By Jon King, Michigan Advance
For most of her tenure as Michigan’s chief executive, Gov. Gretchen Whitmer has earned her reputation the old fashioned way: by delivering results that matter to the people she represents.
GOP propaganda to the contrary, she kept Michigan on an even keel during a global pandemic, as the first Trump administration seemingly worked overtime to tip the boat over.
She invested in long-neglected infrastructure while expanding workers’ rights, strengthening reproductive freedoms, and pushing forward common sense gun safety reforms that had been ignored by prior governors.
And even in the face of a plot to kidnap and murder her, Whitmer stood resolute against the rising tide of right-wing extremism that resulted in a blatant attempt to steal the 2020 election and an attempted coup on January 6.
As data centers flock to Michigan communities, what protections exist for residents?
But a governor who stood firmly for the rights of citizens over those of vested interests is now leaning in a strange direction.
Whitmer’s name became prominently mentioned as a potential contender for the White House precisely because she governed with a clear sense of public purpose and leadership that was widely, and rightly, respected.
But her sweeping embrace of massive data center projects has left many Michiganders, including this one, confused. Especially as it is so seemingly in line with the priorities of President Donald Trump, whose July executive order demanded the pursuit of “bold, large-scale industrial plans to vault the United States further into the lead on critical manufacturing processes and technologies that are essential to national security, economic prosperity, and scientific leadership.”
Now compare that to the comments Whitmer offered to the Michigan Public Service Commission this week in support of the massive data center proposed in Saline Township, in which she urged the regulatory body to provide the utility an expedited approval.
“Right now, time is of the essence,” Whitmer stated. “This is a matter of national security and economic competitiveness, and if we do not act, it will cost us thousands of jobs and billions of dollars of investment in our economy.”
And while she has insisted that “Michigan’s environmental protections remained non-negotiable” in the vetting process, that is a conclusion far more in line with the utilities and tech companies than with environmental advocates.
The governor who has demanded accountability from corporate interests like Enbridge and its Line 5 pipeline through the Straits of Mackinac is now actively courting companies that demand immense public resources, with long-term implications for the air we breathe and the water we drink, in exchange for limited economic return.
It’s perplexing — and hard not to wonder what changed.
The sudden enthusiasm for data centers is especially surprising given the industry’s profile: massive energy consumption, minimal permanent job creation, substantial taxpayer subsidies, and heavy strain on local infrastructure.
Yet Michigan is now extending public money to data center operators — many of them among the most powerful and profitable companies in the world — as if they were fragile startups in need of nurturing.
While Whitmer has leaned enthusiastically into promoting data centers as a symbol of Michigan’s high-tech future, Attorney General Dana Nessel, a fellow Democrat, has struck a far more cautious tone, underscoring the risks that come with rushing such projects forward.
A new unifying issue: Just about everyone hates data centers
Whitmer, like Trump, has heralded proposed developments as transformative investments, framing the industry as a competitive necessity in a rapidly evolving digital economy. Nessel, by contrast, has repeatedly pressed for rigorous oversight, intervening in utility proceedings and urging full public hearings to ensure that residents are not saddled with higher energy costs, hidden subsidies, or environmental burdens.
Where Whitmer emphasizes opportunity and momentum, Nessel stresses transparency, accountability, and the need to safeguard public resources. The divergence between the two reveals more than just a policy disagreement but a fundamental difference in governing instincts: one eager to accelerate economic development, the other insistent that Michigan not trade away long-term public protections for short-term headlines.
If she continues down this path, Whitmer risks transforming a strong, people-first narrative into a muddled story of corporate appeasement and economic strategy on autopilot.
If she does have political ambitions beyond the end of her governorship, which seems to be a source of back-and-forth speculation, this is a puzzling path to take toward wooing Democratic voters exhausted by industry-driven agendas that seek to paper over poisoned water and polluted air as necessary progress.
And that’s what makes this moment so baffling: she doesn’t need to do any of this. Not for her legacy, not for Michigan, and not for the future she’s already spent years shaping.
Michigan Advance is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Michigan Advance maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor Jon King for questions: info@michiganadvance.com.
