Q&A: Mike Kennealy Talks Taxes, Housing, Immigration Shelters, DEI In Campaign for Governor of Massachusetts

Editor’s Note: The following Q&A was conducted and originally published by the State House News Service. While we found the conversation with Mike Kennealy informative, we believe some of the questions reflect a framing common in liberal political discourse. We are publishing it to allow readers to hear the candidate’s views directly. Ella AdamsState House News Service Republican Mike Kennealy is the first major challenger to Democratic Governor Maura Healey in the 2026 gubernatorial race..Kennealy, who is making affordability a pillar of his campaign, has already taken firm stances on issues like immigration, shelter, and housing. And while the former Baker administration Cabinet secretary is running as a Republican, he's attempting to distance himself from the political agendas of other leaders — aiming to stand in a category of his own by taking things "issue by issue," he told State House News Service.Kennealy transitioned from a career in private equity to the public sector in 2013. He has since worked for Lawrence Public Schools, as housing and economic development secretary under then-Governor Charlie Baker, and for the Boys and Girls Clubs of Boston. Kennealy also spent two years as finance chairman for the MassGOP.In a recent conversation with State House News Service, Kennealy talked about diversifying himself as a candidate, his stance on education and energy policy, and how he's approaching running as a Republican in a blue state being deeply affected by D.C. Republicans.This interview has been edited and condensed for clarity and length.Q: You've said you don't want to make this race about the Trump administration, and that you didn't vote for President Trump. As a non-Trump Republican running in this era of politics, how are you approaching the concerns about Republican-led cuts that have caused a fracture between Massachusetts and the federal government?A: I want to quibble a bit with your characterization. I'm not a "non-" anything or a "pro-" anything. I don't view this campaign as aligned or against the agenda of any political leader. It's my campaign, it's my ideas, it's my vision for the state. I just take it issue by issue. We've been out here for a month now. We have 19 months to go to talk about an agenda for Massachusetts, which is around affordability, opportunity, and better government, and that's where the focus of the campaign is. I'm clearly a Republican candidate and proud of that. That's the political association I'm making running as a Republican candidate, but I don't characterize the campaign or myself as particularly aligned or against anyone else's full agenda.Q: The economy has been a central issue for Republicans. There are federal dollars at risk right now that are tied to major industries in Massachusetts — research, higher education, public health, climate. Are you concerned about the state's economy as it relates to those factors that are in flux?A: We have to always look at issues outside Massachusetts, how they may impact us. But I think it's really incumbent on state leaders, or would-be state leaders, to focus on the stuff they can control within the borders of Massachusetts. Our state is not as affordable or as competitive as it needs to be, and a lot of that rests with state policy. When I think about the migrant crisis and the budget and the lack of accountability in state government — those are all matters that are appropriately within the purview of a governor, and that's where my focus is.To answer your question about federal policy, I think any governor would say they would not want money pulled from their state. And so I think our sectors of the innovation economy are really important ones. It's a job of the governor to help lead development efforts around those sectors, and to welcome financial support to do so.Q: The Healey administration signed a major housing bill in 2024, which is expected to increase housing production and affordability. Where do you find issue with that path? What's your vision of housing affordability?A: Our view when I was the housing secretary, my view now, is that we have a housing crisis in Massachusetts brought on by a lack of production over the last 30 years, and so we have to produce a lot more housing. However, state government has to partner with our cities and towns to help them produce the housing that they want and need. And that was the impetus behind the Housing Choice zoning reforms that we created in the Baker administration that got passed, which lowers the local approval threshold from two-thirds to simple majority. We have to produce a lot more housing, but it's got to be in partnership with our cities and towns and not have an adversarial relationship. With respect to the [housing] bill, I point to a couple things. I would be shocked, in fact, I'm willing to say there's no way $5.3 billion actually gets spent on housing. That is a bond authorization, so the state could borrow that money and spend it, but you've got to look at the capital budget and what they're actually proposing to spend. I worry about the constant trumpeting [of] a $5 billion number. It's a little bit disingenuous, I think. And it does help drive an agenda that this is all about state spending and the state driving the outcome here, when has to be the state working with cities and towns.Q: You're running on a platform