Better Minneapolis Podcast

Democrats, both nationally and here in Minnesota, have a long-standing tendency to divide and conquer themselves. That dynamic is once again on display in the debate over immigration enforcement, where slogans like “Abolish ICE” are embraced by some and viewed by others as politically damaging, especially with midterms approaching.

This tension surfaced locally on Tuesday, when Brooklyn Park Police Chief Mark Bruley led a press conference calling on Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) to halt practices that amount to racial profiling. Officers described ICE agents stopping Black and brown residents on the street and demanding proof of legal status, tactics that have reportedly even been used against off-duty police officers. There is little dispute that such actions raise serious constitutional concerns. Documentation of these incidents has further eroded public trust in immigration enforcement and, by extension, in Republicans who defend these methods.

At the same time, Chief Bruley was careful to draw a distinction that many Democrats struggle to accept. He opened the press conference by saying:

You won’t hear rhetoric of ‘Abolish ICE’ or that there shouldn’t be immigration enforcement. The truth is, immigration enforcement is necessary for our national security and for local security. How it’s done is extremely important.

The distinction between the need for immigration enforcement and the manner in which it is carried out is where internal Democratic divisions become most pronounced. Some activists argue that ICE has become so abusive that it must be dismantled entirely, rallying behind slogans like “No one is illegal on stolen land.” Others, including many more moderate Democrats, call for reform while maintaining that immigration laws still need to be enforced. These more incremental voices are often attacked from within their own party, even as they reflect the views of a majority of Americans who support both secure borders and humane enforcement.

This divide was captured succinctly by Elaine Godfrey in The Atlantic:

A growing number of Americans disagree with how the agency is handling its mission. But where many Democrats hear “Abolish ICE” as a righteous call to action, others in the party register the clanging of alarm bells. These anxious Democrats believe that such a maximalist demand plays directly into Republicans’ hands by making the party seem unserious about immigration.

For Democrats trying to rebuild trust with swing voters and maintain a governing majority, the challenge is not whether to criticize ICE’s conduct—but how to do so without signaling that enforcement itself is off the table. On that question, the party remains deeply divided, and those divisions are increasingly visible well beyond Minnesota.

How Much Is Too Much?

The protest action that took place Sunday at Cities Church in St. Paul offers a vivid example of the fault lines running through the Democratic coalition. Some activists, including Nekima Levy Armstrong (formerly Pounds), a prominent figure in the Black Lives Matter movement, defended the action because meaningful protest is meant to make people uncomfortable. Others argued that targeting a house of worship crosses an important line. The episode highlights a lack of shared standards within the DFL-led resistance to ICE and risks eroding the goodwill that has, so far, largely favored Democrats.

This debate over tactics is not new. In his 2021 nonfiction book How to Blow Up a Pipeline, Swedish climate activist Andreas Malm challenges the near-universal commitment to nonviolence in progressive movements. Malm argues that climate change is advancing too quickly for gradual, nonviolent protest alone to avert ecological collapse. From that perspective, he contends that direct action against fossil-fuel infrastructure, such as pipelines, is morally justified given the scale of the threat and the human suffering at stake.

We’ve been thinking about Malm’s argument in light of recent social media images showing armed residents positioning themselves to deter ICE from their neighborhoods. Our opposition to this approach is both philosophical and practical. History suggests that attempting to prevent violence by threatening even greater violence rarely ends well. De-escalation has been a guiding principle in Minneapolis since the murder of George Floyd; armed standoffs with federal agents move sharply in the opposite direction.

There is also a hard political reality to consider. When confronted with the overwhelming force of the federal government, these tactics are likely to end in arrest, or worse, without generating the broader public support needed to achieve the underlying goal: changing ICE’s practices and reducing its presence. In fact, armed civilian resistance could make it easier for Trump to justify sending federal troops into the city.

Debates over protest methods are worth having. For some, throwing paint on the yachts of the ultra-wealthy to highlight environmental damage is an acceptable form of disruption; others see it as symbolic but ineffective. These disagreements mirror a larger conflict now playing out in Congress. A bipartisan funding bill would continue ICE’s roughly $10 billion budget, with the backing of Democrats who want agents to wear body cameras and receive additional training. For many on the front lines of protests in Minneapolis and elsewhere, that support feels like a betrayal. They want ICE defunded entirely.

The challenge is that these maximalist demands do not reflect a consensus view. Many Americans, including many Democrats, still believe there should be an agency responsible for enforcing immigration laws. As Chief Bruley put it, the central question is not whether enforcement exists, but how it is carried out. Until Democrats can agree on where to draw that line, internal conflicts over protest tactics risk overshadowing the very reforms they are trying to achieve.

Preparing for the Midterm Battle

On Tuesday evening, the Department of Justice announced it had subpoenaed Gov. Tim Walz, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, and St. Paul Mayor Kaohly Her, alleging that their public statements interfered with federal immigration operations. How local leaders respond to this development—and to the protests scheduled later this week—will matter greatly. Moments like this call for a unifying message. Fragmenting the party in an effort to force ideological purity, without agreement on shared goals, only weakens Democrats and invites Republican attacks. Internal debate is healthy, but eventually it must give way to a coherent strategy for immigration policy and for resisting the Trump administration at the ballot box.

If Democrats hope to flip the House in the upcoming midterms, they will need alignment on both tactics and messaging around ICE. Should “Abolish ICE” become the dominant message in Minnesota, there is concern that the party could see a similar loss of support to what occurred when “Defund the Police” emerged as a slogan after George Floyd’s murder. If Democrats adopt this language, they will be forced to answer difficult questions about who, exactly, is responsible for immigration enforcement and how that enforcement should function.

Minnesota’s sanctuary status already prevents state and local law enforcement from enforcing federal immigration law. It is unlikely that a majority of voters support eliminating enforcement, and even if such a position gained traction here, it would almost certainly push swing voters toward Republicans nationally. A Republican victory would be framed by Trump as an endorsement of his immigration agenda, emboldening him to escalate even further.

