.40.png)
Think college funding in Michigan is settled? Think again. In a move that has Metro Detroit families and university leaders buzzing, the Michigan House GOP has unveiled a higher education budget proposal that would dramatically slash funding for the state’s two flagship universities – the University of Michigan (U-M) in Ann Arbor and Michigan State University (MSU) in East Lansing. We're talking about some of the largest higher education budget cuts in Michigan’s history, with U-M facing a reduction of over 90% initially and MSU around 73% in the first draft. While a last-minute revision scaled back the cuts a bit, the plan still hits these campuses hard, stirring up debates from the State Capitol to kitchen tables across Metro Detroit.
Students at the University of Michigan’s Ann Arbor campus mingle between classes. U-M could lose a significant share of its state funding under the House GOP proposal, sparking concern among students, parents, and faculty. (University of Michigan campus, Ann Arbor)
In this blog-style deep dive, we'll break down exactly what is being proposed, why U-M and MSU are in the crosshairs, and what it all means for Michigan higher education – from the funding reductions themselves to the ripple effects on other universities, student scholarships, and our state’s future. Grab a cup of coffee (or Faygo, this is Michigan after all), and let’s unpack this complex issue in a conversational, locally focused way.
University of Michigan, Facebook
The Budget Bombshell: Historic Cuts to U-M and MSU
Drastic Proposal in Lansing
On June 11, 2025, Michigan House Republicans dropped a bombshell $2.4 billion higher education budget plan that sent shockwaves through the state’s college campuses. The original proposal advanced out of the House Appropriations Committee along party lines and targeted U-M and MSU for unprecedented funding cuts. Here’s the jaw-dropping math from that initial plan:
- University of Michigan (Ann Arbor) – Cut by $335 million, a 91.6% reduction in its state appropriation. U-M would have been left with just $30.6 million in state funds, down from roughly $366 million prior. Essentially, more than nine out of every ten dollars U-M gets from the state would vanish.
- Michigan State University – Cut by $237.4 million, a 72.6% reduction. MSU’s state funding would drop to about $89.4 million under the plan – barely a quarter of what it used to receive.
These staggering percentages – 92% and 73% funding reductions for U-M and MSU – quickly grabbed headlines. Longtime Wolverines and Spartans alike were stunned. Many asked: Why on earth would the House GOP seek to gut our top universities? We’ll get to the “why” in a moment.
Initial shock meets quick pushback: The proposal was so extreme that it immediately met fierce resistance not only from Democrats but also from the public and higher ed advocates. Within a day, House Republicans scrambled to revise the plan amid the outcry. By June 12, when the House ultimately passed its budget bill, the cuts to U-M and MSU had been partially walked back – but make no mistake, they’re still huge:
- U-M Ann Arbor (revised House plan): About $234.4 million cut, translating to roughly a 65% reduction in state funding. In other words, U-M would lose nearly two-thirds of its state support – slightly less draconian than the 91% initially proposed, but still a massive hit.
- MSU (revised House plan): About $55–56 million cut, roughly an 18% reduction in state funds. This is a drastic improvement from the original 72% cut – essentially, House leaders put back most of MSU’s funding after the backlash, leaving an 18% loss on the table.
Why the disparity? In the final House version, U-M is still looking at by far the biggest cut (around two-thirds of its funds), while MSU’s cut shrank to under one-fifth. These revisions came after “pushback among majority Republicans” and public concern forced lawmakers to moderate their plan. Still, losing 65% of funding for U-M and 18% for MSU is major league pain by any measure.
A one-two punch: If implemented, these cuts would blow a hole in the budgets of Michigan’s two largest universities. For context, state appropriations help fund everything from faculty salaries and student programs to research initiatives at these schools. A U-M official warned that “a cut of this magnitude would undermine [our] success and sends the wrong message about what the state values”. MSU’s spokesperson put it plainly: such reductions would “hinder our ability to deliver the high-quality, affordable education that Michigan students expect and deserve”.
