Governor Tim Walz used his final State of the State to do more than recap seven years in office—he made a closing argument about what government should prioritize: lowering the cost of living for working families.

Delivered in a year marked by tragedy, economic anxiety, international conflict, and political volatility, the speech leaned heavily into “kitchen table” economics. Walz framed Minnesota’s progress not through abstract metrics, but through whether families can afford child care, housing, groceries, and health care.

The subtext was clear: in a political environment dominated by national noise, Democrats win when they stay grounded in everyday economic realities.

Wins for Working Families

Walz’s speech outlined a dense portfolio of affordability-focused policy wins:

• Child Tax Credit cutting child poverty by up to one-third

• Universal free school meals, saving families ~$1,000 per student annually

• Tax relief across budgets, including rebates up to $1,300

• Social Security tax exemptions for most seniors

• $1 billion housing investment to expand supply and affordability

• Medical debt reforms protecting credit and access to care

• Prescription drug cost reductions, including insulin

• Paid family and medical leave, with 54,000+ approvals already

• Worker protections (non-compete bans, safety regulations)

The through-line: these policies don’t just grow the economy—they reduce financial pressure on households.

Walz consistently framed these wins as “breathing room” for families, a phrase that should not be overlooked. It’s a messaging framework that translates policy into lived experience.

The Work that Remains

Walz also acknowledged that there was still more work to do to address the cost of living pressures facing working families, noting that “we’re not done. Not by a long shot.”

Walz pointed to several areas of unfinished business and proposed policy reforms including:

• Child care affordability - Proposed expansion of dependent care tax credits

• Statewide sales tax reduction - Walz said this would be the first such cut in Minnesota history and provide direct cost relief at checkout

• Housing gaps - Continued investment in supply and first-time buyers

• Public safety investments, including gun violence prevention

• Fraud prevention reforms to protect program integrity

But the most forward-looking—and politically important—section focused on artificial intelligence and labor disruption.

Walz warned against the impact of emerging artificial intelligence on workers and allowing Big Tech to dictate outcomes for working communities. His proposals:

• A social media tax on large tech firms

• A Governor’s Council on the AI economy

• Expanded workforce development for displaced workers

This is a notable shift: Democrats often discuss innovation in terms of growth. Walz reframed it in terms of worker protection and economic security - DFL candidates should do the same.

Takeaways for DFL candidates this November

Walz’s speech can serve as a campaign blueprint for DFL candidates on the ballot this November.

1. Lead with affordability, not ideology
   Voters are less interested in partisan framing and more focused on cost pressures. Candidates should anchor messaging in:

• Child care costs

• Housing affordability

• Health care and prescription prices

• Tax relief tied to working families

2. Get ahead of AI anxiety.

The next economic debate isn’t just inflation—it’s displacement. Candidates should be prepared to articulate a plan for worker protections, job retraining, and revenue from tech companies displacing workers in the emerging age of artificial intelligence.

3. Address fraud without undermining programs.

Walz aimed to present his administration as proactive in addressing the fraud scandals that have plagued Minnesota social service programs in recent years by highlighting enforcement actions and his anti-fraud package proposals. The question of fraud - how it happened and what is being done to make sure it doesn’t happen again - will inevitably (and rightfully) be at the top of many voters’ minds.

DFL candidates would be wise to mirror Walz’s latest efforts and messaging around fraud by acknowledging fraud concerns and proposing aggressive enforcement/oversight reforms while also defending the importance of these programs to working families.

The message is simple: Fraud is unacceptable - and when it occurs, it hurts the working families who need it most. The answer is in creating better oversight and enforcement, not eliminating these crucial programs that working families rely on.

Bottom Line

Walz’s final State of the State wasn’t nostalgic—it was directional.

His legacy is not just a list of policy wins, but a political and governing philosophy: Make life more affordable, measure success in household terms, and prepare workers—not just markets—for the future.

For DFL candidates, the takeaway is straightforward:

Stay focused on what voters feel every day—what they pay at the grocery store, in rent, in child care—and connect every policy back to that reality.

Because in 2026, the candidates who win won’t be the ones with the most ideological clarity—they’ll be the ones who most clearly answer a simple question: Are you making my life more affordable?

The fight over congressional and legislative maps has quietly become one of the most consequential political battles in the United States.

Following the last census, both parties have engaged in aggressive redistricting efforts—Republicans in states like Texas and Florida, Democrats in places like Illinois and New York—each seeking structural advantages that can last a decade.

The result: a political environment where control of the U.S. House of Representatives can hinge less on voter sentiment and more on how district lines are drawn.

The latest chapter isn’t just about maps—it’s about narrative. And Democrats have an opportunity to seize the high ground.

What is Gerrymandering — and Why it Matters

Gerrymandering refers to the deliberate manipulation of electoral district boundaries to favor one party over another.

It works through two main tactics:

• Packing: concentrating opposition voters into a few districts

• Cracking: spreading them thinly across many districts

The outcome is predictable: fewer competitive elections, increased political polarization, and reduced accountability for elected officials. Most importantly, gerrymandering cuts directly against a core democratic principle: voters choose their representatives—representatives shouldn’t be choosing their voters.

The founding fathers anticipated the threat of this exact dynamic. In Federalist No. 10, James Madison warned that unchecked factions would inevitably manipulate systems of representation for their own gain and cautioned against systems that allow entrenched interests to distort representation.

How We Got Here - The Gerrymandering Battles

Gerrymandering is not new. The term dates back to 1812 under Elbridge Gerry.

But the modern gerrymandering escalation began post-2010, when advances in data analytics allowed mapmakers to predict voting behavior with near precision. Following the 2010 census, Republicans—through a coordinated effort known as REDMAP—captured state legislatures and used that control to draw highly favorable maps.

Democrats, caught flat-footed, spent much of the decade reacting.

For decades, the United States Supreme Court wrestled with whether partisan gerrymandering claims were within the authority of the courts under the Constitution. A turning point came in a 2019 Supreme Court ruling in Rucho v. Common Cause, where the Court held that partisan gerrymandering presents a “political question” beyond the reach of federal courts.

In practical terms, that decision removed federal judges as referees in disputes over how aggressively states can draw maps for partisan gain.

In the run-up to the 2026 midterms, several states have recently redrawn congressional and legislative maps in ways that tilt the playing field toward one party. Notable examples include Republican-led efforts in North Carolina, Texas, Ohio, Missouri, and Florida, alongside Democratic-led mapmaking in California and Virginia (as of Tuesday’s vote).

Virginia Redistricting Referendum - Short Term Win for Democrats

In response to Republican-led redistricting efforts in the aforementioned states, Virginia voters, on Tuesday, approved a redistricting referendum that temporarily gives the Virginia General Assembly the power to redraw congressional maps. The referendum explicitly allows Virginia to redraw maps mid-decade if other states do the same, while requiring a return to a bipartisan commission in 2030. Democrats supported the referendum while Republicans opposed it.

In practical terms, the referendum’s passage enables a new congressional map for the 2026 elections, which is expected to significantly favor Democrats—potentially shifting multiple seats.

While the redistricting referendum is a clear short-term win for Democrats that should be applauded, it is also ultimately just a band-aid solution rather than a long-term fix. The underlying incentives that drive the gerrymandering arms race remain largely unchanged.

Absent broader structural reform—whether through independent commissions, federal standards, or judicial intervention—states will continue to respond to one another in kind. In that sense, Virginia’s move reflects the current equilibrium: compete now, reform later.

Democrats’ Long-Term Strategy: From Tactic to Identity

Virginia showed that Democrats can compete in the current system that is the gerrymandering arms race. The next step is deciding whether they can define it.

If Democrats want to turn a short-term tactical win into a durable political advantage, they should make redistricting reform—not just redistricting itself—a central pillar of their political identity and messaging.

There’s both a principled and strategic case for doing so.

1. It is the right thing to do for democracy. Gerrymandering cuts directly against the foundational idea that voters should choose their representatives—not the other way around. Leaning into reform allows Democrats to credibly argue they are not just playing the game better, but trying to fix it altogether. That argument carries weight in a moment when public trust in institutions remains fragile.

2. It offers a clear path to rebuilding trust with independent, moderate, and disengaged voters. Many of these voters view both parties as overly focused on power and process manipulation. By championing independent redistricting commissions, transparency standards, and national guardrails, Democrats can differentiate themselves as the party willing to limit its own advantages in service of a more credible system.

3. It reframes the political battlefield. Instead of reacting to Republican maps state by state, Democrats can shift the debate from who wins the map war to whether the map war should exist at all. That is a stronger and more sustainable argument—one that moves the conversation from tactics to legitimacy.

Virginia’s redistricting referendum was a gutsy, worthwhile tactic in the current environment of the gerrymandering arms race. But if Democrats stop there, they risk reinforcing the very system they criticize (not to mention losing credibility amongst voters). The opportunity now is to compete in the short term while campaigning to change the rules in the long term.

Bottom Line

Democrats should be applauded for fighting fire with fire in the short term gerrymandering battles of the day and winning in Virginia this week. But their gerrymandering fight and strategy must continue to evolve from here.

If Democrats want to win not just elections but credibility, they need to go further: make redistricting reform central to their brand.

Because in a system shaped by maps, the party that stands for fair ones will ultimately have the stronger hand.

As the smoke clears from 4/20, BNB thought it especially appropriate to break down the state of marijuana policy in the United States generally and Minnesota specifically.

Marijuana policy is one of the rare issues where public opinion is broadly aligned—but policy is not. Most Americans support legalization in some form. Yet federal law remains largely unresponsive and unchanged.

While Washington debates and drags its feet, states have already decided and are putting policy into practice - recreational marijuana is legal in 24 states (roughly half the country) and medical marijuana is legal in 40 states; only a shrinking minority of states still fully prohibit cannabis.

As a result, the current state of U.S. cannabis policy has created a split-screen reality with federal illegality and regulatory ambiguity on one side and state-level normalization and commercialization on the other.

This dual system has produced federal-state policy tensions and real-world consequences wherein:

• Banking systems remain constrained (for example, cannabis businesses cannot utilize credit card services for consumer purchases)

• Interstate commerce is prohibited

• Federal taxation rules punish legal businesses

The U.S. has effectively created a patchwork system of cannabis policy, with state laws diverging sharply even as federal law remains static. In short, where you live determines whether marijuana is legal, tolerated, or prohibited.

Where Federal Policy Stands

Federal marijuana policy in 2026 is defined by contradiction. On paper, cannabis remains a Schedule I drug under the Controlled Substances Act (CSA), meaning it is still treated alongside substances deemed to have no accepted medical use. In practice, a multibillion-dollar legal cannabis economy operates openly across most of the country.

That tension reached a new inflection point in December 2025 when an executive order directed federal agencies to move marijuana to a Schedule III drug under the CSA, a classification that would acknowledge medical use and ease some restrictions. But still to this day, that change has not yet been finalized, leaving the system in limbo.

With respect to federal marijuana policy, and rescheduling in particular, the key dynamic is best described as movement without resolution.

