.

The weddings continued as then-Michigan Attorney General Bill Schuette, a Republican who’d made opposition to same-sex marriage a centerpiece of his political career, went immediately to the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals in Cincinnati, seeking a stay. The appeals court granted the request later that day.

That then presented a question on the status of the already-officiated marriages and rights that go along with being married.

U.S. Attorney General Eric Holder said the federal government would recognize those first same-sex marriages, while then-Michigan Gov. Rick Snyder tried to thread the needle, saying the marriages were legal but nevertheless not recognized by the state.

“It does create more complexity in the matter,” said Snyder, but said he arrived at the conclusion that while the marriages were legal, “there was no other option other than to say we have to suspend the benefits.”

That led to a second case against the state to have those marriages fully recognized by the state.

“The couples married on March 22 are caught in a paradox,” said Caspar. “We’re married and we’re not.”

A little more than a year later, in the summer of 2015, the U.S. Supreme Court settled the matter when it held in Obergefell v. Hodges that same-sex marriage is legal across the land.

It was a dramatic reversal in the status of marriage rights in Michigan, where voters in 2004 adopted an amendment to the state constitution that held only marriages between a man and a woman would be recognized.

Two decades later, attitudes about same-sex marriage have shifted, said pollster Richard Czuba of the Glengariff Group.

“The country was being told that if you allow same-sex marriage, marriage will collapse in this country,” he told Michigan Public Radio. “Ten years on, I don’t think anyone can credibly make the case that that has happened as a result of same-sex marriage.”

But just weeks ago, state Representative Josh Schriver (R-Oxford) and a handful of other GOP lawmakers sponsored a non-binding resolution calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse Obergefell. 

“This decision has defaced the definition of marriage, undermined our God-given rights, increased persecution of Christians and confused the American family structure,” said Schriver.

The House Republican leadership dismissed the resolution as an unwelcome distraction and assigned it to a graveyard committee to languish.

But LGBTQ rights activists say they are nevertheless concerned because the dormant language of the same-sex marriage ban remains in the Michigan Constitution as well as in statute.

Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel, who was one of the lawyers to challenge the same-sex marriage ban, said she would like to see it formally repealed by voters.

“I think it has to be and the reason I say that is because I think the Obergefell decision is in real jeopardy,” said Nessel.

She said resolutions like Schriver’s are being sponsored in legislatures across the country and are designed to invite new legal challenges to same-sex marriage rights.

“We know a resolution can’t overturn a Supreme Court decision,” said Nessel, “but there can be other cases that are litigated that wind up later being argued before the United States Supreme Court, and I really believe they have a majority on that court that would overturn that decision.”

Nessel said a Supreme Court majority displayed a willingness in 2022 to topple what appears to be settled law when it reversed long-standing abortion rights protections. She noted the Obergefell decision was decided by a slim 5-to-4 majority.

Michigan House Speaker Matt Hall says there will be a floor vote this week on a bill to roll back the state income tax rate. That would reverse a determination by the state Treasury and the Attorney General’s office and upheld by court decisions that a 2023 reduction was for one-year only.

The reduction was based on a formula that includes revenue increases and inflation. Gov. Gretchen Whitmer and Michigan Attorney General Dana Nessel said the rollback to 4.05% was a signal of Michigan’s strong economy.

“In total, we have put $1.6 billion in tax relief back in people’s pockets without cutting any critical services or programs,” she said at the time in a statement released by her office at the time.

Republicans say the rollback was essentially a reset and the rate should have remained at 4.05% instead of returning to 4.25%. Hall said that would require the Legislature to set its top priorities and then make tough decisions, including budget cuts.

“What programs get the best return on investment?” he asked Friday. “We’re going to fund those, we’re going to fund the income tax rollback and we’re going to fund the roads, and then the rest of the stuff is not going to make the cut. We can do that within our existing budget if we set good priorities.”

