Micah Beckwith's $87K SUV started with a request for 'all the bells and whistles'
When Lt. Gov. Micah Beckwith was criticized for buying a top-trim, $87,000 Chevrolet Tahoe High Country, his office justified the purchase by saying its former SUV "had been in multiple accidents and was suffering from mechanical issues."
But that 2022 Dodge Durango was in good enough shape to be recently reassigned to an agency head in the Braun administration, Indiana Department of Corrections Commissioner Lloyd Arnold.
Public records recently obtained by IndyStar reveal more context behind Beckwith's controversial Tahoe purchase, which along with Secretary of State Diego Morales' new $91,000 SUV, recently inspired legislation at the Indiana Statehouse banning future purchases of top-trim and premium brand vehicles by state officials. Braun recently signed the bill into law.
The records show Beckwith, also a pastor at Life Church in Noblesville, wanted something "newer and larger" than outgoing Lt. Gov. Suzanne Crouch's Durango, according to a Jan. 2 request from the Lieutenant Governor's Office to the Indiana Department of Administration, which handles the state's vehicle fleet. The car had over 150,000 miles on it.
"Can you tell me what is available - he is looking for a black SUV like a Yukon with all the bells and whistles," according to the request to IDOA from the office's operations director, which came in via Teams message over a week before Beckwith was sworn into the role alongside Gov. Mike Braun.
A Black Yukon would have matched the one used by Morales, who drives around in a taxpayer funded, $91,000 2024 GMC Yukon Denali.
Instead, the IDOA presented Beckwith with two options: a Chevrolet Tahoe Premium, which starts at about $73,000, and the top-trim Chevrolet Tahoe High Country, which Beckwith ultimately selected.
The original cost of the vehicle was nearly $91,000, but the state got a $3,000 discount, leading to the final price of $87,672, according to the purchase order for the SUV.
"IDOA contacted several dealerships, and at the time of the request, only two in-stock models met both the color and feature preferences" requested by the office, IDOA said in a statement.
The 2022 Dodge Durango used by Crouch was returned to the state's fleet for a trade-in value of $25,000, and the lieutenant governor's office then reimbursed the IDOA an additional nearly $63,000 for the rest of the cost of the car, according to IDOA.
Beckwith's office did not respond to a request for comment about the office's request for a vehicle with "all the bells and whistles."
SUV now used by IDOC commissioner
Since Beckwith traded the Durango back into the state's fleet to help pay for the new Tahoe, it has been reassigned and is now being used by Arnold, who leads the state's correctional system.
As head of the IDOC, Arnold makes $190,000 annually, slightly less than Beckwith who makes just under $194,000.
The IDOA told IndyStar the vehicle had demonstrated no mechanical problems.
A CarFax report on the vehicle shows that there were two accidents reported on the vehicle back in 2022. One was a "sideswipe collision" with another car, and another incident caused damage to the front right hand side of the car. Airbags did not deploy in either incident, according to the CarFax report.
IDOA said the SUV had been involved in a previous fender bender in which the former lieutenant governor "hit a yellow post at a gas station," which was repaired by IDOA. It did not respond to IndyStar's request for information about a second accident.
Two manufacturer recalls affecting the car's software are associated with the SUV; remedies are available for both, according to the CarFax, which showed the current retail value of the Durango as $35,610.
Beckwith's office referred to the CarFax report as evidence that the SUV had issues as he previously described.
However, Rep. Mitch Gore, D-Indianapolis, said the information from IDOA proved "waste and deception" on Beckwith's part. He's previously called on Morales and Beckwith to return their SUVs for something more modest.
"His previous vehicle wasn't malfunctioning - it's in perfect working order and is currently being used by a state agency head," Gore said. "His top-of-the-line Tahoe wasn't thrust upon him like he said. In fact, he originally asked for something even more expensive."
The debate over CarGate, as it was dubbed, resulted in a dayslong back-and-forth on social media spawning memes and political debate. Beckwith at one point swapped out the Tahoe for a borrowed Tesla Cybertruck, described by a social media user as an "A+ in trolling."