• The Department of Health and Human Services has already concluded cannabis has medical value

• The Department of Justice proposed rescheduling in 2024

• The White House has ordered agencies to complete the process

Yet the DEA’s rulemaking process—complete with hearings, public comment, and likely litigation—means no immediate change has occurred on the ground. Rescheduling could remove punitive tax rules under IRS Code 280E, improve profitability for legal operators, and expand research opportunities.

The cannabis industry is now a multibillion-dollar market, with projections continuing upward. Even if rescheduling occurs, it would NOT legalize marijuana federally, allow interstate commerce, nor resolve existing federal-state conflicts.

The federal cannabis legislation that appears to have the most political traction remains the SAFE Banking Act—a narrower reform aimed at allowing cannabis businesses access to traditional banking services.

The SAFE Banking Act would:

• Allow banks and credit unions to work with state-legal cannabis businesses without federal penalties

• Reduce reliance on cash-heavy operations

• Improve transparency and public safety

Notably, the SAFE Banking Act has repeatedly passed the House with bipartisan support but has stalled in the Senate over disagreements about whether to pair it with broader criminal justice reforms.

Still, among all pending cannabis legislation, this remains the closest thing to consensus in Congress—suggesting that if any reform crosses the finish line in the near term, it’s likely to be incremental rather than sweeping.

Minnesota Policy - From Legalization to Implementation

Minnesota’s cannabis policy story in 2026 is less about legalization—and more about implementation.

After years of operating one of the more restrictive medical marijuana programs in the country, Minnesota legalized recreational cannabis in 2023, bringing it in line with a growing number of Midwestern states. Minnesota policymakers have approached cannabis legalization with a clear emphasis on balance—expanding access while maintaining regulatory control.

Since the state legalized recreational marijuana, the rollout has been deliberate and, at times, slow-moving. Regulators are still issuing licenses, local governments are navigating zoning questions, and the legal marketplace is only beginning to take shape.

The slow-moving rollout has real implications:

• Consumers still face limited legal purchasing options

• Entrepreneurs face uncertainty navigating the licensing process

• The illicit market continues to operate alongside the legal framework

The result is a policy environment where legalization exists in statute, but the full economic and regulatory ecosystem is still coming online.

For its part, the Minnesota legislature, in addition to overseeing implementation of recreational marijuana, is also considering further legislation to require greater transparency around cannabis product remediation and safety disclosures, signaling a growing focus on consumer protection.

Bottom Line

Marijuana policy in the U.S. is no longer stuck, it’s just not aligned. The U.S. has already made the political decision to legalize marijuana—just not all in one place, and not all at once.

Washington continues to debate around the margins, with rescheduling and banking reform the most likely near-term wins. Meanwhile, states like Minnesota are discovering that legalization is only the starting point—the real challenge is implementation and the harder work of building a functioning market is still underway.

The throughline is consistent across both: incremental progress without systemic resolution. The result: a system where policy has moved faster than infrastructure.

Until federal law catches up to state realities—and states fully operationalize legalization—the cannabis market will continue to operate in the space between what’s legal, what’s practical, and what’s possible.

While politics is often analyzed from the outside, BNB’s Guest Editorial Series aims to flip that perspective by highlighting the firsthand experiences of those working inside the political and policy arena. This includes lawmakers crafting legislation, candidates navigating the campaign trail, career civil servants implementing public programs, and political operatives shaping strategy behind the scenes.

The goal is not to litigate every claim or endorse every position, but to provide readers with direct insight into how decisions are made, how institutions function, and how power operates in practice.

Below, is a guest editorial from Karen Frankenstein - Executive Director of Democrats Abroad, the official Democratic Party arm for the millions of Americans living outside the United States.

Most Americans understand that voting is a core responsibility of citizenship. Fewer realize that millions of Americans exercise that right from outside the United States, and that their ability to do so depends on systems now under increasing attack.

9 million Americans live outside the United States, and 6.5 million are eligible to vote. 1.3 million of them - about the population of Hennepin County in Minnesota - requested a ballot in 2024. Not a big deal, one might say, but overseas voters are overwhelmingly left-leaning - and we vote in every state. We pay taxes, follow policy debates, and experience - often in real-time - the consequences of U.S. decisions on the world stage. We are passionate about democracy. Our connection to the United States is not diminished by distance - and neither is our right to vote.

A recent executive order targeting voters across the country directs the Department of Homeland Security to compile nationwide lists of voting-age citizens and instructs the U.S. Postal Service to deliver ballots only to individuals on newly created federal eligibility lists. It also raises the specter of criminal penalties for election officials and postal workers handling ballots deemed “ineligible.” These actions represent a dramatic federal intrusion into a Constitutionally defined process that falls under state jurisdiction.

Under the Constitution, states, not the federal government, administer elections. For Americans living abroad, that means voting in the last state where we resided and following that state’s rules, deadlines, and procedures. A one-size-fits-all federal system violates the U.S. Constitution while disenfranchising eligible voters.

Why is the administration targeting these votes? The answer is simple: overseas votes matter. In close elections, they can be decisive. In 2020, for example, overseas ballots in Georgia outnumbered the margin of victory. Efforts to restrict or control these votes are not about efficiency—they are about influence.

The risks extend beyond overseas citizens. Military families, seniors, voters with disabilities, and working Americans all rely on absentee and mail-in voting. Undermining these systems threatens participation for millions.

In response, overseas voters are organizing, educating, and mobilizing. Through trusted tools like VoteFromAbroad.org, we are ensuring that Americans abroad know how to request ballots, meet deadlines, and return their votes securely.

But we cannot do it alone. Americans at home play a crucial role. Remind friends, family members, and colleagues living overseas that they should request their ballots each year; send them to votefromabroad.org for help. Outreach like this can make a big difference.

Voting is one of the few rights that travels with us wherever we go. Protecting that right for every eligible voter is essential to the integrity of U.S. democracy.

President Donald Trump has dangerously escalated his rhetoric in the ongoing U.S.-Israel war with Iran, issuing a blunt ultimatum to the Iranians: reach an acceptable deal by Tuesday or face U.S. strikes on civilian infrastructure.

The framing of the President’s threat is familiar — pressure, leverage, deterrence. But the substance is something else entirely. The President’s language matters — not just politically and diplomatically, but legally.

The explicit mention of “infrastructure” has rightfully raised alarm bells among international law experts because in modern conflict, that term often includes civilian-adjacent systems such as energy grids, transportation networks, ports, and telecommunications.

At the same time, the broader regional context is combustible:

• Israel and Iran are already engaged in escalating direct and proxy conflict

• U.S. forces are positioned across the region

• Oil markets are reacting negatively to the perceived risk of wider war

While President Trump has framed his threat politically as “maximum pressure,” under international law, the substance of the threat—not the framing—is what determines legality.

What International Law Says

The governing framework here is not ambiguous. The Geneva Conventions and their Additional Protocols establish the foundational rule of Distinction - parties must distinguish between civilian objects and military targets - (Additional Protocol I, Articles 48 and 52).

This means that civilian infrastructure is protected unless it is being used for direct military purposes. Even then, two additional principles are critical for establishing legality under international law:

1. Proportionality: Even if a target has military value, civilian harm cannot be excessive relative to anticipated military gain - (Additional Protocol I, Article 51(5)(b)).

2. Military necessity: Force must be strictly tied to achieving a legitimate military objective - (Additional Protocol I, Articles 52(2) and 57).

Broad threats to “bomb infrastructure” without clear military specificity raise immediate legal concerns under both standards.

Historical Precedent

There is substantial precedent where similar actions have been condemned as war crimes or violations of international law:

• NATO’s 1999 bombing of Serbian electrical grids was widely criticized for targeting civilian systems

• The Saudi-led coalition’s strikes on Yemeni infrastructure during the Yemen war drew repeated accusations of war crimes from the UN

• Russian strikes on Ukrainian energy infrastructure have been broadly characterized by Western governments and international bodies as unlawful attacks on civilians

Even when nations justify such actions as weakening an adversary’s capacity, international consensus has increasingly moved toward treating systemic civilian infrastructure targeting as unlawful.

The legal takeaway is straightforward: intent matters, but effects matter more. If civilian life systems are degraded, and the principles noted above are violated, the action risks classification as a war crime.

Economic Consequences — Iran & Global Markets

Even before the economic consequences of the past month of war, Iran’s economy was already under strain from international sanctions, inflation, and currency volatility. Targeting infrastructure would compound that pressure for Iranians dramatically through:

• Energy disruption: Iran’s economy is deeply tied to oil and gas. Strikes on refining or distribution capacity would cripple domestic and global supply chains

• Industrial paralysis: Manufacturing and transportation rely on stable electricity and logistics networks, impacting a wide range of economic inputs and sectors.

• Civilian fallout: Healthcare systems, water treatment, and food distribution all depend on functioning infrastructure, meaning human suffering would be felt by thousands immediately and for years to come.

And the economic suffering would not stop at Iran’s borders as the consequences ripple through the global economy. Markets are already pricing in risk:

• Oil prices would likely spike immediately due to fears of supply disruption and an extended closure of the Strait of Hormuz

• Shipping costs would rise as insurers reprice risk in the region

• Inflationary pressures could intensify globally, particularly in energy-importing economies.

In short, the economic consequences will extend far beyond Iran. This is not a contained action — it is a global shock vector.

Why the Rhetoric Matters

Threats are not just rhetorical in international law. Explicitly signaling intent to target civilian infrastructure can:

• Undermine U.S. credibility in enforcing international norms elsewhere

• Provide adversaries justification for reciprocal escalation

• Increase the likelihood of miscalculation in an already volatile theater

Once such a precedent is normalized, it becomes harder to draw lines when others cross them.

Bottom Line

Make no mistake: threatening to bomb civilian infrastructure (much less doing so) is not just aggressive diplomacy — it is a signal of a willingness to cross a legal threshold that the international system has spent decades trying to enforce.

That dynamic is playing out most clearly on immigration — where changes in enforcement posture, funding uncertainty, and administrative priorities are cascading down to states (especially Minnesota in the aftermath of Operation Metro surge) with little warning and even less guidance.

The result: Minnesota is no longer just implementing federal policy. It’s interpreting it, reacting to it, and in some cases, reshaping it on the ground.

Driving the news: ICE tension spills into state policy

Recent legislative proposals in Minnesota — ranging from restrictions on cooperation with federal immigration authorities to attempts to mandate greater transparency around enforcement actions — illustrate a broader shift.

State lawmakers are not debating immigration in merely abstract terms. They are grappling with:

• How local law enforcement should interact with federal agents?

• What protections exist for workers, students, and families?

• How businesses and schools respond to sudden enforcement actions?

In short: operational questions, not simply ideological ones.

Why this matters: states are now policy shock absorbers

Federal policy volatility is not new. What’s changed is where the impact is being felt.