There is much at stake in how Minnesota meets this moment. Targeting individual ICE employees, such as the pastor at Cities Church, risks turning principled opposition to unjust policies into what looks like personal retribution. When that happens, public sentiment shifts from discomfort to outright opposition. Similarly, adopting the imagery and tactics of armed groups may energize a small base but is likely to alienate far more people than it persuades.

The anger and frustration surfacing across Minnesota are real and understandable. But if those emotions dictate strategy, any progress achieved will be fleeting. Lasting change requires building consensus around a shared objective. Allowing the loudest and angriest voices to set the tone all but guarantees a backlash that undermines the cause itself.

At the same time, there are encouraging signs. Across the state, neighbors are supporting neighbors through mutual aid efforts and acts of solidarity aimed at countering ICE’s most aggressive tactics. The question is whether Democrats can sustain and expand that goodwill or instead squander it through internal conflict. The DFL caucuses on February 3 will likely be the first real test of local alignment and may help shape Democrats’ chances of reclaiming a House majority nationally.

If the DFL hopes to contribute meaningfully to a broader Democratic wave in November, it will need to resolve its internal battles soon.

If interested in advertising, email [email protected]

To message us through the Signal app, use bttrmpls.33

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.betterminneapolis.com/subscribe

Some online commentators have mocked Gov. Tim Walz for calling Minnesota an “island of decency” and urging people to “protect each other.” Many on the left believe Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey should be doing more to confront the federal government, arguing that strong statements and aggressive tweets are not enough. Social media has been filled with videos demanding that Frey and Walz “grow a spine” and take action. Critics scoff at Frey’s refusal to support abolishing ICE. They voice their anger at the Hennepin County Sheriff for extinguishing the warming fires at the Whipple Building while doing nothing to stop federal agents.

At the same time, the prospect of MPD or the National Guard entering into direct armed conflict with federal agents terrifies many residents. Such a confrontation could prompt President Trump to invoke the Insurrection Act and place federal troops in our streets.

While some on the left argue city and state leaders haven’t gone far enough, the Department of Justice has announced investigations into Walz and Frey for potential violations of a conspiracy statute. The claim is that their public statements impeded immigration enforcement. Others fear that the conflict unfolding in Minnesota is being staged as a precursor to eliminating midterm elections.

It’s difficult to assess how likely that scenario is. What seems more plausible is a wave of investigations into Minnesota’s election systems, particularly mail-in voting and vouching. The groundwork is being laid to question the legitimacy of our elections. Trump has been eager to find a justification for removing Rep. Ilhan Omar from office.

Optics Are Everything to Trump

The number of “influencers” and “independent creators” who have descended on Minneapolis is striking. Some are genuinely documenting what they view as illegal actions by ICE agents. Others appear intent on provoking conflict to promote the narrative that observers and protesters are paid instigators.

ICE has allowed favored media outlets to participate in ride-alongs. When Jonathan Ross shot Renee Good, he was recording video. Trump has encouraged ICE to document more of their actions for social media distribution. What some view as abhorrent or illegal behavior is celebrated by others. Violent clashes and chaos are good for those who make a living from online engagement.

How these outlets label people, whether as observers, protesters, or paid instigators, often signals exactly who their audience is.

Christian Paz described the right-wing influencer ecosystem for Vox this way:

They filmed protests; rode along with Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection; documented—and at times seemingly instigated—confrontations with protesters; and worked a competing, ICE- and Trump-friendly narrative out of what was happening in Minneapolis. From the ground, they churned out content painting protesters as lawless, demonstrations as riots, and anti-ICE activists as extremists or criminals. Outside of the state, right-wing influencers and large social media accounts amplified these videos to reach much wider audiences.

Figures like Nick Sortor and Eric Daugherty have been particularly effective at pushing the ICE-aligned version of events into the broader public discourse. According to online engagement statistics, while left-leaning influencers initially dominated in the day and a half following Good’s shooting, right-wing accounts quickly narrowed the gap.

Paz notes that “left-leaning creators and critics are at a disadvantage online in competing with this flood of content.” If that assessment is correct, it helps explain why local media and creators struggle to reach a national audience. There simply isn’t comparable funding or infrastructure on the left to manufacture viral narratives at scale.

We highlight the role of right-wing influencers not to legitimize them, but to emphasize that the media frenzy unfolding here is part of a coordinated spin campaign. The administration is waging a public-relations war. Images of ransacked vehicles and stolen documents after the shooting of a Venezuelan man in the leg are highly desired fodder for that machine. The FBI is now offering a $100,000 reward for information leading to arrests.

Already, online speculation has surfaced alleging involvement by a trans activist. Whether true or not, that claim will circulate widely—and if it’s wrong, it will never be corrected with the same intensity. Disinformation takes on a life of its own. While many left-leaning creators strive for accuracy, many on the right do not feel bound by the same standards.

Winning the Long Game

As more time passes since the murder of George Floyd, public memory of what followed continues to shift. The term “riot” is now used far more comfortably than “uprising.” On Saturday, conservative influencer and January 6 rioter Jake Lang attempted to hold a “March Against Minnesota Fraud” downtown. He was forced into a City Hall window well after counter-protesters hit him with water balloons.

We haven’t yet seen how that moment is being framed online, but experience suggests the story will vary dramatically depending on who you follow and which outlets you consume.

We support resistance to ICE’s illegal tactics and deeply value the mutual aid neighbors have shown one another. The focus must remain on ICE’s actions and the violence they perpetrate. Winning the public-relations battle is part of that resistance. If public opinion begins to erode Trump’s approval rating, federal agents may withdraw from Minnesota.

Right now, national sentiment appears sympathetic to the anti-ICE narrative. That support is fragile. Once attention shifts from ICE’s conduct to disputes over who instigated confrontations between observers and agents, the narrative can change quickly.

When Walz says, “Don’t take the bait,” we believe he’s right. He’s warning against the temptation to unleash anger without considering the consequences. What’s happening in Minnesota could become more than a single moment of resistance—it could be the beginning of a movement. For that movement to be sustainable, anger must be harnessed and directed into actions that undermine, rather than reinforce, the administration’s preferred storyline.

