Mike Kennealy, secretary of housing and economic development, said at a hearing Feb. 11, 2020 that the administration will prioritize rental vouchers and affordable housing investments but cannot spend its way of the housing crisis. State House News Service Photo | Chris Van Buskirk
Republican Mike Kennealy is the first major challenger to Democratic Gov. 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 the 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 former Gov. Charlie Baker, and for the Boys and Girls Clubs of Boston. Kennealy also spent two years as finance chair for the MassGOP.
In a recent conversation with the 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 impacted 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 Healy 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: 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.