Minnesota — like many states — is now functioning as a policy shock absorber, translating federal decisions into real-world consequences across:

• School districts managing attendance disruptions

• Employers navigating workforce instability

• Local governments responding to community concerns

That shift is forcing state legislators into unfamiliar territory: making quasi-federal policy decisions without federal authority. This dynamic is creating a new axis of political conflict.

On one side:

• Lawmakers arguing Minnesota should assert greater control over how federal policies are implemented locally

On the other:

• Those warning that states cannot — and should not — interfere with federal enforcement authority

The debate is not simply about immigration policy writ large, it’s also about who controls its execution.

A broader pattern beyond immigration

Immigration is just the most visible example.

The same pattern is emerging across multiple issue areas:

• Environmental regulation shifting between administrations

• Labor enforcement priorities changing at the federal level

• Healthcare policy evolving through executive action rather than legislation

Each shift creates downstream effects that states must manage in real time.

Minnesota dynamics

Minnesota is particularly exposed to these dynamics for three reasons:

1. A politically competitive legislature
A narrowly divided House means even small policy changes can become major battlegrounds.

2. A diverse economic base
From agriculture to healthcare to manufacturing, federal policy shifts ripple unevenly across sectors.

3. Active civic and local government engagement
Cities, counties, and school districts are not passive actors — they are shaping how policies play out.

What to watch

As federal policy continues to fluctuate, expect Minnesota lawmakers to focus on:

• Codifying rules around state-federal interaction

• Expanding oversight and transparency requirements

• Defining the limits of local authority

These debates will likely intensify — not fade — as federal policy uncertainty persists.

Bottom line:

Minnesota isn’t just reacting to federal policy anymore — it’s stress-testing it. And in doing so, it’s offering a preview of how states across the country may increasingly govern in an era of federal volatility.

While politics is often analyzed from the outside, BNB’s Guest Editorial Series aims to flip that perspective by highlighting the firsthand experiences of those working inside the political and policy arena. This includes lawmakers crafting legislation, candidates navigating the campaign trail, career civil servants implementing public programs, and political operatives shaping strategy behind the scenes.

The goal is not to litigate every claim or endorse every position, but to provide readers with direct insight into how decisions are made, how institutions function, and how power operates in practice.

—

Below, is a guest editorial from Stan Soloway - President & CEO of Celero Strategies. Additionally, Soloway serves as a board member of the Defense Business Board, and is a Fellow of both the National Academy of Public Administration (where he also serves on the Board of Directors) and of the National Contract Management Association.

During the Clinton Administration, Soloway served as the Deputy Undersecretary of Defense and was responsible for wide-ranging reforms to defense acquisition and technology policy and practices, and broader department-wide re-engineering. In recognition of his leadership in the department, Soloway was awarded both the Secretary of Defense Medal for Exceptional Public Service and the Secretary of Defense Medal for Distinguished Public Service.

Minnesota is at a crossroads. The state is emerging from one of the most damaging fraud scandals in American history, with federal prosecutors estimating that half or more of roughly $18 billion in federal funds flowing through 14 Minnesota-run social service programs may have been stolen since 2018. Dozens have already been charged and tried; and the fallout cost Governor Tim Walz his re-election campaign, shook public confidence in programs that working families depend on to survive, and handed political opponents a battering ram to use against every safety net program in the country.

All of this presents Senator Klobuchar, now running for Governor on a promise to clean up state government and with the experience of a prosecutor to do it, with a unique opportunity to get started on real reform now. And that opportunity begins with leading on key, bipartisan reforms to the Supplemental Nutritional Assistance Program now before the Senate. SNAP is one of the most essential safety-net programs the federal government administers, and we advocate for it every day. But, as the Minnesota case demonstrated, it is also a program in need of real change.

The fraud is not theoretical. SNAP delivers food assistance to more than 42 million Americans each month via Electronic Benefit Transfer (EBT) cards protected by decades-old magnetic stripe technology that criminal networks exploit with terrifying efficiency. According to the USDA’s Office of Inspector General, between October 2022 and December 2024, the agency replaced $322 million in benefits stolen through EBT card skimming and cloning, with another $233 million in projected losses through 2026 if nothing changes. The GAO confirmed in September 2025 that most SNAP cards still lack the chip-enabled security features standard on every commercial credit and debit card in America. Criminals install skimming devices at checkout terminals, clone EBT cards, and drain accounts within minutes,victims only discovering the theft when their card is declined at the grocery store.

Fortunately, the legislative path to address these problems is clear. In March 2026, a bipartisan, bicameral group of Congresspeople and Senators re-introduced the Enhanced Cybersecurity for SNAP Act, requiring chip-enabled EBT cards that include up-to-date cybersecurity standards to protect recipients from theft. As Ranking Member of the Senate Agriculture Committee, Senator Klobuchar, a powerful defender of SNAP, is uniquely positioned to move this legislation and get the ball rolling on critical reforms that will be essential to her broader reform agenda.

As another piece of critical reform, The Center for Accountability, Modernization, and Innovation (CAMI) is asking Senator Klobuchar, as ranking Democrat on the Agriculture Committee, to support a bi-partisan provision in the recently reported Farm Bill to allow states to hire private contractors to address the EBT card and SNAP error rate problems without red tape and delays. This will help augment already overloaded and under-resourced public workforces to ensure efficient and effective administration of SNAP. Action in the Senate on the Farm Bill is next, and the people of Minnesota deserve quick action to make this provision law.

The Minnesota fraud scandal was not the result of beneficiaries gaming the system or even just corrupt officials. It happened because the systems built to detect and prevent fraud were inadequate and warning signs were ignored, thus enabling exploitation by criminal enterprises. Minnesota’s own Department of Human Services repeatedly reported inaccurate SNAP data to the federal government — misstating how much money the state distributed to recipients — leaving federal oversight authorities working from a fundamentally flawed picture of the crisis unfolding in the state.

When improper payments and bad data undermine public confidence, it gives opponents the ammunition to eliminate programs entirely. When programs are administered with integrity and modern tools, they become politically durable and serve their beneficiaries effectively.

The families of Minnesota who depend on SNAP need a Governor who fights for them when their benefits are stolen. Senator Klobuchar has the experience, the platform, and the moment — we’re asking her to use all three.

The Center for Accountability, Modernization and Innovation (CAMI) advocates for policies enabling public-private partnerships that drive innovation in and enhance the performance of federally funded public assistance programs. Learn more at thecenterforami.org.

For more than two decades, the U.S. has cycled through conflicts in Iraq, Afghanistan, and beyond—what many now call the “forever wars.”

While the geography of conflict has shifted, one structural reality has not: the people who make decisions about war and the people who carry them out often come from very different parts of American life.

America’s wars are not fought by a representative cross-section of the country—they are fought by a narrow slice of it. And that imbalance is increasingly reshaping both foreign policy and domestic politics.

Time and again, it is overwhelmingly working- and middle-class Americans—disproportionately from small towns, rural communities, and non-coastal regions—who make up the enlisted ranks sent into combat.

Moreover, the modern all-volunteer force, created after the draft ended in 1973, has not produced a force evenly distributed across society. Instead, it has concentrated service within specific economic and geographic communities—many of which are culturally and economically distant from the policymaking centers that decide when and where wars are fought.

By the Numbers

The data underscores a consistent pattern: military service is concentrated in the broad middle of the income distribution and in less affluent, less urban parts of the country.

• 71% of recruits come from neighborhoods with median household incomes below the national median - (Department of Defense, Population Representation in the Military)

• Only about 10% of enlisted recruits come from the top income quintile - (DoD Population Representation Reports)

• Over 60% of enlistments come from middle-income communities—not affluent ones - (DoD Population Representation Reports)

• Both the lowest and highest income quintiles are underrepresented, meaning enlistment is concentrated among working- and middle-class families - (DoD Population Representation Reports)

• Rural youth are up to twice as likely to enlist as their urban counterparts
  - (National Priorities Project)

• Over 80% of enlisted personnel come from households without a parent holding a bachelor’s degree - (DoD and Census-linked research)

The structural takeaway: since moving to an all-volunteer force, the burden of service has not been evenly shared. Wealthier Americans are less likely to serve, the poorest often face barriers to entry, and the center of gravity falls squarely on working- and middle-class communities.

That reality produces a quiet but profound imbalance—where a narrow sliver of the country fights wars decided by a much broader, and often more affluent, political class.

Domestic Politics of Wars Abroad

President Trump’s political rise—particularly in 2016—was fueled in large part by:

• Skepticism of foreign interventions

• Criticism of Iraq War-era decision-making

• A broader “America First” posture rejecting open-ended conflicts

But Trump didn’t win these voters by offering a fully formed foreign policy doctrine. He won by reframing a more fundamental question: who pays the price for these wars?

In doing so, he identified—and mobilized—a constituency that felt disproportionately asked to fight, sacrifice, and absorb the consequences of decisions made far from their communities.

That constituency remains politically fluid.

Trump’s breakthrough was not just ideological—it was structural. He gave voice to an imbalance that had long existed but was rarely centered in political debate.

Democrats, by contrast, have often framed foreign policy through the lens of strategy, alliances, and global leadership—arguments that resonate in policy circles but can feel abstract to voters whose connection to these conflicts is far more personal.

That leaves an opening. Democrats can compete for these voters—but only if they are willing to center the same underlying question: who bears the burden?

To center that question and win over this constituency, Democrats must shift the framing of these wars from geopolitical abstraction to economic and social reality—making clear who bears the burden of service, how war spending crowds out relief on costs at home, and how disconnected decision-makers often are from those sent to fight.

Framed this way, foreign policy is no longer an abstract debate about geopolitical doctrine—it becomes a question of equity, accountability, and whether the costs of American power are being shared fairly.

Reframing the Debate

To do that, Democrats will need to move beyond the familiar framing of:

• Isolationism vs. internationalism

• Global leadership vs. retrenchment

And instead shift toward a working-class lens grounded in lived experience:

• Accountability vs. overreach
  Voters don’t reject strength—they reject decisions that lack clear justification, defined objectives, or measurable outcomes.
  

• Burden-sharing vs. burden-shifting
  The issue isn’t whether America leads—it’s whether the same communities are always asked to carry the cost of that leadership.

This approach also requires threading a careful needle wherein Democrats must:

• Avoid rhetoric that appears anti-military

• Maintain credibility on national security

• Ground arguments in respect for service paired with scrutiny of policy decisions

At its core, the message is simple and resonant: America will defend its interests—but we won’t ask working families to fight wars Washington can’t justify.

Bottom Line

The politics of war have shifted dramatically from the days when Dick Cheney and “neoconservatives” were calling the shots.

The old divide—hawk vs. dove—is giving way to something more potent: who decides and who fights.

Trump cracked open a coalition by asking who pays the price. That question hasn’t gone away—and it isn’t owned by one party.

Until the burden of service and the power to decide are more closely aligned, voters—especially working-class voters—will continue to respond to leaders who speak directly to that imbalance.

Because in today’s politics, foreign policy isn’t just about strength abroad—it’s about fairness at home.

Minnesota’s DFL Senate primary has quickly become one of the most closely watched intra-party battles in the country — and another proxy fight between the party’s moderate and progressive wings.