Why Target U-M and MSU?
So, why are House Republicans aiming their budget axe squarely at Ann Arbor and East Lansing? According to GOP lawmakers, it’s about “trimming the fat” and correcting a long-standing imbalance. They argue that U-M and MSU have “been getting way more than their fair share for far too long”. Here are the key reasons Republicans give for the cuts:
- Large Endowments: U-M and MSU both have hefty endowment funds (U-M’s is over $17 billion, one of the largest in the nation). House Republicans claim these universities can lean on their endowments and don’t need as much state money. In fact, the proposal explicitly penalizes schools with big endowments – universities with endowments over $1 billion would see state funds slashed by 50%, and those over $10 billion (essentially U-M) by as much as 75%. The feeling among GOP lawmakers is that wealthy universities should tap those reserves instead of taxpayers. U-M’s leadership pushed back, noting that “U-M’s endowment is not a rainy-day fund or a budget backfill – it’s made up of 13,000+ donor-designated funds legally restricted to specific purposes” like scholarships and research.
- Out-of-State Students: Another gripe is that U-M and MSU enroll many out-of-state and international students, who pay higher tuition and (in Republican view) make the schools less reliant on state dollars. Rep. Ann Bollin (R-Brighton) argued that smaller Michigan universities rely on state funding more heavily, whereas U-M and MSU bring in revenue from elsewhere. “We have great universities... and [this plan] rewards those that are responding more to the interests of the state versus a lot of interests from people outside of the state,” Bollin said. In plain English, she’s suggesting U-M and MSU chase prestige and out-of-state students, while regional schools focus on Michigan kids – so the state should fund the latter more.
- “Woke” Universities and Ideology: There’s an unmistakable political angle. Prominent GOP legislators frankly admit they’re targeting what they call Michigan’s “woke” universities. Rep. Matt Maddock (R-Milford) cheered the cuts by saying, “We’re making cuts to the woke universities and giving it to the non-woke universities”. In recent years, U-M and MSU have adopted diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs and other initiatives that some conservatives oppose. The budget plan includes provisions to ban spending on DEI initiatives, bar trans women from women’s sports teams, and even withhold funding if schools don’t provide detailed reports on students’ immigration status. It’s a culture-war laundry list, and U-M/MSU are seen as prime offenders in the GOP’s eyes. “Michigan’s largest universities have been getting way more than their fair share... Our plan sets things right by trimming the fat off MSU and U of M,” said Rep. Greg Markkanen (R-Hancock), the budget’s architect. The rhetoric is as much about ideological “fat” as financial fat.
- Past Funding Levels: From a pure numbers perspective, U-M and MSU do currently receive the largest state appropriations (because they’re the biggest schools with the most students and research activity). House Republicans argue those dollars should be spread out more evenly. Markkanen noted that MSU also gets separate state funds for its agricultural research and extension programs, and U-M benefits from huge research grants and donor dollars. In their view, these giants will survive a diet, and it’s time to boost the “little guys” – the 13 other public universities across Michigan – who they say have been underfunded by comparison.
In short, the House GOP sees U-M and MSU as wealthy, elite institutions that can weather cuts, while smaller colleges need more love. Critics counter that this reasoning is short-sighted and punitive – essentially punishing excellence and kowtowing to political grudges. As Rep. Alabas Farhat (D-Dearborn) put it, “If you are a student or a parent of someone who attends any university in the state of Michigan, you should understand that House Republicans do not care about you”. Harsh words, reflecting how polarized this debate has become.
.png)
University of Michigan, Facebook
Winners, Losers, and Local Impact: What About Other Universities?
One man’s cut is another man’s increase – at least in this budget shuffle. The money taken from U-M and MSU isn’t being saved; it’s being redistributed to Michigan’s other 13 public universities. Essentially, the House GOP wants to take from the “rich” schools and give to the rest. So who comes out ahead?