But Democrats said the GOP tax cut plan is a shell game without a list in advance of roughly $540 million in spending cuts in this fiscal year and $700 million in future years to keep the budget balanced.

“I would like to know the plan,” Rep. Kelly Breen (D-Novi), who serves on the House Finance Committee, told the Michigan Public Radio Network.  “I’m happy to see that it is the first probably honest and sincere effort to put money back into the hands of Michiganders, but the question is, is the juice worth the squeeze?”

The tax rollback bill was adopted last week by the finance committee without Democratic support.

If adopted by the House, the rollback would also have to be approved by the state Senate, which is controlled by Democrats, and by Governor Whitmer.

–Michigan Public’s Steve Carmody contributed to this report.

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer said Wednesday that she will travel to Washington D.C. soon to lobby federal officials against proposed big cuts to the U.S. Department of Education and new tariffs against Canada and other trading partners.

As a new round of Trump administration tariffs are set to go ahead early next month, Whitmer said the nascent trade war is unwelcome on both sides of the Michigan-Canadian border.

“Indiscriminate tariffs on our allies — they’re going to put Michiganders out of work,” she said. “They’re going to hit Michigan harder than any other state and drive up costs for consumers.

“I know the business community is very worried too,” she said. “They want stability and predictability — and I think all these things present a lot of challenges — and so I’m going to be in D.C. trying to lobby on behalf of the state of Michigan. I hope people continue to raise their voices because they’ve got to hear us loud and clear.”

Last week, business leaders said they were relieved with the delay in the first round of Trump administration tariff hikes but pleaded for a permanent moratorium.

“While another postponement of the White House’s proposed tariffs on automotive-related trade between the U.S. and Canada and Mexico is somewhat of a reprieve for the industry, damage has already been done,” said Glenn Stevens Jr., vice president of automotive and mobility initiatives at the Detroit Regional Chamber. “For an industry that operates in three-to-five-year product cycles, this level of day-to-day uncertainty is debilitating.”

The Whitmer administration did not immediately share a travel date or itinerary. Canada and the European Union are responding to steel and aluminum tariffs that could place a burden on U.S. manufacturing. Michigan also faces a freeze in disaster funding.

Whitmer also said she hopes to avert deep cuts to the U.S. Department of Education that would dramatically affect Michigan schools. Those could include funds to help low-income students who are struggling and for special education services.

State House Republicans without advance notice Thursday muscled through a $20 billion dollar bare-bones budget, touching off a rancorous floor fight and setting up a showdown with the Senate Democratic majority.

GOP leaders said the two-bill package for education and other government functions would serve as a stop-gap spending plan if spending negotiations bog down heading into the summer or fall.

“This is a government shutdown prevention plan,” said House Speaker Matt Hall (R-Richland Twp.) Hall said the package would ensure funding for per-pupil spending, corrections and other critical programs even if future budget negotiations stall.

“This is the beginning of the process, said Rep. Ann Bollin (R-Brighton), chair of the House Appropriations Committee, who noted the budget would increase state per-student funding.

“This is what we absolutely have to provide. We don’t want our kids starving. We want to make sure they’re safe in school, educated and they have the resources. That’s what’s in this budget bill,” she said. “It’s not a budget bill. It’s a prevention plan.”

Democrats opposed the measures as a ploy to gain the upper hand in budget negotiations months ahead of the deadline.

“This is setting the stage for a government shutdown,” said House Minority Leader Ranjeev Puri (D-Canton). “Like, let’s not beat around the bush here. That’s what’s happening here. There’s a reason some level of critical services were kept to just make it easier for him to drag this budget out, to get political wins.”

The sudden unveiling left many lawmakers with little time to examine the details. State Rep. Betsy Coffia (D-Traverse City) said the stripped-down budget left out critical programs that would be subject to future negotiations.