An IDOA official later confirmed that the state didn't own, and wasn't renting, the Tesla. The following day, the Tahoe was back in Beckwith's parking spot.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Indianapolis Star
2 hours ago
- Indianapolis Star
What is the No Kings movement? Protests happening across Indiana
Organizers across the country, including Indiana, are planning to host "No Kings" protests on June 14, which will coincide with both Flag Day and President Donald Trump's 79th birthday. A military parade will also take place in Washington, D.C., to celebrate the 250th anniversary of the U.S. military, White House officials have announced. Here is a breakdown of the No Kings movement and what to know ahead of the protests: According to the website, the No Kings movement is "taking action to reject authoritarianism" with upcoming protests. "They've defied our courts, deported Americans, disappeared people off the streets, attacked our civil rights and slashed our services," the No Kings website reads. "The corruption has gone too. far. No thrones. No crowns. No kings." The group has organized mass protests around the country June 14 — the same day as Flag Day, President Donald Trump's 79th birthday and a planned parade in Washington, D.C. to celebrate 250 years of the U.S. military. The No Kings movement is encouraging peaceful protests around the country June 14 to counter the military parade set to take place in the nation's capital the same day. "On June 14 ... President Trump wants tanks in the street and a made-for-TV display of dominance for his birthday. A spectacle meant to look like strength. But real power isn't staged in Washington. It rises up everywhere else," the organization's website reads. More than 30 protests are planned across the state of Indiana. A few of them are listed below. Events without addresses have private locations, and more details can be found after signing up on the "No Kings" website. Visit the website to find the nearest demonstration. No protests will take place in Washington, D.C., organizers said. Several pro-democracy organizations across the country, including the 50501 Movement, Indivisible, the American Civil Liberties Union, Color of Change and the Human Rights Campaign, partnered to create the No Kings event, according to the event's website. The No Kings protests come two months after the nationwide Hands Off! demonstrations on April 5 and just days after the start of rallies taking place in Los Angeles to protest the actions of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement, organizers around the country are preparing for another protest in the coming days. Contributing: IndyStar eporter Katie Wiseman.
Yahoo
5 hours ago
- Yahoo
IU's governance crisis reflects dangerous trend undermining democracy
Recent commentary in IndyStar defended Indiana University's leadership and questioned the focus and intensity of faculty criticism. But what's happening at IU isn't just a campus controversy — it's part of a national trend. Across the country, public institutions are quietly dismantling the democratic processes that once guided their decisions. IU has become a flashpoint not because of any one leader or protest, but because it shows how shared governance and expert input are being replaced by top-down control. For over a century, American universities have followed a model known as shared governance. That means faculty, administrators and trustees work together to shape a school's mission and values. It's not just tradition — it's a safeguard. It ensures that decisions about teaching, research and student life are made by the people who do the work. In recent years, IU's shared governance has been steadily eroded through a series of top-down decisions. The April 2024 no-confidence vote in President Pamela Whitten by IU Bloomington faculty — 827 to 29 — wasn't about politics or personalities. It was a response to a pattern: refusing to recognize graduate workers' union efforts; sending state police to arrest peaceful protestors in Dunn Meadow; and canceling a long-planned exhibition by Palestinian-American artist Samia Halaby without consulting curators or faculty committees. These decisions bypassed longstanding university processes like faculty review, shared governance consultation and curatorial oversight — processes that have historically guided how academic and cultural decisions are made. Now, that erosion has been written into law. Indiana's House Enrolled Act 1001, passed in 2024, officially reduced faculty governance to an 'advisory only' role. Some argue that faculty governance was always advisory in practice — but this law removes any doubt. It replaces collaboration with control. Opinion: I was running for IU Board of Trustees — until Mike Braun took it over What is happening at IU is a symptom of a pattern playing out more broadly. We're seeing the slow dismantling of democratic decision-making in public institutions. At the federal level, the National Institutes of Health was recently blocked from posting notices in the Federal Register, which froze the review of over 16,000 new research grant applications — worth about $1.5 billion. Around the same time, the agency abruptly canceled more than 1,400 already awarded grants, halting active research projects without the usual expert review or explanation. Both the review of new applications and the continuation of awarded grants typically rely on deliberative panels of scientists to ensure decisions are fair, transparent and based on merit. In both of these cases, those processes were bypassed. Though some meetings have resumed, the damage is clear: Critical systems can be disrupted with little warning and no input from the people who are supposed to guide them. Other federal agencies have followed suit. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration have recently bypassed their own expert advisory committees in making major public health decisions. The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee was not convened to review or vote on the 2024–2025 influenza vaccine strain selection, breaking with decades of precedent. Around the same time, both ACIP and VRBPAC were sidelined in the rollout of new COVID-19 vaccine guidance and, just this week, the entire 17-member ACIP committee was fired. A top CDC vaccine adviser resigned, citing concerns that the agency was ignoring its own deliberative processes. Whether in universities or federal agencies, the pattern is the same: Leaders are cutting out the people who should have a voice. That might seem faster or easier — but it comes at a profound and ultimately self-defeating cost. When decisions are made without input from those most affected, institutions don't just lose trust — they undermine their own legitimacy and effectiveness. And in a democracy, trust is everything. Opinion: IU deserves a serious president. Pamela Whitten must go. This isn't a partisan issue. No matter your politics, the loss of open, thoughtful decision-making should be alarming. Processes like faculty governance, peer review and public advisory boards aren't meant to slow things down or push a political agenda. They exist because they lead to better decisions. When they're ignored, we don't just lose transparency. We lose trust. Indiana's public universities — and all public institutions — can only succeed when decisions are made with the people who do the work, not imposed on them from above. When we exclude the experts, educators, scientists, and advisors who sustain these institutions, we don't just weaken the process. We weaken the outcomes. Gabriel Bosslet, is a professor of clinical medicine and Tracey Wilkinson an associate professor of pediatrics at the Indiana University School of Medicine. This article originally appeared on Indianapolis Star: Indiana University's shared governance is under attack | Opinion
Indianapolis Star
6 hours ago
- Indianapolis Star
IU's governance crisis reflects dangerous trend undermining democracy
Recent commentary in IndyStar defended Indiana University's leadership and questioned the focus and intensity of faculty criticism. But what's happening at IU isn't just a campus controversy — it's part of a national trend. Across the country, public institutions are quietly dismantling the democratic processes that once guided their decisions. IU has become a flashpoint not because of any one leader or protest, but because it shows how shared governance and expert input are being replaced by top-down control. For over a century, American universities have followed a model known as shared governance. That means faculty, administrators and trustees work together to shape a school's mission and values. It's not just tradition — it's a safeguard. It ensures that decisions about teaching, research and student life are made by the people who do the work. In recent years, IU's shared governance has been steadily eroded through a series of top-down decisions. The April 2024 no-confidence vote in President Pamela Whitten by IU Bloomington faculty — 827 to 29 — wasn't about politics or personalities. It was a response to a pattern: refusing to recognize graduate workers' union efforts; sending state police to arrest peaceful protestors in Dunn Meadow; and canceling a long-planned exhibition by Palestinian-American artist Samia Halaby without consulting curators or faculty committees. These decisions bypassed longstanding university processes like faculty review, shared governance consultation and curatorial oversight — processes that have historically guided how academic and cultural decisions are made. Now, that erosion has been written into law. Indiana's House Enrolled Act 1001, passed in 2024, officially reduced faculty governance to an 'advisory only' role. Some argue that faculty governance was always advisory in practice — but this law removes any doubt. It replaces collaboration with control. Opinion: I was running for IU Board of Trustees — until Mike Braun took it over What is happening at IU is a symptom of a pattern playing out more broadly. We're seeing the slow dismantling of democratic decision-making in public institutions. At the federal level, the National Institutes of Health was recently blocked from posting notices in the Federal Register, which froze the review of over 16,000 new research grant applications — worth about $1.5 billion. Around the same time, the agency abruptly canceled more than 1,400 already awarded grants, halting active research projects without the usual expert review or explanation. Both the review of new applications and the continuation of awarded grants typically rely on deliberative panels of scientists to ensure decisions are fair, transparent and based on merit. In both of these cases, those processes were bypassed. Though some meetings have resumed, the damage is clear: Critical systems can be disrupted with little warning and no input from the people who are supposed to guide them. Other federal agencies have followed suit. The Centers for Disease Control and Prevention and the Food and Drug Administration have recently bypassed their own expert advisory committees in making major public health decisions. The Vaccines and Related Biological Products Advisory Committee was not convened to review or vote on the 2024–2025 influenza vaccine strain selection, breaking with decades of precedent. Around the same time, both ACIP and VRBPAC were sidelined in the rollout of new COVID-19 vaccine guidance and, just this week, the entire 17-member ACIP committee was fired. A top CDC vaccine adviser resigned, citing concerns that the agency was ignoring its own deliberative processes. Whether in universities or federal agencies, the pattern is the same: Leaders are cutting out the people who should have a voice. That might seem faster or easier — but it comes at a profound and ultimately self-defeating cost. When decisions are made without input from those most affected, institutions don't just lose trust — they undermine their own legitimacy and effectiveness. And in a democracy, trust is everything. Opinion: IU deserves a serious president. Pamela Whitten must go. This isn't a partisan issue. No matter your politics, the loss of open, thoughtful decision-making should be alarming. Processes like faculty governance, peer review and public advisory boards aren't meant to slow things down or push a political agenda. They exist because they lead to better decisions. When they're ignored, we don't just lose transparency. We lose trust. Indiana's public universities — and all public institutions — can only succeed when decisions are made with the people who do the work, not imposed on them from above. When we exclude the experts, educators, scientists, and advisors who sustain these institutions, we don't just weaken the process. We weaken the outcomes.