Big winners: the other 13 public universities. Under the House plan, every other state university would see a hefty funding boost – roughly on the order of +25% or more to their budgets. That’s a huge increase in one year. For example, Wayne State University in Detroit – often in U-M’s and MSU’s shadow – was initially facing a small 5% cut in the first draft, but after revisions it’s now slated for a major increase (roughly +23–28% in funding). In fact, House documents indicated Wayne State could see about a 28% bump in state aid, and others as much as 31%. Oakland University (Rochester), Eastern Michigan University (Ypsilanti), Central Michigan University (Mount Pleasant) and the rest are similarly poised to get around a quarter more state dollars than before. These campuses, some of which have struggled with enrollment declines and tight budgets, would gain millions to invest in programs, faculty, and facilities.
- Metro Detroit perspective: For families in Metro Detroit, this shift means local universities like Wayne State and Oakland could become more attractive options. If WSU gets a funding surge, it might expand scholarships, freeze tuition, or invest in new programs in the heart of Detroit – potentially boosting the university’s quality and reputation. That’s good news for students who want to stay close to home (and for the city of Detroit, which benefits from a strong urban research university). On the flip side, if U-M’s funding is slashed, some local students who dreamed of Ann Arbor might think twice, especially if that cut leads to tuition hikes or fewer in-state spots (more on those possibilities later).
Statewide scholarship shake-up:
The House GOP didn’t just rearrange the pie between universities – they also changed how the money flows. A cornerstone of their plan is a new statewide scholarship program aimed at students. The budget carves out a big chunk of money to provide a $5,500 per-year scholarship for every Michigan high school graduate who attends an in-state college or university. In essence, they want to fund “students, not systems.” That $5,500 could be used at any public or private university in Michigan, functioning almost like a voucher. (This appears to build on the recently launched Michigan Achievement Scholarship, but House Republicans proposed making it universal for all new grads, not just those with financial need or certain test scores.)
From a family’s perspective, $5,500 off your college bill per year is nothing to sneeze at. It could make college much more affordable for a lot of Metro Detroit families, especially if your child chooses a school like Wayne State, Oakland U, or others where tuition is more modest. “Money shouldn’t be a barrier for any Michigan high school graduate seeking a quality higher education in their home state,” Rep. Markkanen said, pitching the scholarship idea as a way to keep young talent in Michigan. The goal is to encourage our talented graduates to stay in-state for college and then “lay down roots here – raising families, buying homes, and giving back to our communities”. (As a Metro Detroit real estate observer, I’ll note: keeping college-educated youth here does tend to bolster the housing market and local economy. Losing them to out-of-state schools often means losing them for good.)
However, there’s a catch:
this scholarship money isn’t “new” money raining down from the sky – it’s largely coming from the dollars taken away from U-M, MSU and other operational funds. The House Fiscal Agency (nonpartisan analysts) calculated that about $272.4 million is being redirected into scholarship aid under the House plan. That helps students pay tuition, but it doesn’t help universities pay their faculty or keep the lights on. Critics point out that while students might save on tuition, universities themselves will have to cut back on staff, programs, or research if their budgets are slashed. One education advocate said the scholarship money “primarily offsets student costs and does little to mitigate the universities’ operational losses”. In other words, great, your child’s tuition bill might drop a bit – but if classes are larger, offerings are fewer, or that star professor leaves because of budget cuts, what’s the real cost?
Campus Investment Fund:
Another feature affecting schools is a newly proposed “Campus Investment Fund” for infrastructure and tech upgrades. This pot would allocate money based on the number of in-state students at each university, but (crucially) the amount a school can get is capped depending on its endowment size. It’s a way to funnel capital improvements money to universities with smaller endowments, while starving the richest (again, U-M primarily) of those extra funds. Essentially, U-M’s huge endowment disqualifies it from a lot of the Campus Investment dollars, whereas a school like Saginaw Valley State or Ferris State could receive proportionally more for new labs, dorms, or technology. This is part of the GOP’s theme of leveling the playing field among campuses.
