LANSING, Mich. (Michigan News Source) – Earlier this year, Michigan lawmakers told Canadian-owned Highland Copper to pack up their prospecting dreams. As Michigan News Source reported, in December 2024, the Michigan Senate Appropriations Committee rejected a $50 million SOAR grant request for the proposed Copperwood Mine near the Porcupine Mountains, citing a lack of support among the lawmakers.
At the time, the project appeared to be on indefinite pause. But as of August 2025, the mine is back on the legislative agenda. A new proposal would still direct $50 million in public funds towards the benefit of the Highland Copper project – only now, it’s framed as community infrastructure for Wakefield Township rather than a direct subsidy for Highland Copper as reported by Bridge Michigan.
The infrastructure argument.
MORE NEWS: Whitmer, McDonald Rivet Talk Medicaid But Not Special Election
Supporters insist this round of funding isn’t a handout to the mining company. Instead, they say it would finance roads, utilities, and communication upgrades in the township, which could in turn make the region more attractive for investment.
Rep. Greg Markkanen (R-Hancock) asked for the money in an earmark to the 2026 budget along with co-sponsors Rep. Dave Prestin (R-Cedar River) and Rep. Karl Bohnak (R-Marquette).
Markkanen argues that “a public investment toward upgrades will ensure private capital is attracted to the area to complete the remaining infrastructure work.”
Highland Copper’s site manager, although explaining that the money wouldn’t help offset their construction costs, welcomed the development, saying the state’s financial support would send a “very important message” to potential investors of their project.
Grassroots pushback.
Local opposition remains firm, however. Protect the Porkies, a grassroots organization, has organized petitions and community outreach against the mine, already collecting about a half-million signatures against the first proposal. Critics point out the obvious: whether the check is written to the township or the company, the improvements are being pursued for one reason – to make the mine viable.
Protect the Porkies organizer Tom Grotewohl blasted the new strategy as “a highly disingenuous proposal which seeks to disguise corporate welfare as community infrastructure,” arguing that the real intent is still to funnel taxpayer dollars to “accelerate and enable an inexperienced, foreign company’s first ever mine in the worst spot imaginable.”
MORE NEWS: Group Wants To Tax State’s Wealthiest Residents For More School Funding
Opponents like Grotewohl say it doesn’t matter if the money is funneled through the township or handed directly to the company – the improvements are designed for one purpose: to make the mine viable. The group, which has already gathered about a half-million signatures against the copper project, recently took their fight to Lansing to lobby against the latest proposal.
Grotewohl argues that taxpayers are being asked to bankroll a foreign-owned mining operation in an environmentally sensitive area bordering the Porcupine Mountains and Lake Superior. Concerns about the project extend beyond finances. Environmental groups warn that mining activity so close to Lake Superior could damage water quality and tourism in one of Michigan’s most pristine wilderness areas.
Jobs vs. the environment.
Proponents counter that the project could create more than 380 full-time jobs. They argue these opportunities would be transformative for the region’s economy, which has long struggled with job loss and population decline.
Opponents remain unconvinced, noting that the $50 million public investment is a steep price for a project that may never fully deliver on its promises. They argue that long-term damage to the region’s natural assets could outweigh any short-term economic gains.
An old battle, repackaged.
The Copperwood Mine debate underscores a familiar fault line in Michigan politics: economic development versus environmental and land preservation. Similar battles have erupted across the state in recent years as Democratic leadership has pushed its political agenda, often targeting farmland, residential areas, and other local spaces in the name of securing more energy for Michigan.
In this case, as in others across the state, supporters of the project insist the new proposal is about infrastructure and local growth, but residents and environmental advocates see a thinly veiled attempt to revive a project that the community – and lawmakers – have already rejected once.