Ten minutes of unfiltered rage can become ten minutes you regret for the rest of your life.

Hate is exhausting. It’s heavy, and the longer it’s carried, the more it weighs you down. Jake Lang came to Minneapolis fueled by hate, seeking attention, clicks, and validation. He succeeded in generating engagement. But the risk facing the resistance is believing in a “right” or justified hatred. Once actions are driven by hatred, they begin to look indistinguishable, especially when flattened into a one-minute social-media clip.

Many beautiful things are happening across our city. Neighbors are meeting for the first time through chat groups and volunteer efforts. Trust is being built. Those connections are durable and will serve Minneapolis long after this moment passes. They may not go viral, but they deny others the opportunity to weaponize our anger against us.

Some may react skeptically to the idea of considering optics while standing in the streets. But this is the reality of modern politics. It is not enough for actions to be just; they must also be perceived as just. Public perception ultimately determines the outcome of elections.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.betterminneapolis.com/subscribe

Introduction

As we were preparing this interview, several U.S. attorneys in Minnesota’s federal prosecutor’s office unexpectedly resigned, including First Assistant U.S. Attorney Joe Thompson, the lead prosecutor in the high-profile human services fraud cases. Their departures came amid internal disputes over how the office should handle the federal investigation into the killing of Minneapolis resident Renee Good. Reports say a directive from newly appointed U.S. Attorney Dan Rosen, instructing staff not to discuss the investigation with police or the press, along with decisions to limit the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension’s involvement, played a role in their decisions to resign.

We publish twice a week, so fast-breaking news, especially when developments come every few hours, doesn’t always make it into the newsletter. Many readers have told us they struggle to know which updates to trust, particularly as social media fills with conflicting accounts about the shooting and the subsequent investigation. We encourage readers to be critical of sources and to verify facts before sharing.

We’re also concerned about the tone of coverage coming from some corners of social media and local discourse, where heated commentary, including from some public officials, risks inflaming fear and panic. Calls for direct law enforcement action against ICE agents add another layer of tension to a situation that already feels tenuous. Grounded, fact-based reporting and calm civic discussion are especially important right now as the community seeks clarity and justice.

A second reason many of the federal prosecutors resigned was reportedly pressure from Justice Department leadership to investigate Renee Good’s wife in connection with the fatal ICE shooting in Minneapolis. President Donald Trump and senior administration officials’ public defense of the ICE agent’s actions and framing of the incident has further inflamed tensions and made it harder to predict how the situation will unfold.

This week, Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty and Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison announced a lawsuit against the Department of Homeland Security, challenging the large federal law enforcement presence in the state and seeking to limit further deployment of ICE agents. Their filing argues that the surge of federal personnel has strained local resources and heightened community tensions; if successful, the lawsuit could restrict or remove those agents. Analysts, however, say such legal claims face significant hurdles under federal law.

These events, federal prosecutors resigning and state officials taking legal and investigative steps, have cast new attention on the Hennepin County Attorney’s office at a moment when national and local conversations about law enforcement, immigration enforcement, and prosecutorial accountability are highly charged. It underscores for many readers why paying attention to local races and the philosophies of candidates for county attorney matters not just for day-to-day crime policy but for broader justice issues that resonate statewide.

Caucuses to select delegates for party endorsement will be on February 3, 2026 at 7:00 p. m. The Secretary of State will publish their caucus finder on January 14. https://www.sos.mn.gov/elections-voting/how-elections-work/precinct-caucuses/

Interview Summary with Hao Nguyen

Hao Nguyen shares a deeply personal immigrant story that shapes his approach to public service. Born in Vietnam and raised in the aftermath of the Vietnam War, Nguyen came to the U.S. as a refugee after multiple failed escape attempts and years in refugee camps. Sponsored by a Catholic parish in St. Cloud, his family arrived with nothing, and he began his American education learning English in a public school basement. Nguyen says public assistance, public schools, and dedicated teachers gave him the foundation to succeed and a responsibility to give back.

Professionally, Nguyen brings a résumé that spans nearly every level of the criminal justice system. He has worked as a corrections officer, a police officer, and for the past 15 years as a prosecutor, handling cases ranging from misdemeanors to homicide and sexual assault. Currently, he serves in a senior leadership role at the Ramsey County Attorney’s Office, where he supervises major trial and appellate divisions and evaluates all officer-involved shootings in the county. Nguyen argued that his experience managing major cases and large teams qualifies him to lead Hennepin County’s attorney’s office.

On policy, Nguyen repeatedly stressed a case-by-case approach rooted in both the law and human judgment. He argued against sweeping prosecution policies driven solely by statistics, instead favoring careful analysis of facts, victims’ needs, public safety, and accountability. While open to restorative justice in appropriate cases, he emphasized that serious violent crimes, whether committed by adults or youth, require firm accountability. Nguyen also highlighted the importance of rebuilding trust and communication between prosecutors, law enforcement, and communities, describing himself as a “bridge builder” who prioritizes transparency, accessibility, and respect over ideology or ego.

To learn more about Hao Nguyen, visit hao4hennepin.com

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.betterminneapolis.com/subscribe

Francis Shen Interview Summary

In this wide-ranging interview, Francis Shen introduces himself as a nontraditional candidate for Hennepin County Attorney, grounded less in courtroom litigation and more in systems thinking, neuroscience, and innovation. Raised in a Catholic family with roots in both Chinese and Irish heritage, Shen traces his path from Jesuit education to the University of Chicago and Harvard, where he completed both a JD and a PhD. His career ultimately led him to the University of Minnesota, where he now runs the NeuroLaw Lab and works at the intersection of law, brain science, and ethics. That background, he argues, uniquely positions him to rethink how the justice system understands human behavior—and why people commit harm in the first place.

Shen frames his campaign around a central critique: the current justice system isn’t merely underperforming, it’s obsolete. He points to low clearance rates for violent and property crimes in Minneapolis as evidence of what he calls growing “lawlessness,” arguing that the justice equation breaks down if crimes are not reliably solved. To address this, he emphasizes rebuilding trust between prosecutors, police, and communities, while also utilizing technology strategically, particularly artificial intelligence, to enhance investigations and allocate resources more effectively. Rather than viewing AI as futuristic or optional, Shen presents it as unavoidable, insisting that the real question is whether it will be used ethically, transparently, and competently.