pushing for energy affordability. That conversation is happening as concerns about clean energy initiatives in Massachusetts are surfacing. You worked under the Baker administration, which signed climate mandates into law and invested in offshore wind infrastructure — things at risk under the Trump administration. How do you see energy affordability, climate mandates, and clean energy infrastructure all working together? A: I'm very concerned about the cost of energy in Massachusetts, for our consumers and for our businesses. There has to be a dedicated effort to bring down that cost, and I'm just not seeing that today in the Healey administration. What I'm seeing is a climate agenda, not an energy policy, and the climate agenda is making energy more expensive.I will say on climate mandates — I'm not in favor of mandates in that regard. I'm generally not in favor of mandates at all. I'm in favor of having an aspiration that we do more for the climate, but when you start mandating this stuff, it drives policy in ways that may be, and will be, counterproductive for our economy and our cost of living. I think a leader has to say, "Look, we want to have a strong economy, we want to have housing production, and we want to be responsible with respect to the climate," but leadership is about balancing those things. When you put one issue demonstrably ahead of the other, and in fact, appoint someone whose job it is to drive that, I think you're tilting the scale in favor of one issue versus another issue.I'm in favor of more energy coming in here. The fact that the governor has bragged about shutting down gas pipelines, I think, is enormously counterproductive. There seems to be a reliance on solar and wind and imported hydropower versus other sources of energy like gas, but we need to have much more of an all-of-the-above strategy. With respect to offshore wind, one of our thoughts here is that clean energy should actually be clean. When you have wind turbines washing up on beaches, I question how clean that energy is. We've got to take a cautious look at this stuff for sure, in terms of, is it clean? Is it cost-efficient?Q: Massachusetts has a history of protecting reproductive health care. There's also been a recent push to protect gender-affirming care in the state this session, considering potential federal rollbacks. Are you supportive of those protections, and of Massachusetts being a place for people of all backgrounds to receive health care? A: I would simply say: I am pro-choice, and I support the laws we have.Q: The governor and attorney general have been very publicly working to protect diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives in the face of Trump administration policies. Are you supportive of maintaining diversity programming in Massachusetts, even if federal policies suggest otherwise?A: I'm not in favor of things like DEI hiring practices. I think one of the biggest questions we face in Massachusetts, if not the biggest question, is do we have equality of opportunity? And that, in a lot of ways, is why I left a business career a dozen years ago to embark on a career in public service, and a big part of the reason why my first step in public service was to go up to Lawrence and work on the turnaround of the public school district. It was the worst performing school district in the state, the high school had a 52 percent graduation rate, and we thought the kids in Lawrence were not getting a great opportunity in life. I worked with that team and that 52 percent graduation rate became 72 percent over a couple years. It was a big drive behind my desire to go work at Boys and Girls Clubs of Boston — [we put together a] comprehensive youth development strategy, introducing things like more academic programming to help them do better in school, workforce readiness programs, dedicated career pathway efforts around health care, the trades, and other things. People like to say we're number one in public education in the country. That's true on the National Assessment. What people won't tell you is that our reading scores peaked in 2011, our math scores peaked in 2013, half of our third-graders can't read proficiently, we have one of the largest, if not the largest, achievement gaps of any state in the country. Black and Latino students in Mississippi, Georgia and Florida outperform ours. We have enormous issues here around equality of opportunity. Q: How would that concept of equality of opportunity manifest in statewide initiatives you might take on as governor? A: I'll start with education. The work I saw in Lawrence for two years was inspirational. I'm not seeing the same energy and focus — granted, that's one community — around public education today in Massachusetts. I couldn't begin to tell you what the strategy of the Healey-Driscoll administration is with respect to education.And it does kind of drive me crazy when people say we're "number one." Well, A. We're declining — we're number one because the competition is getting worse. And B, we're not number one for everybody, given those achievement gap numbers. I'm seeing complacency that we're "number one," and I think this administration is managing our decline versus leading us forward.We need to start with what the outcome ought to be. Half our third graders can't read proficiently. Why don't we just say, "O.K., in five years, let's have a goal: All of our third graders can read efficiently." Why not just drive