At the center of that fight is Congresswoman Angie Craig (MN02), a battle-tested pragmatist from one of the country’s most competitive congressional districts, and Lieutenant Governor Peggy Flanagan, a progressive with deep ties to grassroots activists.

This isn’t just about replacing retiring Sen. Tina Smith — it’s about which political formula Democrats believe wins in 2026 and beyond.

Fundraising Race - Advantage Craig

With respect to fundraising, Rep. Craig has held a decisive advantage through this point in the race. The figures below illustrate the current state of the fundraising race based on the latest campaign finance reports.

Amount Raised

• Rep. Angie Craig - $7 million

• Lt. Governor Peggy Flanagan - $3.3 million

Cash on Hand

• Rep. Angie Craig - $3.7 million

• Lt. Governor Peggy Flanagan - $810,000

At this stage of the raise, Craig’s cash on hand advantage is especially striking given that Craig had more than four times as much cash on hand as Flanagan. This fundraising disparity has important strategic political implications.

Craig’s financial edge positions her to shape the race on her terms. With significantly more resources, Craig will have the ability to define Flanagan (and herself) early, dominate paid media, and scale a statewide operation more quickly.

Political Endorsements Race - Advantage Flanagan (but close)

If fundraising shows who can compete, endorsements show who each candidate is building their campaign around — and in this race, the contrast remains clear, but more competitive than it may first appear.

Flanagan has consolidated much of the national progressive ecosystem. Backing from Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren, and Pramila Jayapal signals more than ideological alignment — it connects her campaign to a national donor, volunteer, and messaging infrastructure built around economic populism and structural reform. Add support from figures like Deb Haaland, and Flanagan’s coalition expands to include Native leadership and environmental justice advocates, reinforcing her appeal across key progressive constituencies.

At the state level, endorsements from leaders like Keith Ellison and Al Franken further cement her position as the candidate of the DFL’s activist-aligned wing — particularly among party regulars engaged in issue advocacy.

Craig’s endorsement profile, however, is more robust than a traditional “institutional” lane alone. She has secured backing from top-tier national Democratic figures, including Nancy Pelosi, Hakeem Jeffries, and Pete Buttigieg, along with support from multiple U.S. Senators such as Tammy Baldwin, Andy Kim, Ruben Gallego, Jacky Rosen, and Catherine Cortez Masto. Taken together, these endorsements signal strong alignment with the party’s governing wing and national leadership class — particularly those focused on holding and expanding Democratic majorities.

Craig also holds a notable advantage with labor, securing endorsements from roughly 14 labor organizations compared to Flanagan’s 5. That gap suggests meaningful strength among institutional labor stakeholders, particularly those prioritizing job creation, infrastructure investment, and candidates viewed as viable in competitive general election environments.

Between the lines:

• Flanagan’s endorsements reflect a movement-first coalition — energized, nationalized, and ideologically cohesive.
  

• Craig’s endorsements reflect a governing coalition with growing institutional depth — spanning national party leadership, elected officials, and organized labor.

Endorsements in this race aren’t just about validation — they’re a preview of the two competing DFL coalitions. Flanagan is building from the base outward, anchored in activists and national progressives. Craig is building from the middle outward, increasingly backed by party leadership, labor institutions, and elected officials focused on governing and electability.

The result: what once looked like a clear endorsement advantage for Flanagan is now better understood as a split field — movement energy vs. institutional alignment — with each candidate holding distinct, and politically meaningful, lanes.

Bottom Line

This race is shaping up as a test of competing political formulas inside the DFL.

The contours of this race are now clear: Craig holds the structural advantages — money, infrastructure, and broader electability appeal — while Flanagan holds the coalition advantages — enthusiasm, ideological clarity, and activist alignment.

The candidate who can expand beyond their natural base without losing it will have the edge in a primary that is as much about turnout composition as persuasion.

A Minnesota Department of Health report released earlier this year raised eyebrows when it revealed that the state’s largest corporate hospital system executives are netting over $1 billion annually by exploiting the 340B Drug Pricing Program, a federal program designed to help make medications more affordable for lower income Americans. Hospital executives were purchasing prescription drugs at steep government-mandated discounts, then billing low-income patients and insurers at full price.

Now, a group called People Over Profits, has launched a campaign to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, raising alarms about the abuse and calling on lawmakers in St. Paul to address it.

What the Report Found

According to this report in the Minnesota Star Tribune, the Minnesota Department of Health’s latest 340B transparency report found:

• The small safety net clinics that the 340B program was originally designed to serve low-income patients received a fraction of the benefit.

• MN pharmacies spent $1.53 billion to acquire drugs, plus $165 million to provide them to patients, then billed private insurers and government programs $3.04 billion, resulting in net revenue of at least $1.34 billion.

• The largest, wealthiest hospital systems captured more than $1 billion, representing 80% of total program revenue.

These findings are significant because Congress created the 340B Drug Pricing Program in 1992 in order to fund care for low-income and vulnerable patients. It was not designed to help improve margins for billion-dollar health systems.

The Ad and the Message

People Over Profits’s new ad is airing in the Minneapolis-St Paul media market and is backed by a near $400,000 buy.

The ad spotlights the Minnesota Department of Health report, particularly the details which demonstrate how hospitals are abusing the program: “Fraud and abuse in our health care: unacceptable. A shocking new report shows our hospitals pocketed over $1 billion buying discounted drugs, profiting off patients, charging them double. $1 billion. It’s a broken system, and they’re pushing to keep it that way. The biggest, wealthiest hospitals captured 80% of the profits — not the small safety net clinics that actually need the help.”

The ad closes with a direct challenge to St. Paul lawmakers: “Protect your people, not hospital profits. Crack down on 340B abuse.”

According to the group’s website, “People Over Profits is centering a new conversation to put working people first. It is time for our political conversation to be centered on those who work the hardest, not those who can afford to speak the loudest. It is time for a new focus on working Americans.”

Bottom Line

The 340B program – which is so important for making sure that struggling Minnesotans are able to access affordable medications – is under intense scrutiny.

Minnesota’s biggest hospitals built a $1 billion annual profit center on the back of a program meant for the most vulnerable patients in the state.

This ad is going to draw attention to the program, and lawmakers in St. Paul will need to have answers on how to protect the value of the program for those who need it while also guarding it from exploitation and abuse.

Every two years, Minnesota lawmakers take up one of the Legislature’s most consequential pieces of legislation: the capital investment bill, better known as the bonding bill.

This legislation allows the state to borrow money—through general obligation bonds—to finance major public infrastructure projects such as roads, wastewater systems, university buildings, flood mitigation, and public facilities. For many communities, the bonding bill is the only realistic way to finance major infrastructure projects—and it often determines whether local governments must raise taxes or delay critical upgrades.

Unlike most legislation, bonding bills require a three-fifths vote in both chambers, forcing bipartisan cooperation. While bonding bills are often portrayed as technocratic legislation, politics plays a major role – highlighting broader debates about debt, economic development, and regional priorities.

Lawmakers are already signaling that reaching consensus could be difficult as the next bonding bill begins to take shape. Each project represents a community priority—and lawmakers frequently advocate for projects that directly benefit their districts. This dynamic turns bonding negotiations into a complex puzzle of geographic balance.

The upcoming bonding bill will force lawmakers to reconcile a growing list of infrastructure requests with the political realities of a divided Legislature.

The stakes extend far beyond the Capitol as the bonding bill will improve local infrastructure, shape economic development in communities, and provide thousands of construction jobs—many of them union jobs—for workers across Minnesota.

What’s typically in a bonding bill?

Minnesota’s bonding bills traditionally fund projects that fall into several broad categories:

• Transportation infrastructure such as bridges and highways

• Water and wastewater systems, particularly in small and rural communities

• Flood mitigation and climate resilience projects

• Higher education facilities, including upgrades to University of Minnesota and Minnesota State campuses

• Public safety infrastructure, such as correctional facilities and emergency response centers

For many communities, especially smaller ones, state bonding support is essential to advance much-needed infrastructure projects. Projects such as water treatment plants, wastewater systems, and flood mitigation infrastructure can cost tens of millions of dollars—far beyond the budgets of smaller communities. For these Greater Minnesota communities, the bonding bill is often the only realistic path to financing essential infrastructure.

Without it, local governments often face difficult choices: raise taxes, delay projects, or scale back infrastructure improvements.

Bonding Bill Debate Fault Lines

Overall Size

One of the first political fights will center on the overall size of the bonding package. In recent cycles, Minnesota bonding bills have ranged widely, from about $1 billion to nearly $3 billion.

Some lawmakers—particularly those representing fast-growing communities—argue the state should pursue a larger bonding package to address growing infrastructure needs.

Still, some lawmakers remain cautious about the size and scope of the bonding bill. Because the bonding bill requires borrowing that increases the state’s debt obligations, critics argue that increased bonding threatens to overextend the state’s finances - an argument that is especially potent during periods of economic uncertainty.

Expect this debate to quickly divide lawmakers along familiar lines:

• Infrastructure advocates pushing for larger investments

• Fiscal conservatives urging a smaller package

Regional Competition

Bonding bills also spark intense regional competition. Lawmakers often push projects that deliver direct benefits to their districts, creating a complex negotiation process where geographic balance becomes critical.

Projects from Greater Minnesota communities—such as wastewater systems or flood control efforts—often compete with large urban infrastructure proposals. This dynamic forces legislative leaders to assemble packages that distribute funding across the state.

Jobs

Supporters of large bonding packages often emphasize the positive economic impact, arguing that infrastructure spending generates immediate employment opportunities in construction trades (again, often union jobs) while also supporting long-term economic growth.

For example, Minnesota’s most recent bonding package funded hundreds of infrastructure projects across more than 140 communities, supporting a steady pipeline of construction work that translated into thousands of jobs in Minnesota’s construction trades.

This dynamic has historically helped bonding bills attract support from labor groups and economic development advocates.

Bottom Line

Bonding bills rarely dominate headlines, but they carry significant political implications.

They allow lawmakers to deliver tangible results to their districts—something especially valuable during election cycles. At the same time, failure to pass a bonding bill can leave projects stalled and communities frustrated.

Minnesota’s bonding bill negotiations may unfold behind the scenes, but the outcomes will be felt across the state, particularly for blue-collar workers working in the construction trades.

As lawmakers prepare the bonding bill, the challenge won’t be finding projects—it will be deciding which ones make the cut in a negotiation shaped by regional priorities, fiscal concerns, and the politics of a divided Legislature.

The United States-Israel war with Iran has widely been framed as a national security challenge and geopolitical crisis. Military strategy, regional alliances and global deterrence dominate the headlines.

But history suggests the consequences of Middle East conflicts rarely stay confined to foreign policy. They often show up somewhere far more familiar: the price Americans pay for everyday necessities.

Energy markets tend to react first. The Middle East remains central to global oil production, and even the threat of disruptions can send prices climbing. World leaders and oil traders alike have already been closely monitoring the Strait of Hormuz – the world’s most important energy chokepoint through which roughly one-fifth of global petroleum passes.