The final portion of the interview centers on Shen’s three core priorities: focused deterrence to reduce serious violence, responsible integration of AI across the justice system, and a more individualized, neuroscience-informed approach to prosecution and sentencing. He argues that understanding why someone committed a crime, whether driven by addiction, immaturity, desperation, or repeated disregard for community norms, should shape how the system responds. This philosophy extends to youth justice, where Shen supports developmentally appropriate interventions but resists one-size-fits-all leniency. Throughout, he returns to a consistent theme: being “smart and precise” on crime, centering victims and community trust, and redesigning the system to prevent harm from happening again, rather than simply reacting after the fact.

You can find more information about Francis Shen at: shenforsafety.org.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.betterminneapolis.com/subscribe

The Revolution Will Be Live Streamed

Minneapolis became the epicenter of national attention this week after Renee Good was shot and killed by an ICE officer. The killing sparked immediate outrage, intensified by the federal government’s self-serving interpretation of what occurred and by the rapid arrival of media figures and online personalities from around the country. What began as a local tragedy quickly spiraled into a national spectacle.

Renee Good’s death on January 8 sent a shockwave outward. Her family and the bystanders who witnessed her killing felt the impact first, followed by friends, neighbors, and the broader community she was part of. From there, the grief spread across the city and beyond. It is far too soon to understand the full consequences of her killing. Right now, it feels as though we are watching a tsunami form on the horizon, aware of its power, but uncertain how devastating it will be when it finally reaches shore.

As the shock spread, Minneapolis was flooded with cameras and livestreams. We became aware of media outlets we had never heard of until they began broadcasting live scenes from the streets, interviewing protesters, offering legal analysis, and dissecting video footage in real time. Among them was Lindell TV, an online outlet launched by the Republican candidate for governor, which began as FrankSpeech.com in 2021 and rebranded in February 2025. The demand for raw footage of every confrontation, protest, and government action is enormous, and many are looking to profit from the tragic events unfolding here. In this environment, the line between journalism and content creation has blurred to the point where “news media” now often means anyone with a phone and a following.

Against this backdrop, Mayor Frey has asked media outlets to bring credentials to press conferences, a decision that reflects the confusion over who is reporting in good faith and who is simply chasing engagement. What constitutes legitimate media has become an open question, even as the city struggles to communicate clearly during a moment of crisis.

The sense of instability deepened when Governor Walz announced on television that he was activating the National Guard. Watching that announcement, we found ourselves wondering whether we were witnessing the beginning of a larger confrontation between blue states and the federal government. We have entered uncharted territory. The constant stream of content creators speculating loudly about what comes next is just that—speculation. No one truly knows where this leads.

Saturday morning, helicopters circled overhead because thousands were gathered to protest in nearby Powderhorn Park. We don’t know whether the helicopters carry oppressors or protectors, and the uncertainty itself is unsettling. The collective trauma Minneapolis experienced after George Floyd’s murder has been reawakened. Each new image of police in riot gear, ICE agents tackling protesters, or clouds of pepper spray deepens the dread and raises the same unresolved question: how does a heavily armed conflict like this end? At the moment, few leaders are offering clear off-ramps toward calm and stability.

On January 10, the city reported that the Minneapolis Police Department, the Minnesota State Patrol, and the Minnesota Department of Natural Resources arrested 30 protesters during a downtown march for blocking roadways and damaging property. Officials urged people to protest peacefully. The list of what they cannot do includes throwing objects, blocking roadways, starting fires, damaging property, or using fireworks and weapons. Mayor Frey, who has emerged as a national spokesperson for the city through frequent podcast and television appearances, released a statement saying, “We are standing up to Donald Trump’s chaos not with our own brand of chaos, but with care and unity.”

Still, the use of the DNR for law enforcement does little to inspire confidence, particularly as the city and state face a far larger and heavily armed ICE presence. There are reportedly 2,000 ICE agents in Minneapolis, with more expected to arrive. Residents are unsettled by not knowing when ICE will leave, or under what conditions. Compounding that unease, the federal government has sidelined state authorities in the investigation into Good’s killing, raising serious doubts about whether justice will be served under the current administration.

On January 9, Hennepin County Attorney Mary Moriarty and Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison held a press conference announcing an independent review into the shooting. Candidate Francis Shen also released a statement, which we discussed in our interview with him. These developments raise difficult questions about the limits of state and local authority and how, if at all, they can resist federal power. They are questions about the functioning of the republic itself, and far beyond what we expected to grapple with as a local newsletter.

Our mood right now is one of sadness and trepidation. We mourn Renee Good and grieve with her family. We recognize the fear and vulnerability our immigrant neighbors are experiencing amid the ICE presence. We worry about the administration’s apparent willingness to press the country toward civil conflict. We are deeply concerned about the psychological toll this constant stream of violent imagery is taking on our community, especially on children, and about how difficult it is to explain these events to them.

We are also concerned that what is happening in Minneapolis will draw people from outside the city and state who see this moment as an opportunity to sow chaos and cause harm. To those choosing to protest or observe, we urge you to stay safe.

As always, you can contact us at: [email protected] or on the Signal app at bttrmpls.33

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.betterminneapolis.com/subscribe

Just hours before Minneapolis’ newly elected City Council convened for its first meeting, Governor Tim Walz announced he would not seek a third term. The decision immediately reshaped the state’s political landscape and underscored how volatile the moment has become.

That volatility was also evident inside City Hall. What might have been a routine organizational meeting instead revealed deep mistrust between council members. Tensions flared over committee assignments and the creation of new leadership roles, early signals that governing this term may be anything but smooth.

State of the State: Observations

Before turning to the Minneapolis City Council’s first meeting of the year, it’s worth pausing to consider what Governor Walz’s decision not to seek a third term may signal here and beyond Minnesota.