To sum up the redistribution: Nearly all other public universities become winners with more funding and extra resources for scholarships and projects, while U-M and MSU are the clear losers under this plan – seeing their state support deeply cut and tied up with strings. It’s a dramatic realignment of Michigan’s higher ed funding, “correcting the imbalance” if you ask Republicans, or undermining our top institutions if you ask just about anyone from the U-M/MSU side.
For insight on how campus-centered neighborhoods respond, check out What Makes University District Homes Attractive to Buyers in Metro Detroit
Politics, Pushback, and Public Response
Unsurprisingly, this budget plan has ignited a political firestorm in Lansing and beyond. The Michigan House may have passed it (on a party-line vote), but it faces an uphill battle in the Democratic-controlled state Senate and with Governor Gretchen Whitmer (a Democrat and U-M alumna, incidentally). Here’s a look at the fallout so far:
- Democrats’ reaction: In a word, outrage. Democrats have lambasted the House GOP proposal as an attack on education and an infusion of culture-war politics into the budget. “It seems like they’re letting DC rhetoric stomp on Midwest values,” said Rep. Farhat (D-Dearborn), accusing Republicans of playing politics with students’ futures. Another Democrat, Rep. Samantha Steckloff (D-Farmington Hills), raised alarms about some of the fine print restrictions in the plan – like the cap limiting certain administrative costs to 10% of a school’s budget. She noted that for large research universities, that 10% cap on “non-education, non-safety” staff is unworkable: “That’s your financial aid officers, your admissions counselors, your academic counselors... If you’re U of M and have a large hospital system, those are your doctors. There is no way those schools would be able to meet that”. In short, Dems argue the plan is either intentionally punitive or detached from reality (or both). The Democratic-led Senate already approved its own higher education budget plan back in April, which increases funding for all universities (essentially the opposite approach of investing more in higher ed, not less). The two chambers will have to reconcile these vastly different visions.
- University leaders and students: Top officials at U-M and MSU are sounding the alarm. U-M’s Vice President for Government Relations, Chris Kolb, publicly called the House budget “deeply disappointing” and warned it would “dramatically reduce support” for a university that provides huge value to the state. He emphasized that U-M generates a 24-to-1 return on investment for Michigan’s economy and ranks #1 nationally in research volume – implying that gutting its funding is like killing the goose that lays golden eggs. MSU’s spokesperson, Amber McCann, similarly argued that slashing MSU’s budget would hurt students and Michigan’s future, noting MSU’s role in “driving Michigan’s future” through education and innovation. Beyond official statements, this budget has likely prompted tense conversations in dorms, labs, and alumni circles. Social media in Michigan lit up with commentary – from parents worried about tuition hikes to students organizing petitions. (U-M’s and MSU’s student bodies are politically active; one can expect protests or at least some creative Diag chalk messages if the threat looms larger.)
- Public response in Metro Detroit: Many Metro Detroiters – especially those with kids in college or high school – are trying to make sense of what this means for them. On one hand, “Hooray, a $5,500 scholarship for my kid!” and “Nice, maybe more support for local schools like Wayne State.” On the other, “Why are they going after U of M and MSU – aren’t those our pride and joy institutions?” Water-cooler talk at offices around Detroit and dining room chats in the suburbs reveal a mix of confusion and concern. This plan touches a nerve because U-M and MSU aren’t just any schools – they’re ingrained in Michigan’s identity. They have tens of thousands of alumni in Metro Detroit alone, and their football rivalries (Go Blue! Go Green!) are practically a state religion. So yes, people are paying attention. Even those who might normally tune out budget machinations are asking, “Is it true they want to cut U-M’s funding by 65%? What’s up with that?” The fact that cultural hot-button issues like diversity and transgender sports are tied into the funding has only amplified the chatter and drawn more partisan lines in public opinion.
