A resolution to support President Trump’s decision regarding the new F-15EX Eagle II fighter mission at the Selfridge Air National Guard Base to replace the outgoing A-10 Thunderbolts.
House Resolution 78 is a nonbinding resolution expressing support for President Trump’s decision to assign a new F-15EX Eagle II fighter mission to Selfridge Air National Guard Base in Macomb County, Michigan. The resolution frames the move as a replacement for the outgoing A-10 Thunderbolt II aircraft currently stationed at Selfridge and notes that divestment of the A-10s is expected to begin in 2026, with KC-135 Stratotankers following in 2027.
The resolution emphasizes Selfridge’s long history, its role as home to the 127th Wing of the Michigan Air National Guard, and its broader military significance through multiple tenant commands from several branches of the U.S. armed forces and federal agencies. It also highlights the base’s economic importance, citing nearly 5,000 personnel and an estimated $850 million impact on the state, as well as more than $25 million in recent state appropriations for runway, hangar, and maintenance upgrades intended to prepare for a new fighter mission.
In terms of state-law impact, the resolution does not change any statutes, regulations, or appropriations. It is a formal statement of the House’s position and a request that copies be sent to federal leaders and Michigan’s congressional delegation. Its practical effect is political rather than legal, aimed at signaling state support for the basing decision and reinforcing the case for continued investment in Selfridge.
The general sentiment reflected in the resolution is strongly favorable toward the F-15EX mission and toward preserving Selfridge’s future. The tone is supportive of the base’s military value, its cost-effectiveness relative to an active-duty Air Force installation, and its strategic role in air defense and northern-border security. Because there were no committee transcripts or recorded votes provided, the available context shows only the sponsors’ positive framing and no documented opposition in the materials supplied.
The main point of contention implied by the resolution is the transition away from the A-10 mission and the need to secure a replacement mission for Selfridge before divestment proceeds. The resolution does not present opposing arguments, but the emphasis on economic impact, prior state spending, and strategic importance suggests the sponsors are responding to concerns about base closure, mission loss, or underutilization. The resolution is therefore best understood as a bipartisan-style or advocacy-oriented defense of the base’s future, though the provided materials do not show any formal cross-party support or dissent.
HR 78 does not amend Michigan law or alter any statutory duties; it is a ceremonial and political resolution. Its effect is to formally place the Michigan House on record supporting the federal decision to assign the F-15EX Eagle II mission to Selfridge Air National Guard Base, while also reinforcing the rationale for prior state investments in base infrastructure. The resolution may influence intergovernmental advocacy and future federal or state discussions about military basing, but it creates no binding legal obligations for state agencies, local governments, or private parties.
The sentiment around the resolution is broadly supportive and celebratory. The sponsors present the F-15EX mission as a win for Selfridge, for Michigan’s economy, and for national defense, and the resolution frames the decision as helping secure the base for decades. No votes, hearings, or committee testimony were provided, so there is no documented recorded opposition in the supplied materials; however, the resolution’s language suggests it is intended to counter uncertainty about the base’s future and to publicly endorse the mission transition.
The central issue underlying the resolution is the replacement of the A-10 Thunderbolt II mission and the future of Selfridge Air National Guard Base as older aircraft are divested. The sponsors argue that the F-15EX mission is necessary to preserve the base’s strategic and economic value, while the resolution implicitly addresses concerns that the loss of existing aircraft missions could threaten jobs, investment, and long-term viability. Because no committee transcripts or vote history were provided, there is no direct evidence of specific objections, but likely areas of debate include the merits of the F-15EX over other alternatives, the timing of the transition, and whether state resources should continue to be used to prepare for a federal basing decision.