* Republicans across the nation will take what’s happened in Minnesota and try to use it to their advantage in their home states. Ohio is seeing an influx of citizen fraud investigators. If Democrats thought they had a chance of picking up a Senate seat in Ohio, they can forget it. Polymarket is predicting a 61% chance that the Republican candidate, likely Vivek Ramaswamy, wins. In the last video we saw, the YouTuber who made the fraud issue a viral phenomenon was wearing a Polymarket sweatshirt. One of his sponsors appears to be the company, which makes sense, given that his videos seem capable of changing the odds and outcomes of elections.

* The state DFL created a fissure when it shut down the local Minneapolis DFL. Now, it must prove its relevance across the state. How will it argue that the fraud that has been reported on — and ignored — for the last decade shouldn’t be viewed as a disqualifying factor for all of its candidates? A network of fraud proliferated in Minnesota because of many enablers within the party. If the DFL retains its current chair, Richard Carlbom, it will be a sign that the party wants to wash the windows and leave the inside in its current state. He was reportedly the one who convinced Walz he could win a third term.

* Good governance requires a strong local media ecosystem. We’re witnessing many local reporters and publications defend their coverage of fraud. They are baffled by how one YouTube video could instigate the type of change that multiple reports from local outlets could not.

First, this YouTuber was categorically not “independent.” His visit was orchestrated. A more accurate description would be political operative rather than independent journalist. Second, elected DFL officials have grown accustomed to ignoring the local media and can bristle when their statements are questioned. Third, there are more layers of government in Minnesota than there are investigative reporters to cover them. There are the Hennepin and Ramsey County Boards, the Metropolitan Council, the Park Board, the state legislature, and city governments, all of which have subcommittees.

The relatively small number of people reporting on their actions means that many important decisions never see the light of day. If you want to see good government, we encourage you to support local media.

Elliott Payne Wastes No Time Asserting His Authority as Council President

The council is taking a few days to discuss priorities and goals for 2026. We hope this time will serve to reset the tone established in the opening meeting. Susan Du described it well in her Star Tribune article, “Progressive majority on Minneapolis City Council asserts control in first meeting of the year.”

As predicted, Elliott Payne was reelected as council president in an 8–5 vote. It was an early indicator that the divisions witnessed in 2025 will carry over into 2026. Proclamations of working together evaporated quickly. For reasons known only to council members, Aisha Chughtai lost her position as council Vice President and was replaced by Jamal Osman. It’s possible her public denunciation of Mayor Frey at a campaign rally played a role.

Osman’s elevation, however, is yet another sign of how little this council appears to be concerned about fraud, waste, and abuse. His connections to Aimee Bock, the transfer of his company, Stigma-Free International, to men later convicted of fraud, and the shutdown of his wife’s nonprofit due to fraud seem to be of no consequence to the voters of Ward 6 or to the majority of council members who voted him in as Vice President. Osman will chair the Business, Housing & Zoning Committee. Chowdhury will serve as vice chair.

The accusations and distrust were most evident when Payne introduced the new positions of majority and minority leader. Several council members raised questions, saying they did not understand the purpose or meaning of the new titles. It was a clear sign that more moderate members had been shut out of the deliberations. New Ward 4 council member Pearll Warren was not shy about voicing her opposition, labeling Payne’s actions as “inconsiderate.” Council Member Palmisano also voiced her misgivings, saying, “President Payne, you put the four DSA-ascribed members on everything. This is overrepresentation. I think this is a really poor start, and it shows a lack of leadership.”

Ward 7 residents will have noticed that their newly elected council member, Elizabeth Shaffer, was initially shut out of committee assignments. It took an objection vote to have her assigned as vice chair of the Budget Committee, where Chughtai will remain chair. Shaffer presented her qualifications for the committee and stated that, despite the snub, she remained committed to working with all of her colleagues. She said she did not want one meeting to dictate interactions over the next four years. We hope those intentions are not suffocated by the ambitions of her colleagues.

The role of Majority Leader was given to Chughtai in what appeared to be a conciliatory gesture after she was replaced by Jamal Osman as council vice president. The Minority Leader position was given to Wonsley, who described the role as representing city residents who voted for Democratic Socialists (DSA) candidates in the last election.

Chowdhury noted that the DSA is not an official political party in Minnesota, a distinction that will likely continue to frustrate residents until the DFL either finds a way to formally incorporate DSA-aligned members or they are compelled to form a party of their own.

Once the council settles on clear definitions for the new Majority and Minority Leader positions, we hope Council President Payne will accept our invitation to return to the podcast. Many people, both inside the newly remodeled council chamber and outside it, are curious how these roles are meant to function.

The next four years may feel very long if each council meeting is as contentious as this first one. Once again, elections have consequences. We hope the soul-searching now underway within the DFL includes a serious look at electoral reform.

If you’re interested in advertising, please contact: [email protected]

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.betterminneapolis.com/subscribe

Are you ready for the new year?

Saturday morning, the U. S. invaded Venezuela and removed its leader. The federal government is withholding money intended for childcare and small businesses in Minnesota. Locally, Mayor Frey and the newly elected City Council will be sworn in on Monday, followed by the council’s first meeting on Tuesday. We expect the council to elect Jamal Osman as Vice President despite his well-documented connections to fraud.

The DFL Doesn't Get It

If you were fortunate enough to spend the holidays away from Minnesota’s snow and ice, you may have missed that we became the center of outrage in America.

Of course, you would have had to leave your phone at home and avoid the news entirely to be unaware that a well-known right-wing scandalmonger visited Minneapolis and produced a 42-minute video alleging widespread fraud among Somali-run daycare centers. The video was then amplified by the richest man on earth using his X platform, ensuring that more than 142 million people could share in the outrage, directed not just at lax oversight by the Minnesota government, but at the Somali community broadly.

Welcome to 2026.

Rage Bait is Oxford’s Word of the Year, a term for content designed to provoke anger or outrage to capture attention. Accuracy is secondary. Consequences are an afterthought. What matters is engagement.

Minnesota has just experienced a masterclass in how this works. The effects will linger. Already, the federal government is delaying funds intended for subsidized childcare and small business lending. In the process, legitimate and illegitimate businesses alike are swept up together, punished not by evidence but by perception.