- Negotiation and next steps: As of mid-June 2025, the House plan is just one side of the story. Now, Republican House leaders must negotiate with the Democratic Senate and Gov. Whitmer to craft a final budget. The state’s fiscal year deadline is October 1 (with a hoped-for target of July 1 to get things done sooner). Senate Appropriations Chair Sen. Sarah Anthony (D-Lansing) hinted that she’s not sure if the House plan is a serious starting point or political theater, calling some of its dramatic cuts and add-ons into question. She and others have signaled that much of the House’s proposal is DOA in the Senate. Governor Whitmer, for her part, has prioritized higher education investment and is unlikely to approve any budget that eviscerates U-M or MSU. In plain terms, expect a fight. The final budget will probably land somewhere in between the House and Senate versions – the question is how far the GOP will push their agenda and what compromises can be struck. House GOP Chair Bollin said she’s willing to work every day to reach a deal and brushed off Democratic criticism as politics, saying “both sides have their talking points... now we’ve got the guts on paper and it’s time for real conversations”. Those “real conversations” will determine if these cuts become reality or remain a dramatic what-if.
.png)
University of Michigan, Facebook
What It Means for Students, Families, and Michigan’s Future
Let’s step back and look at the bigger picture. What does this budget battle mean for you and for Michigan’s future?
For current and future students:
If you’re a student at U-M or MSU (or the parent of one), you’re probably anxious. A 65% cut to U-M’s state funding or an 18% cut to MSU’s would almost certainly force those universities to take cost-saving measures. That could mean tuition increases, program cuts, hiring freezes, larger class sizes, or reduced student services. U-M and MSU might have to lean more on out-of-state enrollment (bringing in those higher tuition dollars) or raise fees in certain programs. Financial aid provided by the universities could be tightened. For top students in Michigan, the allure of our flagship universities might dim if resources are stretched thin – and more might opt for out-of-state colleges, exactly what the state doesn’t want. As one U-M official cautioned, the proposal limits the university’s ability to “train the next generation of doctors, nurses, engineers, and teachers – students who are in high demand across Michigan”. In other words, cutting U-M/MSU hurts the talent pipeline.
On the flip side, if you’re a student at one of the other public universities (or planning to be), you could see new opportunities. Those schools might expand programs or improve facilities with their funding boosts. And that $5,500 annual scholarship could make a big difference in your college affordability. A family in Metro Detroit with, say, a student headed to Eastern Michigan University could save a lot on tuition thanks to the scholarship, and EMU’s state funding bump might keep their tuition from rising as fast. Community college students wouldn’t be left out either – the House plan even talked about a $2,750/year scholarship for students who go to in-state community colleges full-time, aiming for tuition-free community college. So yes, many students stand to gain financially in the short term.
Michigan’s economy and communities:
As a local real estate and community observer, I see universities as anchor institutions. Metro Detroit’s economy and housing market are indirectly tied to the fortunes of our universities. Think about it: U-M (though an hour west of Detroit) is a research powerhouse that spawns startups, attracts federal research grants, and draws in bright minds from around the world. Those people often end up working in Southeast Michigan, buying homes, paying taxes, and contributing to our communities. MSU has a huge extension network and medical school presence in Detroit. If we disinvest in these engines, Michigan could lose its edge in innovation and talent attraction. High-tech industries, healthcare systems, and automotive research (hello, self-driving cars?) all rely on partnerships with U-M and MSU. A cut of this scale might lead to a brain drain, where top professors and researchers head to other states, taking their grants and expertise with them. That’s a loss for Metro Detroit, which is striving to be an innovation hub. U-M likes to point out it offers a 24-to-1 return on state investment by fueling the economy – that suggests these cuts could cost the state much more in lost economic activity than they save in the budget.