“They cut at-risk funding,” she said. “They cut school meals. They cut rural transportation equity with no conversation with the stakeholders. They are just adding to chaos when what Michiganders want is thoughtful, measured negotiation.”

The bills’ prospects are not promising in the state Senate, which is controlled by Democrats.

“Is Speaker Hall anticipating his own failure to get a budget done? We haven’t seen a government shutdown in a long time, and there’s no good reason why he should be predicting one now unless he wants it to happen,” said Senate Majority Leader Winnie Brinks (D-Grand Rapids).

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s office declined to weigh in on the controversy. The spending bills are also linked to a measure Whitmer needs to close the books on the previous fiscal year.

A Democratic state lawmaker has sponsored a proposal to strike the language of the dormant same-sex marriage ban from the Michigan Constitution.

State Rep. Jason Morgan (D-Ann Arbor) said the U.S. Supreme Court’s 2022 reversal of abortion rights protections shows the conservative majority is willing to revisit foundational decisions, including the Obergefell v. Hodges opinion that cleared the way for him to marry his partner.

“If the Supreme Court were to overturn this protection for marriage equality, it would become illegal again for any same-sex couple to get married in our state,” Morgan told Michigan Public Radio.

The same-sex marriage ban proposal was approved by Michigan voters in 2004 and stood until the U.S. Supreme Court struck it down in a case that included April DeBoer and Jayne Rowse’s appeal of the U.S. Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals decision that rejected their challenge of the Michigan ban. But even though the Supreme Court struck down the amendment as a violation of equal protection and due process rights, the language remains in the Michigan Constitution.

Chief Justice John Roberts and Justices Clarence Thomas and Samuel Alito dissented from the 5-4 majority decision.

It would require two-thirds majorities in the House and the Senate to put a question on the ballot asking voters to adopt an amendment to strip the language from the Michigan Constitution. An alternative would be a petition campaign to put an amendment proposal on the statewide ballot, a path endorsed by state Senator Jeremy Moss (D-Southfield).

Morgan and Moss both said a proposed non-binding resolution by a small group of House Republicans including Rep. Josh Schriver (R-Oxford) helped make the case for removing the language.

House Speaker Matt Hall (R-Richland Twp.) was not pleased with the actions of the right-wing rogue group and assigned the resolution, which would carry no legal weight, to a “graveyard” committee as a signal that will be its final destination.

A Republican state lawmaker says he hopes Democratic Gov. Gretchen Whitmer’s support will help get a proposal enacted into law to help reduce the distraction of students staring into electronic screens during class time.  

“She has some influence in Lansing,” deadpanned Rep. Mark Tisdel (R-Rochester Hills) in an interview on the Michigan Public Television show “Off The Record.” “So, I like that very much.”

Tisdel’s legislation would set specific rules for elementary, middle and high school classrooms. The rules would also apply to charter academies, which are publicly funded. He said some Michigan schools already have policies on student electronics in place.

“In the schools that have put this in, one of the things you hear from teachers is how tremendous it is to be standing at the front of the classroom and see 25 or 30 sets of eyeballs staring back at you instead of this stuff under the desk,” he said.

The legislation would set different restriction levels in elementary schools, middle schools and high schools. Tisdel said the restrictions would not prevent teachers from using electronic devices as part of classroom instruction.

He said many students are opposed to the idea and so are some parents who are worried about contacting their children if there is a crisis at their school.

“But the question is, how does your child communicating with you – who might be miles away from the emergency site – how does that improve or enhance your child’s safety?” Tisdel said. “You want your child focused on the trained adult that’s at the head of the classroom.”

It is a debate happening in other state capitols. And Whitmer endorsed the legislation last week in her State of the State address.  

“It’s hard to teach geometry or geography when you’re competing against memes or DMs,” she said. “Other states, red and blue, have taken action. So has most of Europe and Canada. I understand the need to be connected to your child but we can do better.”