The daycare video at the center of this moment highlighted the most inflammatory details, framed the story as a moral emergency, and demanded an immediate emotional response. Sincere civic understanding was never the goal.

Since its release, copycat content has followed, along with threats against immigrant-owned businesses in Minnesota and beyond. Efforts to explain the video’s flaws or add nuance have struggled to compete because explanation rarely travels as fast as outrage.

When people feel deceived or taken advantage of, anger comes easily. Complex issues are simplified. Conservative media have been quick to supply clear targets for our emotional reaction: Governor Tim Walz and Minnesota’s Somali community. If they are successful at harnessing this anger, Minnesota will end up with someone like Lisa Demuth, Republican Speaker of the House, as governor. Demuth took credit for providing the “independent journalist” with the list of daycare providers to visit.

Why Did This Video Strike a Nerve?

Over the holidays, we received several calls from friends and family who live outside Minnesota. They checked in, wished us well, and then got to the real question. What did we think of the daycare video? And is the fraud really as bad as it claims?

Our first instinct was defensive. No one likes seeing their home reduced to a viral indictment. But we had to acknowledge that the video tapped into a real and longstanding problem.

Minnesota legislators built social service programs with too little attention to how they might be abused. Agencies tasked with oversight failed to keep pace as costs ballooned. Some providers took advantage of weak controls. And when rapid growth in program spending should have triggered alarm bells, state government, including DFL leadership, responded slowly, if at all.

What made the moment especially jarring is that none of what was reported in the video was new. Variations of these issues have been reported on for more than a decade by local journalists. Yet when the video surfaced, it appeared to catch officials flat-footed, not because the problem was unknown, but because it had never been confronted with urgency.

There are several reasons the video spread as quickly and widely as it did. Politics is the most obvious. The creator did not arrive in Minnesota out of a sudden concern for taxpayers or childcare policy. His work fits a familiar political pattern: targeting a Democratic governor in a closely divided state, amplifying allegations that inflame cultural tensions, and releasing the content into a media ecosystem designed to reward outrage.

The video was rapidly promoted across Elon Musk’s X platform, Fox News, and a network of right-leaning outlets that specialize in this kind of escalation. Minnesota is competitive terrain, and Republicans are eager to put the state in play ahead of the November midterms, when voters will decide whether Governor Tim Walz deserves a third term.

None of this will surprise regular observers of modern media. Conservatives have built a highly effective outrage machine. Their ability to generate and sustain anger far exceeds that of the left, whose moments of mass protest or attention, like the recent “No Kings” rallies, tend to flare briefly and fade.

By contrast, conservative media delivers a steady drumbeat of simplified narratives: anti-immigrant, anti-liberal, anti-regulatory, and pro-gun. These messages are reinforced daily through outlets backed by billionaire patrons, creating an ecosystem where rage is not a byproduct, but the business model.

The left faces a structural disadvantage when trying to counter a well-funded media ecosystem that is optimized to discredit its ideas. Fact-based reporting, careful language, and an avoidance of emotional manipulation rarely go viral. Outrage does.

A recent example illustrates the imbalance. On December 17, the Associated Press reported on a billion-dollar fraud committed by executives at Tricolor Holdings, a subprime auto lender. The scheme involved fabricated data and false statements, the same core allegations leveled against some social service providers. Yet the story generated no viral videos, no outrage podcasts, and no citizen journalists knocking on executives’ doors. It landed, as business news often does, with a dull thud.

Moral Instruction Rarely Works

The left also undermines itself through its own messaging. Too often, it relies on academic language and moral instruction to describe everyday human behavior. People discriminate by religion, language, race, class, sex, and nationality, and while it deserves examination, lecturing people rarely changes it. More often, it drives prejudice underground rather than eliminating it.

A more durable approach might emphasize equal standards and shared obligations, respect and tolerance, rather than performative displays of solidarity. When white politicians show up at the Karmel Mall in hijabs to show solidarity with Muslims or eat spicy food with their hands until they are ready to cry, everyone can see it for what it is: pandering. That perception makes it easier for critics to argue that programs are designed to favor certain groups while overlooking misuse or abuse.

This pandering is where the left creates its own internal tension. They want programs that elevate some groups over others, but also want everyone to be treated as equals. Conservative media is adept at exploiting that contradiction, using the blunt language and emotional shortcuts of reality television to turn complexity into grievance. The DFL and the left in general might give more consideration to supporting programs that are universal in their appeal rather than designed for specific groups. For example, what would a health care system look like that provided care for all residents, regardless of their income? The DFL would garner support across all demographics if it demonstrated backbone when it comes to confronting health insurance companies, providers, and drug companies.

The Paid Family and Medical Leave Program Success Is at Stake

One of the major laws that took effect on January 1 is Minnesota’s Paid Family and Medical Leave Act. The program guarantees eligible workers up to 12 weeks of paid leave for qualifying family or medical events. Because family and medical leave can be used separately, some workers may qualify for up to 20 weeks in a year. To offset the burden on employers, the state also offers loans to businesses that need to cover overtime or hire temporary replacements.

Even before the program officially launched, the state received nearly 12,000 applications. To administer it, Minnesota has hired roughly 345 employees, a sign of the scale and complexity involved. In a moment when fraud and oversight have become central political concerns, this program will be closely watched by people both inside and outside Minnesota. Its success or failure will be judged by how effectively it is run.

If the program is perceived as vulnerable to fraud and abuse, the political consequences could be severe. Governor Tim Walz and the DFL have staked much of their governing philosophy on the ability of the state to manage ambitious social programs. Failure here would give critics fresh rage-bait content and could jeopardize the program before it has a chance to demonstrate its value.

The test for Minnesota in 2026 is practical. Can the state reduce inequality and support workers without unsustainable spending or raising taxes on the middle-class? Can it back legitimate businesses while enforcing clear standards on those that break the rules?