The economic ripple effects of Middle East conflicts often land far from the battlefield. If instability in the region persists, economists warn these ripple effects could extend far beyond gasoline — touching transportation, food prices, construction materials and interest rates.

In other words, the Iran war could quickly become an affordability issue for working families at home – and history suggests that outcome wouldn’t be unusual.

Lessons from Past Middle East Conflicts

To understand how the Iran war could affect affordability, it helps to look at past Middle East conflicts. Previous conflicts in the Middle East repeatedly triggered economic ripple effects across the American economy.

1973 Oil Embargo:
After the Arab-Israeli War, Arab oil producers imposed an embargo on the United States. Oil prices quadrupled within months, triggering a surge in inflation that pushed up everything from food prices to mortgage rates. Gasoline shortages grabbed the headlines, but the broader result was a decade of higher consumer prices.

1990 Gulf War:
Iraq’s invasion of Kuwait sent oil prices soaring and pushed the U.S. economy toward recession. Higher fuel prices increased transportation costs and contributed to rising prices for goods ranging from groceries to airline travel.

2003 Iraq War:
Energy prices surged again during the early years of the conflict. Higher fuel costs filtered through the economy, raising the price of shipping, manufacturing and construction materials.

The pattern is consistent: energy shocks become economy-wide price shocks.

Why Working Families Feel It Most

When oil prices rise, the effects ripple through multiple layers of the economy.

Transportation becomes more expensive. Trucks, ships and airplanes all rely heavily on fuel. As costs increase, companies pass them along through higher prices.

That can affect:

• Food prices, because agricultural products travel long distances to reach grocery stores.

• Consumer goods and fertilizer production, which depend on global shipping networks.

• Housing costs, as energy-intensive materials like steel, cement and lumber become more expensive to produce and transport.

The impact is particularly pronounced for blue-collar workers and commuters, who often drive longer distances to work and spend a larger share of household income on transportation and food.

Even modest increases can accumulate quickly.

A rise of just 25 cents per gallon in gasoline, for example, can cost the average commuting household several hundred dollars per year. Multiply that across shipping networks and supply chains, and the impact grows.

What It Means for Inflation
Another concern is the broader inflation outlook.

Energy price shocks have historically been one of the most reliable triggers of inflation spikes. When businesses face higher fuel and transportation costs, those increases spread across the entire price structure of the economy.

That dynamic complicates the job of policymakers.

If inflation begins rising again, the Federal Reserve could face pressure to keep interest rates elevated longer than expected. That would affect mortgage rates, credit card interest and car loans — another affordability pressure point for working families.

Political Implications
The affordability dimension will also shape the political conversation.

With affordability already one of the most dominant political issues in the country, energy price spikes tied to international conflict could quickly reshape economic messaging heading into the 2026 midterms.

Energy prices are among the most visible economic indicators. Unlike abstract economic metrics, gasoline prices are posted in giant numbers on roadside signs. Voters notice them immediately.

That visibility has historically turned energy costs into political flashpoints during times of international conflict.

Expect renewed debates around:

• Domestic energy production

• Strategic petroleum reserves

• Supply chain resilience

• Economic consequences of geopolitical conflict

In short, the Iran war could reshape not only foreign policy discussions, but also the domestic debate over cost-of-living issues.

Bottom Line
Wars in the Middle East often begin as geopolitical crises, but they rarely stay that way.

Through energy markets, supply chains and inflation, global conflicts have a long history of showing up in American household budgets — from the gas pump to the grocery store.

The Iran war may ultimately prove to be another reminder that foreign policy decisions abroad can quickly become affordability challenges at home.

Housing affordability is quickly becoming one of the defining issues of Minnesota’s 2026 election cycle — and for good reason. As costs climb and supply lags, the issue is moving from policy debate to political battleground.

Home prices, rents, and supply shortages have combined to make housing one of the largest financial pressures facing working families. For many Minnesotans, the affordability debate isn’t theoretical – it’s the monthly rent check.

The affordability squeeze is particularly acute for Minnesota’s working families. In the Twin Cities, workers must earn about $32.40 per hour (or roughly $67,400 annually) to afford a modest two-bedroom apartment without exceeding the standard affordability threshold – highlighting the widening gap between wages and housing costs.

The underlying challenge is simple: housing costs have risen faster than incomes, and new construction hasn’t kept up with demand.

Housing affordability rarely dominates political campaigns — but 2026 will likely be different.

BY THE NUMBERS

Start with the numbers: the typical Minnesota home value now sits around $340,000, up roughly 3% in the past year, and statewide median sale prices hover around the mid-$300,000 range.

In the Twin Cities metro, the median home price recently surpassed $400,000 for the first time, putting homeownership further out of reach for many first-time buyers. In many parts of Minnesota, households now need more than $100,000 in annual income to afford a median-priced home, a figure that exceeds the state’s median household income by more than $10,000.

Meanwhile, renters are also feeling the squeeze as the average rent statewide is roughly $1,575 per month, with metro rents often ranging from $1,600 to $1,750.

For lower-income renters, the situation is even more acute. Roughly 85% of low-income renters in Minnesota are “cost burdened,” meaning they spend more than 30% of their income on housing. And the supply gap remains stark: According to the National Low Income Housing Coalition, Minnesota has only 39 affordable rental units for every 100 extremely low-income households and needs roughly 101,000 additional homes to close the deficit.

WHAT’S HAPPENING AT THE STATE CAPITOL

Minnesota lawmakers are increasingly focusing on housing supply, affordability programs, and supportive housing initiatives. Lawmakers from both parties acknowledge the housing shortage — but disagree on how to fix it.

The debate at the Capitol increasingly reflects competing policy approaches. Some lawmakers emphasize expanding affordable housing programs and public investment, while others argue the bigger solution lies in loosening zoning restrictions and accelerating housing construction.

Recent legislative proposals include funding for supportive housing programs and initiatives aimed at accelerating housing construction.

One proposal moving through the legislature would allocate $10 million for supportive housing programs, including funds to help organizations facing federal funding gaps. Other legislative debates center on zoning reform, housing infrastructure bonds, and strategies to accelerate construction — all aimed at addressing the estimated housing deficit.

These conversations echo broader policy questions about land-use restrictions, minimum lot sizes, and other regulations that critics argue limit housing development.

FEDERAL POLICY ADDS ANOTHER LAYER

Housing affordability is also gaining traction as a premier kitchen-table affordability issue in Washington.

Housing researchers estimate the United States faces a shortage of between 3 and 5 million homes, a deficit that economists say is one of the primary drivers of rising housing costs nationwide.

For policymakers in Washington, the challenge has increasingly centered on how to incentivize construction while lowering regulatory barriers that can slow development. Congress is currently considering multiple bipartisan proposals, most notably, The Housing for the 21st Century Act and The ROAD to Housing Act. Both pieces of legislation are aimed at increasing housing supply by streamlining federal programs, encouraging development, and expanding financing tools for housing construction.

Lawmakers are also exploring policies aimed at helping first-time buyers enter the housing market. Several proposals in Congress would provide down payment assistance or tax credits for first-time homebuyers, an effort designed to address one of the biggest barriers younger families face when trying to purchase a home.

The bipartisan momentum in Washington reflects a growing recognition in Congress that housing shortages are a serious national economic problem impacting both red and blue states as well as rural, suburban, and urban communities alike.

BOTTOM LINE

For working families feeling squeezed between stagnant wages and rising housing costs, the affordable housing debate isn’t theoretical — it’s immediate and showing up in rent checks, mortgage payments, and the shrinking availability of affordable homes.

Housing affordability may not dominate campaign ads yet — but the economic pressure facing Minnesota families suggests it is likely to become one of the most potent issues of the 2026 election cycle.

As candidates look for issues that resonate beyond traditional partisan divides, housing affordability offers exactly that: a kitchen-table challenge touching voters across geography, income levels, and political affiliation.

The question for 2026 is not whether affordable housing becomes a campaign issue — but whose solutions voters trust most.

While politics is often analyzed from the outside, BNB’s Guest Editorial Series aims to flip that perspective by highlighting the firsthand experiences of those working inside the political and policy arena. This includes lawmakers crafting legislation, candidates navigating the campaign trail, career civil servants implementing public programs, and political operatives shaping strategy behind the scenes.

The goal is not to litigate every claim or endorse every position, but to provide readers with direct insight into how decisions are made, how institutions function, and how power operates in practice.

Below, is a guest editorial from Minneapolis Downtown Council President & CEO Adam Duininck.

Last fall, something remarkable happened in downtown Minneapolis. For two nights, David Byrne of Talking Heads performed at the Orpheum Theatre, while Purple Rain flickered across the street at the State. The sidewalks buzzed with people, color, and possibility. In that moment, the city itself felt like a stage—alive, collaborative, and full of creative electricity.

What unfolded on the Orpheum stage was more than a concert. It was an artistic feat that was also intellectual, civic, and deeply human. Byrne has always had a knack for dreaming a few steps ahead, and his performance was a reminder of how creativity, design, and community can intersect to create something transcendent. The overriding vibe that night was simple and irresistible: This must be the place.

Great downtowns generate that feeling. They aren’t defined by one skyscraper or one institution. They thrive when safety is foundational, when residents, workers, business owners, community partners, and law enforcement share a vision of belonging. They succeed when systems—transportation, public space, culture—are designed around people, not the other way around. And most of all, they flourish when movement, purpose, and collaboration flow together.

Downtown Minneapolis is at its best when it operates like that stage—dynamic, adaptive, intentionally designed to bring people together. A vibrant downtown invites us into a system where creativity, culture, and community reinforce each other, where good energy multiplies, and where people leave feeling inspired and connected.

We often hear the question: Is downtown back? But the more useful question is: What are we building it to be? Real optimism isn’t pretending every challenge is solved. It’s being clear‑eyed about what needs work while being confident in our capacity to shape what comes next.

And what comes next is already taking shape.

Downtown Minneapolis today is a place where people live in walkable neighborhoods close to parks, bike trails, transit, and hundreds of thousands of jobs. It’s where ambassadors greet visitors with help and a smile. It’s where more than 100,000 people can gather for major events—Taste of Minnesota, block parties on First Avenue, community celebrations that make the city feel like one big living room.

It’s a place where you can take in world‑class theater, orchestra performances, live music, and comedy shows. Where you can grab a cocktail at an ice bar, watch a fashion show, or—because this is Minnesota—even on a rooftop in January. It’s where entrepreneurs launch companies, attract talent, and drive results. It’s where chefs experiment, restaurants push boundaries, and creativity becomes an economic engine. It’s where fans howl for the Wolves, cheer on the Lynx, Skol for the Vikings, or root for the Twins on a perfect summer night.

And it’s a place with unmatched natural assets—miles of riverfront access that anchor the city in beauty and movement.