A nationwide survey of teachers and classroom workers released last year by the National Education Association found 90% of its union members support restrictions on cell phones and other electronic devices in schools. Michigan Education Association President and CEO Chandra Madafferi endorsed the idea last year.

Gov. Gretchen Whitmer says divided government in Lansing should not stop Democrats and Republicans from finding ways to get things done. The governor delivered her seventh State of the State address on Wednesday.

This was Whitmer’s first State of the State address to the Legislature since Republicans took control of the state House this year and ended the Democrats’ trifecta control over the Capitol. Democrats remain in control of the Senate, but much of Whitmer’s 52-minute speech seemed aimed at winning over the opposition.

“Our people are not as divided as our politics,” Whitmer said. “I truly believe that.”

Whitmer’s policy priorities — many carried over from earlier addresses — include affordable housing, closing a higher education gap where young men in Michigan are less likely than women to pursue advanced degrees or training, and, of course, finalizing a still-elusive deal on long-term funding for roads. But her overall message was Michigan needs a surge of confidence and kindness.

“And now, in a divisive national moment, where America needs a new way forward, Michigan can lead. Because at our best, we are strong and kind, and kindness is strength,” she said.

She said Michigan has made a lot of progress in the past six years, but an image makeover is in order.

“Because if we’re being honest, our brand has taken a beating over the past few decades,” Whitmer said. “After the Great Recession, the Flint water crisis, and disinvestment in roads and schools and health care, people on the margins were suffering in Michigan.”

Whitmer did not mention her proposal to use a tax on marijuana products to help fund roads, but she did renew her call for a tax on vaping products to both raise revenue and make vaping less attractive to younger consumers. She told Republicans that the options for adequate road funding must include new revenue if the state is going to avoid cuts to schools, public safety or other critical programs.

But Republicans rejected any discussion of revenue other than redirecting existing funds. Whitmer and GOP leaders appear to agree that all taxes collected at the gas pump should go only to roads. But Republican House Speaker Matt Hall says he does not see a need for any new taxes. He’s also called for ending business-attraction subsidies, which he says would free up funds for roads and infrastructure.

“You know, I want to show her the numbers, to show her we can do this without raising taxes and my hope is just because Governor Whitmer is a Democrat doesn’t mean she has to raise taxes,” said Hall.

But Hall’s Democratic counterpart, House Minority Leader Ranjeev Puri, said he heard a lot that people could agree would be good for the state.

“Lowering costs, improving our economy to get jobs going, you know, just delivering results, child care, housing, paying off debt. I think these are all great things that we should, that should be above party lines,” Puri said.

Whitmer treaded lightly on criticizing President Donald Trump in her speech, and said she is looking to work with the Republican administration to keep military installations in Michigan. But she also warned that increasing tariffs and a trade war with Canada would hit Michigan’s manufacturing economy hard.

A group of seven conservative GOP legislators put their names on a non-binding resolution Tuesday calling on the U.S. Supreme Court to reverse the landmark decision that struck down same-sex marriage bans — including Michigan’s dormant amendment.

Because the 2004 voter-approved amendment remains in the Constitution, it could be revived if the U.S. Supreme Court were to revisit and reverse the Obergefell v. Hodges ruling, that included the Michigan case filed by plaintiffs April DeBoer and Jane Rowse, two nurses who wanted to jointly adopt special needs children.

In response to advance word of the resolution, protesters demonstrated in front of the Capitol and crowded the halls of the Anderson House Office Building, where Rep. Josh Schriver (R-Oxford) was the lead (and, as it turned out only) speaker. Other lawmakers either dropped their names from the resolutions or were no-shows at the press conference.

Schriver’s words took an apocalyptic turn as he decried the reversal of Michigan’s same-sex marriage ban.

“Ten years ago, the United States Supreme Court redefined the sacred institution of marriage,” he said. “This blunder compromised the mother-father-child family unit.”