In an era of rage bait, competent, transparent governance may be the state’s most effective defense.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.betterminneapolis.com/subscribe

2025 — A Preview of 2026

When First Assistant U.S. Attorney Joe Thompson talks about being understaffed, given the level of fraud his office is uncovering, we believe him. As we write this, it’s being reported that Rep. James Comer, the Republican chair of the U.S. House Oversight Committee, is expanding his investigation into Minnesota’s social services programs.

For most people outside the legislative process, which is to say, most of us, it’s tough to understand how bills are formed, passed, and ultimately held accountable. Tracing the history of just one program can take weeks of research. That reality helps explain why gathering the evidence needed to prosecute fraud has overwhelmed available investigators.

Recuperative care centers are now one of fourteen areas receiving elevated scrutiny.

The Medicaid-reimbursable recuperative care program appears to have moved through the House Human Services Finance and Policy Committee in February 2021. We first raised concerns about this program years later, when a facility came before the Minneapolis Planning Commission seeking approval at 918 Lake Street. By that point, the program itself had already been authorized at the state level.

The Planning Commission recommended approval, and the City Council followed suit. It was decided that determining whether the facility was being used as a front for fraud was ultimately the state’s responsibility.

The Committee Will Pass Your Bill Now

Anyone can look up the committee members who voted to advance the legislation establishing these facilities. Among them were Rep. Mohamud Noor (60B) and Rep. Kristin Robbins (37A). Robbins is now the Republican chair of the Fraud Prevention and State Agency Oversight Policy Committee and a leading critic of Gov. Tim Walz, as well as a declared candidate for governor herself.

What stands out is not who voted for the bill, but what the bill failed to include. It contained no clear provider qualification standards and no meaningful requirements for auditing or ongoing oversight. Those omissions alone help explain why so many programs approved in good faith later become vulnerable to abuse.

Whether this reflects initial neglect, misplaced trust, or simple legislative overload, many state lawmakers and elected officials bear some responsibility for the wave of fraud investigations now underway.

By the time these programs reach committee hearings their trajectory often seems predetermined. Well-organized interest groups lobby aggressively for passage, testifying to the promise of new programs and the urgency of action. Once a bill clears committee, scrutiny tends to fade. After final passage, oversight frequently disappears altogether.

Cities and counties are now discovering the consequences. The state has a long-standing habit of authorizing new programs and mandates that local governments are then expected to administer, regardless of whether they supported them or whether the funding is sufficient to do the job responsibly.

Omnigigantica

Each year, our state legislature passes massive omnibus bills—enormous clusters of policy that, to the layperson, are about as decipherable as a Rubik’s Cube. This process makes a mockery of Minnesota’s Single Subject Clause, which requires that all provisions in a bill relate to one general topic.

Unless a journalist is especially motivated to dig into these bills, they often pass with little public scrutiny. And even when someone does take the time, the response is predictable: the reporter’s motives are questioned, they’re lumped into one political camp or another, and the work is consumed almost exclusively by readers who already agree with its conclusions.

This is the media culture we’ve allowed to take hold. It is fueled by outrage, and in that environment, facts have become nearly as malleable as fiction.

2026 Will Not Be “Normal”

We’re going to keep pursuing this story even though it isn’t an easy one to tell. It’s layered and complex, and like most people, we’re naturally drawn to stories with clear villains. What we see instead is a chain of decisions, incentives, and omissions that have allowed Minnesota’s benefits system to be exploited.

At the same time, there is no shortage of dubious voices eager to use this mess to spread misinformation and rumors. The result is an information environment so noisy that even engaged readers struggle to tell which stories are worth their attention and which exist solely to generate outrage.

For now, we’re going to step back for a few days, bake cookies, spend time with people we care about, and focus on what brings us joy. The angst will still be there waiting for us in 2026. And if there’s one thing we’re confident about, it’s that next year is likely to bring as much, if not more, turbulence than 2025 did.

We plan to return the first week of January. At that point, Hennepin County Attorney candidates Francis Shen and Hao Nguyen will be sharing their proposed agendas with us. We’ve also invited Tim Walz and Peggy Flanagan to join the conversation, but they’re still considering it.

This is also a terrific time to become a paid subscriber. Your support helps sustain our work into the coming year. It’s increasingly clear that we’re going to need more people willing to write, question, and think seriously about how we fix what has gone badly wrong in this state.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.betterminneapolis.com/subscribe

Brief Overview

As Uptown turns a corner after years of construction and disruption, community leaders and business owners say the neighborhood is showing real signs of life, with new transit, events, and openings drawing people back. But the roundtable made clear that lasting revival will depend on tackling public safety concerns and building stronger, locally driven systems to support businesses and public spaces.

ICE Out

Saturday, December 20, 2025. Thousands of people braved bitter cold and high winds to gather on East Lake Street, protesting “Operation Metro Surge,” a federal immigration enforcement effort that has sparked demonstrations across the city. Like the ongoing protests outside hotels where ICE employees are staying, the rally was intended as a public act of resistance to what many see as an aggressive and punitive deportation strategy.

Minnesota has become a particular target of the Trump administration, and that focus has landed squarely on Governor Tim Walz and Representative Ilhan Omar. Both have been outspoken critics of the President and of expanded immigration enforcement. Their opposition has, in turn, drawn national attention and retaliation from an administration eager to challenge Democratic-led states.

Adding fuel to the fire are high-profile fraud investigations that have shifted from local headlines to national talking points. Trump has repeatedly cited these cases as justification for increased federal scrutiny in Minnesota, folding them into a broader narrative about immigration and government failure. Critics argue that this framing deliberately conflates criminal investigations with entire communities—particularly Minnesota’s large Somali diaspora—in service of a political agenda that goes well beyond fraud enforcement.

It’s impossible to predict what will be happening in Minneapolis when we schedule an interview. Rules—and reactions to them—at the local, state, and national level seem to change almost daily. With the Uptown Roundtable, our goal was to focus attention on some of the positive things happening in the city during the holidays. One example: Bachman’s is donating 500 poinsettias to area businesses, senior centers, and other public spaces. If you’re interested in participating, you can reach out at [email protected].

