How the City Council’s Moves Strengthen GOP Talking Points

The council’s actions risk reinforcing Republican attacks on Democratic leadership in Minneapolis.

Spending Reports

The Republican Party is spending significantly less than the Democrats in Minnesota to win votes for the upcoming national election. For instance, the MinnPost campaign finance dashboard shows that Ilhan Omar has spent $7.5 million in her District 5 reelection campaign, while her Republican opponent, Dalia al-Aqidi, has spent $1.7 million. According to The Hill, the DFL incumbent has a 99% chance of winning the election. Why, then, is she outspending her relatively unknown challenger by a margin of 4-to-1? The ratio of PAC money spent on Omar is even greater, at 10-to-1.

Two possible reasons Omar could be spending over $8 million to secure a race that would seem a foregone conclusion:

1. To repay the consultants, public relations firms, and Democratic insiders that have kept the DFL candidate in office; and/or
2. Because despite her years in office, Representative Omar has become increasingly unpopular, and the DFL is concerned that she may win by a smaller margin than desired, which could signal not her strength but rather the growing ranks of discontented DFL supporters in a reliably blue district.

The fact is that outside of Minneapolis and St. Paul, Minnesota is becoming a deeply red state, with the Republican Party needing to spend very little to convince people that their values and those of the DFL are out of sync. It may seem delusional, but both Trump and J.D. Vance have come to Minnesota to raise money, believing the state could turn red this election. When J.D. Vance framed the burned-out Third Precinct as a symbol of Democratic misrule and a city in decline, his message resonated more than many would like.

One need only look at the October 17 City Council meeting to understand why many liberals are losing faith. The City Council appears intent on disregarding the majority of city residents in favor of the most dedicated and extreme voices on the left. Given the historical support for liberal policies in the city and state, it takes a lot to push people to the right—but the City Council seems determined to achieve just that. As DFL/Democratic Socialists of America (DSA)-endorsed candidates continue to push their agenda and deliver grand speeches as if they are at a high school oratory competition, they leave many liberals with unappealing options. They can either choose not to vote or vote Republican; those are the choices if one believes the city and state are headed in the wrong direction.

There is a large group of “independents” who feel unrepresented—people who consider themselves liberal yet still want police presence and for city officials to focus on the everyday task of keeping the city running smoothly and efficiently without regular large tax increases. If Republicans were to stay quiet and take down their pro-life posters, moderate liberals might overlook how many of their positions clash with their own values. Spending less money and allowing the DFL to undermine their own supporters could prove an effective strategy.

The City Council Agenda

In a 9-2 vote, with council members Rainville and Palmisano absent, the council approved a legislative directive to determine the fees they should charge off-duty police officers for using their vehicles and other equipment. The two opposing votes came from council members Andrea Jenkins and LaTrisha Vetaw. Authored by CM Wonsley and Council President Payne, the directive appears to be another attempt to hassle and discourage the police. CM Chowdhury stated during the City Council meeting that the directive would allow them to “get some answers, and figure out—I would say, the tip of the iceberg when it comes to issues around off-duty policing.” However, CM Osman, like many members of the public, seemed unaware of what these issues might be, and he did not ask for clarification. The council’s general stance is that any additional oversight of police activity is considered valuable. His response was, “This is the first time I’m seeing this—I think it’s smart to know what the cost of taxpayers’ money is,” showing a rare moment of concern for how taxpayer dollars are spent. If the City Council is truly concerned about the costs associated with officers, they might consider examining the millions spent on overtime due to the shortage of officers. Most city residents still want a police force that is sufficiently staffed to respond to 911 calls. Actions like this directive risk deterring potential recruits from pursuing a career in law enforcement.

There are 13 council members, each earning $109,846 a year. Their idea of saving the city money is to charge off-duty police officers a fee for working as security. A different approach would be to focus on youth employment and reducing crime so that businesses don’t feel the need to hire extra security in the first place. The irony of this directive is that in the same meeting, CM Vetaw and others expressed their anger and sadness over the death of Aniya Allen, a 6-year-old killed by a stray bullet in May 2021, whose killer remains unidentified. A reward of up to $180,000 was offered for information leading to the arrest. Unlike the council, most residents are more concerned with reducing gun violence than with the issue of police using their squad cars while off-duty.

Examples from the last council meeting where resident feedback was either ignored or their intentions went unexplained include:

1. Granting a permit for a 64-bed recuperative care center for the homeless at 1801 Nicollet
2. Passing a nonbinding resolution to oppose using the former Third Precinct as a “democracy center” for Election and Voter Services
3. Overriding a mayoral veto for a fee on businesses emitting carbon dioxide before having administrative resources in place to collect or assess the fee
4. Charging off-duty officers a fee for using their city vehicles

These actions, along with their past missteps, create the impression of a City Council more focused on the performance of government than its substance. Despite their numerous speeches about the importance of democracy, social justice, and equity, their actions reveal a lack of meaningful communication between council members, the mayor’s office, and the public. Moreover, these actions provide fodder for Republicans and others to showcase to a national audience, highlighting how ideological governance can create chaos while core concerns of residents—homelessness, public safety, economic recovery, education and school funding, and infrastructure—are undermined by personal agendas, grudges, and a narrow adherence to the priorities of special interest groups.

The DFL is spending heavily to convince residents that the issues they see and hear around them are not as severe as they seem. Homeless encampments with open drug abuse and sex trafficking, youth disregarding the law and accumulating multiple offenses, the destruction of Uptown, schools facing an $84 million deficit, Hennepin County with a $30 million gap in its proposed 2025 human services budget, and rising taxes—all these issues require serious, experienced leadership to address. In the 2025 municipal election, we need candidates who are committed not to a specific party but to a vision of the future that embraces a broader range of viewpoints—people who can collaborate and prioritize.

Republican operatives could easily create a 60-second clip featuring council committee meetings, makeshift bicycle chop shops in encampments, and empty storefronts in Minneapolis, and it would resonate with many voters. The city must stop giving them material for their campaigns. It would benefit the city if our elected officials delivered fewer speeches on injustice and focused more on managing costs, increasing public safety, and reducing barriers to economic recovery. If we were to replace a few of the embarrassingly inexperienced council members with accountants and business owners, it might keep Minneapolis from making headlines for the wrong reasons.