On the other hand, strengthening smaller regional universities could help other parts of Michigan and broaden educational access. We might see growth in places like Detroit (Wayne State), the U.P. (Michigan Tech and Northern Michigan University), or Grand Rapids (Grand Valley State) if those institutions get more resources. The challenge is doing that without gutting the flagships. It doesn’t have to be zero-sum; historically, Michigan tried to fund all 15 public universities adequately, recognizing they serve different roles.
The “why does this matter” for Metro Detroit families:
If you have young kids, the quality and cost of Michigan’s universities will affect you before you know it. Will your child have world-class public universities to choose from in-state 10 or 15 years from now? Or will budget cuts have driven our best professors elsewhere and let programs deteriorate? Will that $5,500 scholarship keep up with rising tuition, or will it be a drop in the bucket if state disinvestment continues? These are the long-term questions at stake. House Republicans say their plan is about “making higher education more affordable for students, boosting enrollment, and keeping our graduates here in Michigan”. They want those graduates to stay, start careers, buy homes in Metro Detroit and across Michigan, and contribute to the community. Those are goals we can all get behind. The debate is over how to get there without breaking what we already have.
A balancing act:
At its core, this is a debate about Michigan’s priorities. Is it more important to cut costs and enforce political preferences (like banning DEI spending), even if that risks the quality of our top universities? Or is it more important to invest in higher ed across the board, even if that means the big schools continue to get a big slice of the pie? The final outcome will likely involve some compromise – perhaps a smaller re-balancing of funds and less extreme versions of the policy mandates. But the intensity of this proposal has forced everyone to pay attention.
As families weigh the impact of potential hikes or school choices, our statewide moving guide, Your Guide to Moving to Michigan
A Metro Detroit Perspective
As someone who’s deeply invested in Metro Detroit’s community (and yes, as a parent and professional who watches trends here), I can’t help but view this through a local lens. Higher education isn’t just a line item in a budget; it’s part of the fabric of our region. U-M and MSU alumni drive much of Metro Detroit’s business, healthcare, and cultural scenes. At the same time, schools like Wayne State are literally in our backyard and deserve robust support to serve our city’s students.
This House GOP budget proposal is a bold and controversial attempt to reshape that fabric. It has certainly succeeded in getting everyone’s attention – from the living rooms of Detroit suburbs to the Diag in Ann Arbor. The public outcry and swift revisions show that Michiganders won’t accept massive changes without a fight.
Thinking long-term about where your kids might study or settle? Our evergreen list—30 Things to Know Before Moving to Michigan
Moving forward, keep an eye on Lansing. The negotiations in the coming weeks will determine if these “Michigan higher education budget cuts” become reality or remain a political statement. One thing’s for sure: Michigan’s higher ed funding news is now front and center. We’ve essentially asked ourselves as a state, what do we value in our universities? The answer will shape not only the “University of Michigan budget” for next year, but the kind of opportunities our kids will have and the kind of economy we’ll build in the decades to come.
For Metro Detroit families and savvy locals, staying informed is key. Today it’s a proposal – tomorrow it could be your child’s tuition bill or your neighborhood’s job market on the line. This story isn’t over, and we’ll be here to follow it every step of the way. Michigan’s future is in the balance, but with thoughtful public input and some Lansing compromise, let’s hope we find a solution that keeps our universities strong, our students supported, and our state moving forward.
DON'T KEEP US A SECRET - SHARE WITH A FRIEND OR ON SOCIAL MEDIA!
THINKING OF MOVING TO Dearborn, OR LOOKING TO RELOCATE IN THE AREA? VIEW A LIST OF CURRENT HOMES FOR SALE BELOW.
Ann Arbor, MI Real Estate Listings
The Perna Team and Michael Perna are the best real estate agents in Metro Detroit and Ann Arbor. The Perna Team and Michael Perna have been hired as a real estate agent by hundreds of home owners to sell their homes in Metro Detroit and Ann Arbor.
"Michael Perna helped me sell my home in Ann Arbor, and I’m honestly still in shock at how smoothly everything went."
Posted by Michael Perna on
Leave A Comment