Like many readers, we were disheartened by the recent press conference held by First Assistant U.S. Attorney Joe Thompson, where he described fraud in Minnesota as occurring on an “industrial scale.” There is clearly much work to be done to get the city and state back on track. Still, we believe it’s important to highlight the community members who—despite a seemingly constant stream of negative news—continue to show up, work hard, and push for solutions to difficult problems. Especially now, when many elected officials seem disconnected from the challenges facing local businesses and residents, it is the community itself that keeps Minneapolis moving forward.

Roundtable Summary

The roundtable discussion painted a picture of an Uptown that is actively rebuilding momentum after a long stretch of disruption. Participants highlighted the end of Hennepin Avenue construction and the launch of Metro Transit’s E Line as important turning points, making it easier for people to visit and re-engage with the area. They emphasized Uptown’s growing calendar of events, from live music and theater to holiday markets and storefront activations, as well as new and upcoming businesses like a jazz club, restaurants, and creative spaces that signal renewed confidence in the district.

At the same time, the conversation did not shy away from ongoing challenges. Panelists spoke candidly about public safety concerns tied to visible drug use, dealing, and disorder, and how those issues continue to discourage visitors and strain small businesses. This led to a discussion of a grassroots letter-writing campaign aimed at city leaders, encouraging residents and business owners to document their experiences and push for more focused attention and resources. The group stressed that consistent reporting, civic engagement, and collective advocacy are essential to changing conditions on the ground.

ADVERTISEMENT

For guidance preparing for your next big interview—whether for school, business, or any public-facing opportunity—visit pbrmedia.io to learn how we can help.

Looking ahead, much of the discussion centered on long-term structural solutions to help Uptown thrive. A major focus was the potential creation of a Business Improvement District (BID), which would allow businesses to pool resources for cleanliness, safety, marketing, and placemaking—giving the neighborhood more control over its shared public spaces. Carol pointed to successful examples in other cities and imagined how a BID could help curate retail, support events, and even create iconic attractions unique to Uptown. The overall tone was cautious but optimistic: Uptown’s revival is underway, but sustained progress will depend on organization, accountability, and continued community involvement.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.betterminneapolis.com/subscribe

Brief Summary

On December 16, Mayor Jacob Frey and City Council Vice President Aisha Chughtai reached a late-breaking agreement that allowed the mayor to sign Minneapolis’s budget. The deal, which requires a series of budget amendments after the council formally adjourns, was publicly framed as a win for collaboration.

Not everyone saw it that way.

Council Member Robin Wonsley sharply criticized the process, objecting to what she described as closed-door negotiations between the mayor and council leadership. Her concern wasn’t about the $140 million in additional city spending, it was about transparency, trust, and who gets a seat at the table when major decisions are made.

Palace Intrigue

News of Minneapolis’s $2 billion budget agreement briefly appeared on the Minnesota Star Tribune’s front page. It was demoted by breaking news about changes in the ownership and front office of the Minnesota Twins. The sports story quickly dominated the paper’s website, complete with a prominent photo of Joe Pohlad in expensive loafers with no socks, who will cede oversight of the team to his brother, Tom.

The contrast was hard to miss. A generational shift within a wealthy sports franchise drew top billing, while the mechanics of how Minneapolis will spend billions of public dollars slipped quietly from view. It was a familiar reminder of what tends to command attention and what does not.

As for the budget deal itself, its passage may have consequences inside City Hall. Some council observers see Vice President Aisha Chughtai’s role in the closed-door negotiations with Mayor Frey as a sign that leadership changes are coming. Council Member Jamal Osman is widely viewed as a contender for the vice presidency. Chughtai may have calculated that upsetting colleagues like Robin Wonsley was a risk worth taking. Meanwhile, Council Member Jeremiah Ellison, who also participated in the negotiations and is not seeking reelection, had less to lose politically as the deal came together.

It’s easy to tout “collaboration” and much harder to practice it in government. While there are many positions Council Member Robin Wonsley takes with which we disagree, her criticism of the budget process is understandable. As she told the Star Tribune, “Dangling jobs in front of this body to upend weeks of work is incredibly cynical and misleading, and I will not normalize negotiations based in bad faith and [that] take place behind closed doors.”

Leaving Wonsley out of negotiations on what is arguably the City Council’s most important responsibility risks creating deeper fractures in the future. If the council reelects Elliott Payne as president and replaces Chughtai with Jamal Osman as vice president, it will signal a willingness to prioritize internal alliances over the appearance of clean, collaborative governance. Some council members appear unconcerned with how these leadership choices may be perceived, particularly given unresolved questions surrounding past controversies connected to Osman. With four-year terms secured, the incentive to broaden appeal or address public skepticism may be weaker than it should be.

The budget negotiations stretched across multiple sessions and many hours. We watched portions of them and found the discussions informative. In particular, Council President Elliott Payne offered a candid assessment of the current state of trust between the City Council and the administration during a conversation about new reporting requirements for city departments.

Payne explained that the council is moving toward more formal oversight because trust alone is no longer sufficient. As he put it, there are two ways to govern: one built on trust, and another built on rules and procedures that verify actions after the fact. In the absence of the first, the council has decided it must rely on the second.

Council Member Robin Wonsley also raised concerns about what she described as “impoundment.” It’s a tactic they believe the mayor has used to sidestep council priorities. Impoundment occurs when the council allocates funding for specific programs, but the mayor, rather than vetoing the budget, directs departments not to spend the money. That dynamic, council members argue, has further eroded trust and prompted the push for stronger oversight mechanisms.

Conclusion

When the new City Council is sworn in on January 5, 2026, it will include four new members: Pearll Warren (Ward 5), Elizabeth Shaffer (Ward 7), Soren Stevenson (Ward 8), and Jamison Whiting (Ward 11). They have already pledged to work together in a collaborative spirit.

We’ll take them at their word, for now. But if they watched the recent budget hearings, they also saw how fragile collaboration can be when trust is thin and the stakes are high. Turning good intentions into good governance will be their first real test.

This is a public episode. If you'd like to discuss this with other subscribers or get access to bonus episodes, visit www.betterminneapolis.com/subscribe