In other words, downtown Minneapolis is already a place where the pieces of a vibrant future exist. The task now is to continue designing systems that connect those pieces—to build the infrastructure of community as deliberately as we build the infrastructure of streets and buildings. When people feel welcomed, inspired, and fulfilled by their time downtown, they come back. And when they come back, the city grows stronger.

“This must be the place” isn’t just a lyric. It’s a directive. It’s a challenge to imagine what’s possible when culture leads, when collaboration is intentional, and when we treat community as the engine of our shared prosperity. It’s a reminder that our best days aren’t behind us—they are in front of us, shaped by the people who choose to gather, create, build, and dream here.

This is the place. This is home. This is our downtown Minneapolis.

Minnesota’s prairie and exurban corridors are fast becoming home to the digital backbone of the modern economy: data centers. These warehouse-sized facilities store and process the information behind everything from cloud computing to AI tools and online banking.

​​Last legislative session, the Minnesota Legislature adopted new guardrails around data center development, addressing energy reporting, tax incentives, and infrastructure coordination. But the bigger debates are only beginning.

At issue: Who controls siting decisions? What information must be disclosed to the public? How many jobs justify the energy use and public subsidies? And how should Minnesota balance climate commitments with industrial load growth?

Minnesota isn’t just debating data centers. It’s replaying some of its oldest political tensions — local control versus state authority, labor growth versus environmental caution, and transparency versus economic urgency — only this time through the lens of the digital economy.

Local versus State Control

Local control has long been a Minnesota political touchstone. Historically, cities have fiercely guarded their zoning authority, from big-box retail to wind farms. Whether the debate centered on housing density, renewable siting, or mining permits, the friction between city halls and St. Paul has shaped outcomes.

Data centers raise a similar question: if a project meaningfully alters regional power demand, is it purely a local zoning matter? Or does the state have a compelling interest to implement uniform regulations statewide?

Communities eager for tax base growth often welcome proposals. Others worry about land use, water consumption, and grid strain. The familiar tug-of-war is back — this time measured in megawatts.

The parallel is familiar when you think back to battles over transmission lines or frac sand mining — local leaders asserting community character, state officials citing broader economic interest. Data centers may now test whether local city councils or statewide regulators ultimately call the shots when energy and tax policy are implicated.

Government Transparency - Non-Disclosure Agreements

In several instances of data center development projects, local officials have signed Non-Disclosure-Agreements (NDAs) with developers before public votes. The NDA issue has, understandably, become a lightning rod in the data center debate.

Developers (and local leaders who have signed NDAs) argue confidentiality protects proprietary design and competitive advantage. Skeptics warn that secrecy undermines public trust — especially when tax incentives are involved. Transparency advocates want clearer disclosure rules before public subsidies or infrastructure commitments are approved.

Minnesota has been here before with economic development packages where final terms were unveiled with limited public scrutiny, sometimes even after critical votes - from stadium financing packages to corporate relocation deals.

The transparency debate is less about a single project and more about process legitimacy. When public dollars or rate structures are implicated, the demand for visibility grows. Once NDAs enter the equation, the debate shifts from megawatts to trust. And in Minnesota politics, process fights can become more combustible than policy fights.

Blue Collar Jobs & Sustainability

The sharpest political tension may not be local versus state — but labor versus environmental alignment within the DFL coalition.

The labor calculus is clear: data center construction phases can support electricians, laborers, plumbers, and heavy equipment operators, among other trades, at scale. Labor unions see opportunity in multi-year build cycles and have emphasized the potential benefits of that large scale development: thousands of tradespeople working during peak buildout, strong apprenticeship pipelines, and potential for project labor agreements.

Environmental advocates have largely focused on cumulative energy demand and water usage of data centers in the long-term. It’s a familiar script — reminiscent of pipeline and mining debates — reframed for the digital era.

Bottom Line

Data centers may be new, but the arguments aren’t.

Local control, transparent governance, good jobs, and environmental stewardship are clashing once again — only now the factory floor is virtual, and the stakes run through every electrical panel in the state.

Beneath the hum of servers lies a familiar contest over authority, accountability, and economic vitality. The hardware may be new — but the politics are as old as the next permit hearing.

President Donald Trump’s State of the Union and Virginia Governor Abigail Spanberger’s rebuttal revealed two sharply different theories of the affordability crisis facing American families. Both claimed to be fighting for working families, but they spoke about affordability in fundamentally different ways.

While Governor Spanberger used the word “affordable” or “affordability” five times in her rebuttal, President Trump said “affordability” just once – and only to accuse Democrats of cynically adopting the term.

This telling imbalance comes despite the fact that Trump’s speech was seven times longer than Spanberger’s - a disparity that underscores how differently the two parties intend to center (or sideline) the affordability issue in their campaign messaging and policy priorities.

The competing speeches offer an insight into the affordability battles ahead and a preview of two different campaign blueprints heading into the midterms — not just over policy, but over tone as well.

The Trump Case: Affordability as Macroeconomic Scoreboard

President Trump’s approach to affordability was primarily macroeconomic scoreboard politics. Rather than ask whether life feels more affordable, Trump argued the data already proves it is.

Trump flooded the speech with economic proof points:

• Inflation down to 1.7%.

• Gas prices below $2.30 per gallon.

• Mortgage costs down nearly $5,000 annually.

• Prescription drug price reductions under his “most favored nation” policy.

• “No tax on tips,” “no tax on overtime,” and expanded child tax credits.

• “Typical 401(k)” balances up $30,000 on average.

Trump’s affordability pitch was macroeconomic and centered on take-home pay, deregulation, tariffs, and energy production — arguing that economic growth cures cost pressure. He framed affordability as a crisis inherited from the Biden era — and one he argues has now been reversed.

For Trump, affordability wasn’t a question. It was a victory lap.

The Spanberger Case: Affordability as Ongoing Strain

Spanberger structured her rebuttal on affordability as an unresolved crisis and built her speech around cost pressures.

As examples of real-world cost pressures facing working families, Spanberger cited:

• Tariffs adding roughly $1,700 per family.

• Rising housing, healthcare, energy, and childcare costs.

• Rural health clinic closures.

• Families skipping prescriptions to buy groceries.

• Farmers losing markets due to trade policy.

Her affordability framing was not only economic but moral: Is government making life more affordable? If not, it is failing. Her appeal to working families was rooted in stability — lower costs, protected services, and economic predictability.

What This Signals for the Campaign Trail

The rhetorical imbalance signals different midterm playbooks.

Democrats are likely to:

• Saturate messaging with “affordability.”

• Focus on structural cost drivers.

• Emphasize middle-class squeeze narratives.

Republicans are likely to:

• Focus on macroeconomic improvements.

• Emphasize tax relief and energy independence.

• Argue that Democratic policies created inflation in the first place.

Expect the word “affordability” to appear more often in Democratic ads — and dollar figures and inflation charts to dominate Republican ads.

Bottom Line

Spanberger’s speech framed affordability as unfinished business. Trump’s speech framed it as proof of recovery. The midterms won’t hinge on whether affordability matters — the fight will center on perception.

Is affordability still a crisis? Or is it a comeback story?

The answer voters ultimately give will determine which party owns working-class momentum in November.

While politics is often analyzed from the outside, BNB’s Guest Editorial Series aims to flip that perspective by highlighting the firsthand experiences of those working inside the political and policy arena. This includes lawmakers crafting and ushering legislation, candidates navigating the campaign trail, career civil servants implementing public programs, and political operatives shaping strategy behind the scenes.

The goal is not to litigate every claim or endorse every position, but to provide readers with direct insight into how decisions are made, how institutions function, and how power operates in practice.

Below, is a guest editorial from Minneapolis Councilmember LaTrisha Vetaw (Ward 4).

As Operation Metro Surge comes to an end and thousands of ICE agents leave Minneapolis, it may be tempting to believe our city can finally exhale. The headlines will fade. The flashing lights and unmarked vehicles will disappear. For many residents who were not directly affected, life may appear to return to normal.

But for thousands of immigrant families and small business owners across Minneapolis, nothing about the coming months will feel normal. In fact, the hardest stretch is just beginning.

For weeks and months, fear quietly dictated daily life in neighborhoods across our city. Parents kept children home from school. Workers skipped shifts, not because they didn’t need the income, but because the risk felt too high. Families stopped going to grocery stores, parks, churches, restaurants, and medical appointments. Some avoided even leaving their homes to take the garbage out.

The economic ripple effects were immediate and severe. Once-busy commercial corridors grew quiet. Restaurants were empty. Construction sites slowed. So many workers simply disappeared from public life, not by choice but by necessity. In immigrant-heavy neighborhoods, the silence was palpable.

Now, as the operation winds down, we are left with the aftermath: shuttered storefronts, drained savings accounts, overdue rent notices, and deep emotional scars that do not disappear with a press release. Just because the agents are leaving does not mean the fear is.

Trust does not rebound overnight. Many families are still afraid to step outside. Some lost jobs and have nothing to return to. Others showed up to work only to find their workplace permanently closed. Several families handed over life savings to immigration attorneys in desperate attempts to protect loved ones, only to be left with little clarity and even fewer guarantees. Those financial decisions, made under intense pressure and fear, will shape household stability for years.

This is not a moment of resolution. It is a moment of reckoning.

The damage is not only financial. It is psychological. Children absorbed the anxiety of their parents. Parents carried the unbearable weight of contingency plans. Fear seeped into dinner table conversations and bedtime routines. That kind of stress does not vanish when the vehicles leave town.

We must be honest about this: Minneapolis will need a sustained, culturally responsive trauma response. That means expanding access to mental health services that are linguistically accessible, rooted in community trust, and delivered by providers who understand the lived experiences of immigrant and refugee families. Healing cannot happen if services feel unfamiliar, inaccessible, or unsafe. We need trauma-informed care in spaces where families already feel connected like schools, community clinics, faith spaces, and neighborhood organizations. Emotional recovery must be treated as essential, not an afterthought.

Minneapolis’ local economy has taken a significant hit. Immigrant-owned businesses have been especially hard hit. These businesses are not just storefronts. They are jobs, gathering spaces for neighbors, cultural bridges that make our city vibrant and distinct. They are grocery stores that stock ingredients you cannot find anywhere else. They are barbershops where community news travels faster than social media. They are restaurants where birthdays are celebrated, and memories are made.

When these businesses struggle, the entire city feels it. When they close, we lose far more than a place to shop. We lose jobs, relationships, and pieces of cultural identity that cannot easily be replaced. Recovery will not happen in a few weeks. It may take years.

Perhaps even more troubling is the erosion of trust. For many immigrant families, faith in government institutions has been shaken. When fear becomes woven into everyday routines, rebuilding confidence is not as simple as announcing the end of an enforcement operation. Trust is rebuilt slowly, through consistent action, demonstrated safety, and visible solidarity.

This is where Minneapolis must decide who we want to be.

Federal action has created an economic, emotional, and institutional gap. It would be unrealistic and unfair to expect immigrant families to close that gap alone. Private businesses, philanthropic organizations, faith communities, and individual residents must step forward in meaningful ways.

