The tragedies of early 2026 have left Minneapolis in a state of profound shock. The fatal shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti at the hands of federal agents were a devastating blow to our city, sparking a national outcry and turning our streets into a staging ground for a broader constitutional struggle. There is no question that federal oversight of the recent “Operation Metro Surge” was fundamentally flawed and that the federal presence in our neighborhoods was a catastrophic overreach. However, during Minneapolis City Council meetings this month, it is becoming increasingly clear that a vocal faction of our leadership has decided that the only way to respond to a systemic failure is to engage in a campaign of municipal self-destruction.
From the introduction of a resolution to abolish federal immigration agencies to the recent attempts to hold local businesses hostage over their guest lists, the City Council is currently mired in a cycle of performative activism that threatens to bankrupt the city’s future. The most alarming development is not just the rhetoric, but the weaponization of the city’s administrative power—specifically the use of licensing as a political cudgel.
The Licensing Shakedown: A New Low
Perhaps the most egregious example of this political theater occurred when a group of Council members attempted, unsuccessfully, to block the liquor license renewals for two major downtown hotels: the Renaissance Minneapolis Hotel (The Depot) and the Canopy by Hilton. The justification? These businesses were accused of providing rooms to federal agents during the immigration surge.
This was a calculated attempt to use the city’s regulatory authority to penalize private enterprises for failing to join a political “resistance.” In their quest to signal moral superiority, certain Council members demonstrated a total disregard for the basic principles of fair and impartial governance. Licensing and permitting are intended to be neutral civil functions designed to ensure safety and order, not tools for a municipal shakedown. When elected officials start arbitrarily picking winners and losers based on who a hotel chooses to lodge, or a restaurant chooses to serve, or a grocery store allows in the checkout line, they undermine the very foundation of a stable business environment.
The attempt to withhold these permits had no basis in legal or safety requirements. Even the city’s own licensing staff admitted there was no evidence of violations that would warrant such a move. Yet, the show went on, with officials demanding further investigations into businesses that are vital to the city’s core. This behavior mirrors the authoritarian tactics often criticized at the federal level—using the levers of power to punish perceived enemies. If we allow this precedent to stand, the right to operate a business in Minneapolis will no longer be tied to following the law, but to a politician’s personal approval of your clientele.
The ICE Abolition Delusion
Parallel to this licensing drama is the Council’s recent resolution demanding the total abolition of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP). While the anger over federal misconduct is justified, the demand for a total halt to all federal funding and enforcement is a reckless flight from reality.
This resolution is an ideological suicide pact that would leave Minneapolis legally isolated and fiscally compromised. By declaring war on the Department of Homeland Security, the Council is inviting the federal government to suspend critical grants that support everything from emergency response to infrastructure. For the “silent majority” of Minneapolis residents—those who work 9-to-5s and are currently facing a projected 8% property tax levy increase—this is a nightmare scenario. If federal funding is pulled to cover the gap left by a Council that prefers “resistance” to resources, the burden will fall squarely on the local taxpayer.
Furthermore, the Council’s demand to end “all immigration enforcement” is a dangerous declaration of jurisdictional lawlessness. If a non-citizen is convicted of a violent crime in our city, who does the Council propose should handle their removal? If human trafficking rings are discovered in our transit hubs, should federal agents simply stay home? By removing the tools of enforcement, the Council is not “liberating” the city; it is creating a vacuum that will be filled by the very criminals who prey on the most vulnerable.
Economic Realities in a Fragile City
Minneapolis cannot afford this level of instability. A recent city assessment estimates that Operation Metro Surge caused at least $203.1 million in economic and community impact in just one month. Small businesses in our city reported losses of up to $81 million in January alone. We are already in an economic crisis, with tourism revenue dropping and hospitality jobs disappearing.
The irony of the Council’s “pro-worker” stance is particularly sharp here. Members claim to be protecting hotel staff, yet they voted to jeopardize the revenue streams that pay those workers’ wages. Revoking a liquor license from a major venue like The Depot doesn’t hurt federal agents—it hurts the restaurant staff, the housekeepers, and the vendors who rely on that business to survive. You cannot claim to support the workforce while simultaneously voting to eliminate their jobs.