towards that? I don't understand the strategy.We have to address public education outcomes in traditional K-12. There's [also] been a big debate about vocational technical high school admissions. I'm a huge fan of those places. And in the Baker administration, we invested probably hundreds of millions of dollars in those schools. The traditional day for those schools is the students come in, call it 8 a.m. to 2 p.m. [I helped design a program that] added a second shift, for students to start their day at the regular high school, and then come over to the voc-tech for part of the afternoon. Then we [added] a third shift for adults [to] get more throughput. We invested lots of money in new equipment and new programs. And we're debating who should get in and who shouldn't? Let's have a discussion about how we expand the capacity so dramatically that everybody who wants to go, can go.Q: You've talked a lot about education, and you backed a teacher-related ballot initiative in the early 2010s. What do you think about the rise of teachers union ballot politics, and the power that teachers unions have here in Massachusetts? How would you work with teachers on some of those central education issues?A: I'll work with anybody that wants to get better outcomes for our kids, period. In terms of things the [teachers] unions have sponsored — the [income surtax] and the MCAS question — I was strongly against both of those.But I clearly want to work with teachers. It's critically important — the teachers are on the front lines here. It is critically important to work with anybody that wants to come to the table and help our kids: teachers, principals, parents, community members. A big part of my work in Lawrence was around nonprofits and getting them involved in the schools. It ought to be an incredible team sport, if you will. You can't just sit here and say, "Well, someone's politics are different from mine, I'm not going to work with them." Q: When it comes to Republican party communication and messaging strategies -- how can Republican campaigns improve in those respects in Massachusetts? What are you really focused on in your messaging?A: I think you have to get out and listen to the people. What are their needs? What are their aspirations? What are the opportunities in their communities? That is the most important thing a leader can do, is get out and listen to the people and develop policies and strategies that respond to their needs and their aspirations and their opportunities. It's not anything more magical than that.I do feel that out of the Healy administration, there's a little bit of a "We know best" attitude, "We're going to mandate things," and "We're going to dictate policy from Beacon Hill." We have 351 cities and towns and 7 million people. Guess what? They're all different.A big part of what I did when I was a Cabinet secretary was travel. I went to 150 cities and towns, I was on the road two to three days a week, and I loved it. The way to be effective, in government or in politics, is to get out and listen. That's what I've encouraged our candidates to do, is take that approach. And I do think, in a lot of respects, it's a market contrast with what I'm seeing now [in] the Healey administration.Q: What makes you say that?A: I hear this from municipal leaders, I hear this from others, that [the administration is] not as visible, that they're not listening. I think if you really listened to people's concerns about energy, you'd be more responsive to that, for example. Some of these cost-of-living increases — if you really understood that people feel like they're already over-taxed, you wouldn't propose new taxes, for example. We haven't talked about the migrant crisis yet. That is a great example of just not understanding what's happening on the ground and being responsive to it, and that impacts our citizens, our communities, our schools, our budget, our public safety, everything. Q: You've said you want to adjust the "right to shelter" law and laid out concerns about the way the migrant shelter influx was handled. There's also a lot of fear within immigrant communities right now, in the midst of increased federal immigration enforcement in Massachusetts. What does that balance, between making sure immigrant communities feel safe and also enforcing harsher restrictions on immigration and immigrants, look like?A: If you want to make communities feel safe, you should make communities safer. Efforts to actually make our communities safer, where local and state and county law enforcement can cooperate with the feds and get the truly bad actors out of our shelters and off our streets and out of our state — that will make everybody safer, and hopefully people will feel safer.We've been right-to-shelter since 1983, and I would make the observation that from 1983 to probably early 2023, very few people knew that, cared about it, it didn't impact our daily lives. It was something that I think was very noble in intent, which is helping Massachusetts families that became homeless find shelter. It was not meant to address a humanitarian crisis and an open federal border, and that, I think, is where it needs to be changed.Naturally, people were going to cross the border and find their way to Massachusetts. I think in the shelters themselves, what's going on, some of the criminal stuff that has happened is just horrific. You talk about making communities feel safer — we want them to actually be safer.