We need flexible, unrestricted financial assistance for families who have fallen behind on rent, utilities, childcare, and food. For many, traditional aid systems feel unsafe. Support must prioritize privacy, dignity, and accessibility. Families should not have to choose between receiving help and protecting themselves.

We also need community-wide economic action.

If you are able, intentionally support immigrant-owned and struggling small businesses. Dine out locally. Shop locally. Hire locally. Purchase gift cards. Leave positive reviews. Recommend businesses to friends and colleagues. Organize group outings. Every dollar spent locally is an investment in recovery.

But economic support alone is not enough.

We need public life again. Festivals. Farmers markets. Concerts in the park. Block parties. Cultural celebrations. People have been isolated inside their homes for too long. Mental health struggles have unfolded quietly behind closed doors. Community events are not luxuries; they are essential for healing. They create reasons to gather, to reconnect, to remember that we are part of something larger than just our fear.

Most importantly, we must wrap our arms around immigrant families in tangible ways.

That means neighbors checking in on neighbors to offer support. It means faith communities opening their doors wider. It means schools reassuring families that children are safe and welcome. It means business associations coordinating outreach and stabilization efforts. It means philanthropy moving resources quickly and flexibly, without excessive red tape. It means elected officials showing up not just for press conferences, but for sustained, long-term rebuilding.

Minneapolis has endured trauma before. We understand resilience. But resilience is not automatic. It is not something communities simply “have.” It is built intentionally, through solidarity, investment, and courage. It requires people who are not directly affected to care deeply about those who are.

The end of Operation Metro Surge is not the end of Minneapolis’s story. It is the beginning of a long and uncertain recovery.

The question before us is simple: Will we treat this as a return to normal, or will we fully recognize the depth of what our neighbors have endured?

The hardest months may still lie ahead. Economic recovery will be slow. Trust will take time. Emotional healing will not follow a predictable timeline.

But if we choose collective action over complacency, community over fear, and investment over indifference, Minneapolis can emerge from this chapter not just restored but strengthened. More compassionate. More connected. More honest about who we protect and how we show up for one another.

The agents may be leaving. Our responsibility is not.

Below is a summary of our conversation and insights into Labor’s political and policy posture heading into 2026. The full transcript of our interview, which I would strongly encourage readers to check out, can be found HERE.

Federal Spending Cuts & the Trump Administration’s (Political) Delays

In discussing Labor’s priorities, Winkels was unequivocal that Labor’s top priority would be to protect Minnesotans from the harmful cuts and political threats of the Trump administration. She highlighted that the spending cuts included in the Big Beautiful Bill, passed by Congress last July, will compound the affordability crisis already facing working families as crucial services are cut and workers are forced to bear those additional costs; noting that these cuts will be especially painful in the healthcare realm - for workers and patients alike.

Winkels also pointed to the Trump administration’s delays (and attempts to rescind funding altogether) of projects approved by the Biden administration, as a decision that is having real-world impacts on workers as construction sites sit empty and other investments stall. She does not mince words - “there is absolutely an affordability crisis no matter what Donald Trump wants to feed you.”

ICE Operations - Ensuring Accountability and Mitigating Harm

While White House Border Czar Homan announced an end to Operation Metro Surge, it is clear that responding to the impacts of Metro Surge and holding ICE accountable for their actions will be another top focus of the Labor movement.

Winkels noted that “every union in our state has been impacted [by ICE] and the stories I could tell you are overwhelming” and that Labor would continue “to demand that our democracy not only live up to the laws of our land, the Constitution, but also that the administration would be held accountable to adhering to those things.”

Winkels made a passionate and articulate case that the debate around ICE extends beyond immigration enforcement to due process, constitutional norms and the risks of misinformation shaping public perception.

She compared the lies told by administration officials, most notably by Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem in the immediate aftermath of Alex Pretti’s murder at the hands of ICE agents, to the Big Lie of January 6.

“The fight right now is not just about ICE. It is about the truth and lies.”

“We saw (with) January 6th – if you allow for a lie to become a truth for a section of the population, that is still how they are weaponizing and justifying these actions, because they have a small base of people that still are fixated on big lie, and therefore are willing to go down the road of violence, unconstitutionality, and harm to stay in that sector of the in-group.”

I would encourage readers to take a look at Winkels extended answer on ICE operations in the full transcript HERE.

Through it all, she noted that Labor was “proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with our community” working “in coalition to create infrastructure, to create mutual aid, not just for union members, but also for their families and also supporting the broader communities [from ICE operations]. We have worked hard to make sure that we’re working in close sync with the elected officials who are standing firm with us against these horrific actions.”

Mining - The Moral Imperatives of Being a Global Superpower

Winkels also offered a thoughtful analysis on the question of mining projects in Minnesota.

“The first thing I would say is we have to acknowledge the need to innovate. We have to address the climate crisis. We also have to make sure that we’re not pushing off our needs onto countries and workers that have less safety, that have more exploitation, that is a horrible action for a powerful country to take.”

“When it comes to things like mining, if you are going to Indonesia, if you are going to some other countries, they don’t even have mining equipment. We see small children who are doing this work with their bare hands. And that’s not an overstatement. So we really do need to be honest with ourselves not just about our moral imperatives around climate change, but also our moral imperatives about being a global superpower.”

“Just because we can force others to mine this for us, and then all of us have cell phones, and all of us demand electric cars, what are the real outcomes of that?”

“When it comes to how do we protect our waters, how do we protect our land? Absolutely, we need to follow the science. We need to have strict protocols, which in Minnesota we do, and we can continue to strengthen those as science dictates.”

“We also need to acknowledge when you have a unionized workforce, in and of itself, you are going to have an extra check and balance that doesn’t exist when you don’t. That is a good thing. Anytime we are losing market share for the Labor movement, everyone should be concerned about that.”

“When I think about mining specifically, I just think Minnesota can and should be an innovator and a leader….We have so many resources in this state to think through innovation, safety, standards, how to be a model.”

“We need folks to act from a space of grounded, good faith reality, and not try to simplify very complex conversations. We shouldn’t be afraid of expertise. And too often we see that.”

Labor Perceptions of DFL - Strong Standing but More Work to Be Done

We also discuss Labor’s current perceptions of the DFL party as well as the type of DFL politicians who have been successful in communicating to and representing the Labor movement. Winkels expressed general approval and appreciation for the DFL support of Labor through the years but also noted that there was still work to be done for some DFL elected officials and candidates.

“I think that across the board we’ve had a lot of acknowledgments that the DFL really is working to put working people first. They’re deeply committed to collective bargaining. They have drawn very clear lines about the importance of not just having the opportunity for folks to unionize, but making sure that when we have new units, they’re getting recognized and that the benefits that some of the employers refuse to bargain can get talked about at the state level.”

“We also have too many DFLers who haven’t taken the time to really understand what the Labor movement is, what our unions are, why we have to have conversations around…why shouldn’t they have to use some of their paid time off for part of their paid family medical leave? Well, a lot of those workers didn’t take pay raises because they opted and bargained to have extra paid time off. So now you wanna punish them for that?”

“This isn’t easy to say in context. So when we have to have conversations with folks that just show that they do not understand what a union contract does or why the historic elements of it need to be valued, it can be very challenging.”

“When it comes to the folks who are really speaking to the members, I mean, Melissa Hortman, of course. Such a hero for folks across the movement and was trusted and considered a friend by the entire movement.”

“I think we need folks who are willing to not just vote with us, but lead for us.”

BOTTOM LINE

Labor is entering 2026 with clarity about the stakes: affordability pressures compounded by federal cuts and delays, constitutional lines blurred by ICE operations, and economic debates — like mining — that demand moral seriousness rather than slogans.

Winkels makes clear that Minnesota’s Labor movement sees itself not merely as a political constituency, but as a powerfully stabilizing force — defending due process, demanding economic fairness, and insisting that innovation and worker protections move in tandem.

The throughline is simple: Labor expects leaders who won’t just vote the right way, but who will lead with an understanding of the Labor movement, appreciate the lived realities of working families and bring an organizing mentality to their political and policy agenda. Minnesota Labor will reward leaders who combine policy fluency with backbone. In this environment, neutrality or superficial alignment will not suffice.

Bethany Winkels was elected Secretary-Treasurer of the Minnesota AFL-CIO in November of 2025. Winkels, a member of LIUNA Local 563, first joined the Minnesota AFL-CIO in 2016 before becoming Executive Director in 2020. She took a leave of absence in 2018 to work on the campaign of now-Governor Tim Walz. Prior to her time at the AFL-CIO, she organized on behalf of many other campaigns and causes, both in Minnesota and across the country – including working to elect Senator Elizabeth Warren, raising the minimum wage in Minnesota, and passing the Paid Family and Medical Leave program which launched in January 2026.

The conversation covered a wide range of topics including the affordability crisis facing workers, the harm brought on by federal cuts and delays, Labor’s perception of the DFL party, mining, and how Labor has been impacted by ICE operations across the state.

Below is the full transcript of our interview.

Jordan Hagert:

For our readers, can you give some quick background on the Minnesota AFL-CIO, its mission, and your role with the organization?

Bethany Winkels:

The Minnesota AFL-CIO is the umbrella labor organization. There are our AFL-CIO state federations in all 50 states and Puerto Rico. A lot of amazing leaders have come before us across the labor movement.

The preamble to the constitution of the National AFL-CIO really speaks to the humanity of all people and workers and all of our communities having the ability to get a fair return on their wages, for their wages, for their work, as well as have a voice and have safety and have the ability to influence not just what’s happening in their workplace but what’s happening in their communities and in all the halls of power.

Hagert:

What economic pressures are you hearing most about from rank and file workers right now and how is that shaping your legislative agenda?

Winkels:

Yeah, I mean, people are getting it from both ends, right? We see the cost of things going up.

There absolutely is an affordability crisis, no matter what Donald Trump wants to feed you.

And at the same time, we’re seeing more billionaires per capita than perhaps ever in our country, or at least going back to the robber baron age. So we know that the resources are there.

They’re literally being hoarded by people who play by their own rules and elect folks who will not hold them accountable. So we know folks are getting their paychecks not only hit from the cost of things, but But also, even as we’ve bargained for good health care, bargained for good benefits, health care is just skyrocketing, right? So people are taking hits to their paycheck to keep up with their health care.

And that makes everything even harder to afford. And there hasn’t been real legislation put forward that has helped folks, right? You look at who got all the money back from the big beautiful bill.

We cut a bunch of services. We’re going to be feeling that, especially in our health care realm, but not only in our health care realm while billionaires are paying less and less and less.

Hagert:

What are the business sectors that provide some of the most opportunities for your members across the state?

Winkels:

We have a really wide coalition, right? We’ve got public sector workers, educators, we’ve got folks who work in state government, city government, we’ve got the snow plow drivers, we’ve got building trades, we’ve got, you know, manufacturing and food production and health care. Health care is a huge growing sector and especially as Minnesota continues to have more and more folks reaching retirement or getting to a place where they need support, that’s not going to stop.