Conservative members of the court have signaled interest in another hearing on same-sex marriage in a similar fashion to its reconsideration of the Roe v. Wade ruling that determined abortion rights were constitutionally protected.

Justice Samuel Alito last year renewed his criticism of the same-sex marriage decision. Alito along with Justices John Roberts and Clarence Thomas dissented in the decision to legalize same-sex marriage.

State Sen. Jeremy Moss (D-Southfield), a gay man who sponsored the bill to add LGBTQ protections to Michigan’s main civil rights law, crashed the news conference to offer a rebuttal.

“This was just as buffoonish as I expected it to be,” he said. “I think that this has fallen flat with people in the State of Michigan. I think that people respect their LGBTQ neighbors, their LGBTQ family members. These marriages have been the law of the land for 10 years. They contribute to family security. They contribute to economic security.”

Schriver didn’t get much support from his own caucus either. Not only did his co-sponsors drop out, House Speaker Matt Hall (R-Richland Township), on short notice, convened his own news conference to compete with Schriver’s event. Hall assigned the bill to the House Government Operations Committee, which often serves as a graveyard for disfavored legislation, and messaged that it would remain parked there.

Rep. Jason Morgan (D-Ann Arbor) said he would eventually like to see the question settled by formally repealing dormant same-sex marriage ban in Michigan, which would require voter approval to amend the Michigan Constitution.

“I’m not sure if the moment’s here yet or not,” he told the Michigan Public Radio Network, “but I think we’re getting to that moment where we’re ready, where we have to, as we inch closer and closer to the potential of the Supreme Court rolling back our right to marriage equality.”

Michigan Democrats have selected veteran political figure Curtis Hertel Jr. to serve as their new party chair headed into a very consequential election cycle next year.

Hertel was approved by acclamation after the only other contender dropped out. Hertel said he wants the Michigan Democratic Party to be more aggressive in reaching out to people and it needs to more engaged in races up and down the ballot.

“I want to win the governor’s race and we’re certainly going to invest a lot of time there,” he said, “but winning the governor without winning the House and the Senate is really just [being] a goalie. I want to go on offense and actually get things done for people.”

Hertel replaces Lavora Barnes, who led the party since 2019. She is the first Black Michigan party chair. She chose not to seek another term following the 2024 election.

Hertel is a former county official, state senator and advisor to Gov. Gretchen Whitmer. Democrats are still smarting from losing control of the state House to Republicans in the 2024 election when President Donald Trump also won Michigan.

There is a lot at stake in the coming election cycle with open races for governor, attorney general, secretary of state and a U.S. Senate seat. Also, control of the state House and Senate will be at stake.

Hertel said restoring the Democrats’ trifecta control of the governor’s office, the House and the Senate is a top priority.

Hertel told the convention that Democrats need to work in between elections to connect with voters and to offer progressive solutions to housing, employment and economic challenges, and stand up for reproductive freedom and civil rights.

“If we are not that party, that party will not exist in this country,” he said.

There was low-simmering tensions over differences within the party over Gaza and bills signed Friday by Whitmer that pulled back increases in the state minimum wage and earned sick time. The adoption of those laws outraged many progressives and union members, especially because some Democrats in the Legislature voted for the measures. The alternative would have been to allow the petition-initiated laws to take effect under a ruling by the Michigan Supreme Court.  

Delegate Danielle Atkinson was a leader of the earned sick leave campaign. She said Whitmer and Democrats who voted to dilute the initiatives are ignoring the Democratic Party base. She said the convention was an opportunity to confront and connect with lawmakers.

“And … just asking the question and hoping that they understand their base is not with them on the vote that they just took,” she said, “and so if there is a next vote, if there’s a next issue, they turn to community and ask them whether or not they are supportive.”

Next year, Democratic and Republican voters will choose gubernatorial candidates in party primaries. The nominees for lieutenant governor, attorney general and secretary of state will be chosen by convention delegates.