Moreover, the city is currently facing a critical police staffing shortage, with the Minneapolis Police Department reportedly 119 officers short of its authorized strength. We rely on federal partnerships for intelligence and specialized task forces to combat the fentanyl crisis—a poison that was involved in 91% of opioid deaths in our county last year. To actively obstruct federal law enforcement is to tell the cartels and traffickers that Minneapolis is “open for business” without federal interference.
Jurisdictional Arrogance
There is a profound arrogance in a local Council attempting to dictate national security policy while basic municipal services are failing. Residents are tired of seeing their leaders prioritize national activist roles over fixing potholes, improving transit safety, or addressing the 8% tax hike.
Minneapolis is a municipality, not a sovereign nation-state. The City Council has zero authority to dismantle federal agencies, yet they are willing to burn bridges with federal partners to score points on social media. This is not progress; it is an abdication of duty. Our leaders were elected to manage a city, not to lead a guerrilla war against the federal government.
A Call for Governance over Performative Activism
The time for symbolic theater is over. Minneapolis needs a stable regulatory framework that invites investment and protects the jobs of our residents. We need a Council that understands the difference between a local budget and a national platform.
The City Council must reject the impulse to use administrative power as a political weapon. Our elected officials need to stop the performative posturing and return to the tedious, arduous work of running a city. The residents of Minneapolis are paying for leadership; it is time they actually received some. The city needs a government that prioritizes street lights over slogans and safety over symbolism. It is time to grow up and govern.
I’m ok punishing businesses that serve the gestapo. I assume David would rather let them operate because they are a business is a sacred thing that we must protect at all costs
“Counterpoint: The Holocaust is not your ICE metaphor” – https://www.startribune.com/mn-ice-immigration-enforcement-antisemitism-ww2/601585141?utm_source=gift
I was very concerned when I heard that the Mpls City Council was considering discontinuing liquor licenses because a business may or may not have had Federal Agents as their customers. The thought that could have been even possible to consider is alarming. Feels very corrupt and punitive. I hope city residents can vote better than this in the future
Even though the “Palmvilles” – the voices of reason on the city council – rounded up 8 votes to defeat the attempt to withhold liquor licenses, a concern remains that wasn’t mentioned in Mr. Tinjum’s thorough essay. This is one more, highly-visible, event that signals to businesses contemplating operating or expanding in Minneapolis that it’s a risky place for their investment. If business decision-makers can’t know what crazy anti-business action the city council might take next, then are they going to put millions or tens of millions of dollars at risk when they have plenty of other far more stable options, in communities that would welcome their presence.
To the extent businesses choose not to operate here, the tax burden on homeowners becomes that much greater – twice as much, actually, since commercial property is taxed at about double the rate of residential property.
I would suggest that readers check out Anna Swenson’s much more thorough and balanced articles. She points out facts – specifically testimony by hotel employees about safety concerns caused by the violent ICE agents at the hotels- which undermine Tinjum’s claim that the progressive city council members were just being performative and lacked any legal justification.
Further Tinjum’s attack on calls to abolish ICE reveals his desire to protect the status quo overrides any concerns about fairness or justice. He probably would have not wanted to abolish the [Redacted for incivility] because some of their targets might have been criminals.
For our readers, here’s a link to Anna Swenson’s article https://minneapolistimes.com/council-majority-rejects-political-use-of-licensing-power-in-8-5-hotel-vote/
Sorry, not enough in the country would support that there be no federal agency or dept in charge of immigration enforcement, so in effect open borders. Be it ICE/ DHS ( which are most definitely tarnished names now under the Trump Admin…but weren’t under the Obama Admin) or be it I N S, ( from the past) or some other new name, it will continue.
Just like calls for Abolishing and Defunding the Police, the Abolish ICE messaging simply serves to leave in place, exactly, the wrong folks in change of a country, state, city etc, but some will keep doing this anyway…not connecting the dots, but maybe they do not care.
In this New York Times piece with Mayor Frey…
“The Minnesota Democrat on the battle between his city and the federal government.”
https://www.nytimes.com/2026/01/31/magazine/jacob-frey-interview.html?unlocked_article_code=1.I1A.Dsk-.hz7ijo_Bncw6&smid=em-share
Below Frey’s response to the “Abolish ICE” question..
Excerpt…. ” But unless the argument is that we should get rid of immigration law entirely, which I do not agree with, then you do need some mechanism to enforce. You obviously need to change the personnel and the conduct, which has been egregious. But outside of that, do I favor just getting rid of all immigration and customs enforcement? No, I don’t.”