Those are just some of the sectors, but it’s a really broad coalition.

Hagert:

A quick political question here, how would you describe the labor’s current perception of the DFL party and then what type of DFLers have been the most successful in communicating to and representing your members?

Winkels:

So I’ll start with the first part. I think that across the board we’ve had a lot of acknowledgments that the DFL really is working to put working people first. They’re deeply committed to collective bargaining. They have drawn very clear lines about the importance of not just having the opportunity for folks to unionize, but making sure that when we have new units, right, they’re getting recognized and that the benefits that some of the employers refuse to bargain can get talked about at the state level, right? Paid family medical leave being a good example of that.

And we also have too many DFLers who haven’t taken the time to really understand what the labor movement is, what our unions are, why we have to have conversations around, you know, when and people say, well, why shouldn’t they have to use some of their paid time off for part of their paid family medical leave? Well, a lot of those workers didn’t take pay raises because they opted and bargained to have extra paid time off. So now you wanna punish them for that, right? This isn’t easy to say in context.

So when we have to have conversations with folks that just show that they do not understand what a union contract does or why the historic elements of it need to be valued, it can be very challenging.

When it comes to the folks who are really speaking to the members, I mean, Melissa Hortman, of course, right? Just is such a hero for folks across the movement and was trusted and considered a friend by the entire movement.

Tim Walz was a union member, right? Speaking and being able to speak from this position of why a union contract and why his family had union contracts not making the difference. And then at the local level, we’ve got folks who are really just pushing to say, how do we get more union members?

How do we support the idea that a broader labor movement is gonna put us where we need to be to have a stronger society? You look at other countries that have strong economies, that have strong investments in their civil society. They have very strong labor movements, stronger than ours.

And so part of the reason we’re seeing the erosion and the ability of billionaires to push so hard is because they spent decades undermining the labor movement. they know that we would hold them accountable. And by like attacking us, it makes it easier for them to get away with murder.

Hagert:

Does the DFL, do you think, have any work to do to ensure support from organized labor as we head into the election year?

Winkels:

I think we need folks who are willing to not just vote with us, but lead for us, right?

We need to elect more union members to office. We need the folks who are already in elected office who aren’t union members, even if they do have family members or relatives who are union members, that doesn’t mean that they are willing to stand up and fight in the closed door room. And I also think we need to have folks who really appreciate and don’t just try to manage community partnerships, not just with the labor movement, with community overall. When we have folks who are fighting for and demanding things in the streets, that’s not something to be placated. That’s something, especially when there are values alignment, to be partnered with.

And too many folks want to – and this is especially at the federal level for Democrats – seemingly just want to do beltway work. They want to get the photo op. They want to invite somebody to a press conference. But when it comes to actually talking about what could your members do on the ground to build support for this idea we share together, those aren’t questions they’re asking.

They’re not bringing an organizing mentality to their work. They need to shift that so that they can be powerful. And we see that with folks like Tina Smith.

We see that with folks like Ilhan Omar, and we need to have more of it across the board.

Hagert:

Speaking of an organizing mentality and things going on at the federal level, I want to touch on ICE’s ongoing operations in Minnesota.

How have ICE activities impacted your members, And what role has labor played in pushing back against ICE in the last few months in particular?

Winkels:

Well, I’ll just say that we have been very proud to stand shoulder to shoulder with our community members as we demand that our democracy not only live up to the laws of our land, the Constitution, but also that the administration would be held accountable to adhering to those things, and also saying we’re going to protect folks from violence. We’re going to protect folks from abduction.

we’re going to push back on the disinformation and propaganda that keeps getting spun up to weaponize certain elements of our country against each other, frankly, so that they can keep them angry and distracted and not demanding that their health care costs get lowered and not demanding that they have access to decent schools or good investment in water infrastructure. The sleight of hand from the Republican Party is infuriating, and we can’t continue to treat bad faith politicians and bad faith actors as if they are coming to the table because we’ll only end up negotiating with ourselves. We have to stop accepting the premise of their lives. I love that. Absolutely awful things. And when it comes to ICE I’ll just say every single union in our state has been impacted and the stories I could tell you are overwhelming.

I’m trying to flesh this out for the people who are still under the illusion that they’re going after the bad guys and it’s you know. They’re going after anyone they can get and then after the fact they look for people that they can pretend are the bad guys. That’s what they’re doing. And when you talk about indigenous folks getting arrested because of the color of their skin, that is not about who are the good guys or the bad guys, that is about who can we politicize to make enough of the population think it is appropriate to do these Stasi tactics. And when it comes to what we’ve done, we have worked in coalition to create infrastructure, to create mutual aid, not just for union members, but also for their families and also supporting the broader communities. We have worked hard to make sure that we’re working in close sync with the elected officials who are standing firm with us against these horrific actions. You think about the building trades, right?

They go to job sites. They’ve had ICE show up at a job site saying, we’re looking for this guy. They don’t give a name. They don’t give real information. It’s a picture of a brown man and then when they supposedly quote-unquote can’t find that guy they literally just start grabbing brown guys and later many are found to have been if not citizens and documented right and they’ve had to be released and we get no acknowledgement of these errors all of it is swept under the rug the Pete Stauber’s the Brad Finstead’s of the world are either silent or they’re pushing forward this dystopian 1984 nonsense that hey we can’t do anything that might undermine what Donald Trump is saying is true, even if our eyes are literally telling us otherwise.

And that is dangerous. The fight right now is not just about ICE. It is about the truth and lies.

And we saw January 6th, if you allow for a lie to become a truth for a section of the population, that is still how they are weaponizing and justifying these actions, because they have a small base of people that still are fixated on big lie, and therefore are willing to go down the road of violence, unconstitutionality, and harm to stay in that sector of the in-group.

We cannot have two truths coming out about what happens and what has been happening across our state in Minnesota, not just in the metro, but as far flung as Willmar, right, where we grew up.

And the stories are horrific, and not just the stories of the individuals, most of whom are brown, black, Asian, and indigenous, who are getting swept up, who do have documentation, who are citizens, but also of all of the folks who are being pulled in because they are constitutional observers or doing mutual aid. We’ve got healthcare providers that are trying to go to some houses being followed. And once they get tagged, they can’t go and do help anymore because they are using AI illegally, or if not illegally, then in a horrific unregulated gray area that the billionaires like to create spreadsheets and databases of people’s faces.

And then they will come knock on the door and say, hey Nancy, nice to see you again. intimidation tactics, especially tied to the fact that most of the folks they’re doing this to and a lot of the leaders of what is happening in Minnesota are women, it’s gender-based violence, right? Like the bullies, the people that you would never want to be in charge, have the guns, have the authority, and are willing to use it in completely irresponsible ways. And on top of that, you have the actual police forces and many folks have differing opinions on the police. We know that there are police officers, sheriffs, who are flagging. They have officers being detained on a work because ICE doesn’t care. They’re going after everybody. They’re going after our peace officers. We also had one of the chiefs of a local suburb on her off time go to a local AA meeting to be an observer, try to make sure folks come in and out, we’re safe, and one of the ICE agents come up to her and said, you should get a job. To a police chief, right? This is all about propaganda and asking folks to swallow a lie so that they can continue to weaponize, victimize, and harm a certain set of the population because then they can do it to anybody.

And we know that Stephen Miller and Steve Bannon are the folks that are doing their testing of messages. Steve Bannon continues to say, we’re never going to let them steal another election again. We’re going to have ice at every polling location.

That is their vision. This is an unaccountable secret police that they want to weaponize, and they need to have legitimacy to do it, and they are trying desperately to build that legitimacy on lies and propaganda.

Hagert:

Looking back at the last session and you touched on this briefly earlier, the AFL-CIO was integral to passing the state’s new Paid Family and Medical Leave program. How would you assess the implementation of that program thus far?

Winkels:

Exceptionally well done.

Our unemployment insurance program, on which the Pace Family Medical League program was mirrored, is one of the best, safest, most secure in the country. All, again, of the lies around fraud and what is happening are not only inaccurate, they are politically motivated propaganda. We know that people are taking advantage, and by I say taking advantage, I mean using a social safety net that they are supposed to be using.

The people who don’t like it are the ones who have been doing exploitative policies. someone says, well, what am I going to do if my worker just wants to take time off? Well, if your business model is built on the idea that someone with a new child or someone with a dying parent can’t take time off at reduced pay to be clear, like people aren’t pulling home whole paychecks, and you can’t figure that out, you just expect people to be automatons, you have some internal work to do.

Hagert:

Do you anticipate any legislative reforms, positive or negative, related to paid family leave this session?

Winkels:

No, we are recommending that we let it play out. I mean we are a month and a half into this.

We have to see what is and isn’t working. We have to listen to the professionals. We have to listen to the folks both on the business side as well as the user side about what is happening, and if there need to be smart reforms, then we should review that.

But this idea that we should change it before it’s even gotten out of the gate is absolutely politically motivated to undermine the idea that this is something that should exist.

Hagert:

What lessons stand out to you from your organizing and advocacy efforts around Paid Family Leave that can be used to advance other labor priorities?

Winkels:

I mean, good organizing has always got to have a long game.

We always hope that these campaigns will be quick, and we will be able to win. And we have to be ready for the fact that we might need to educate folks. We might need to bring folks along. We might need to try a lot of tactics. We might need to replace some bosses. And in this case, the bosses are the legislature.

The fact that we were able to achieve all of the wins in our 2023 session and biennium that we did was based on years of hard work, coalition building, faith, community, labor, politicians who shared our values. And that is why even with tiny majorities, Senator Dietzik, Speaker Hortman, the leadership that has come on since, we were able to achieve what is truly miraculous when you look at other states that have trifectas that have been stuck in the mud because of tiny internal politics. And I shouldn’t say tiny, that’s not necessarily fair.

But when we fight each other versus looking up and looking at the big picture, if we are not prepared to look at that big picture and know, hey, we are going to do things, we are going to get things set up, we need to take things piece by piece, and then keep going, and that is similar to a lot of issues.

Upsetting the status quo is often one of the most important parts of organizing.

Too many people think that the way things are is like the weather. You have no control. And that is simply not true.

But if you can’t show that we can make efforts and put forward effort that will have positive impact and make things shift, then it’s harder to get farther down the road. That doesn’t mean whatever we pass is always good enough, but it takes us a step closer to what is just, and to what our demands truly are. We can never lose sight of the long view, and we also have to keep moving forward every step of the way, and celebrating those victories as we go.

Hagert:

If you had to define the labor movement’s North Star for the upcoming legislative session, what are the top three outcomes that would most directly improve the lives of working families?

Winkels:

The first thing is protecting Minnesotans from the harmful cuts, and political threats that are coming from the Trump administration, we unfortunately are seeing across agencies, the federal government weaponizing itself against Minnesotans. Different agencies are racking up different amounts that they are being told we are not passing along these dollars.

That’s not legal. We are going to do an audit at an unnamed date based on unsighted data that we have that you are in a fraudulent space, none of which is grounded in reality. And even if, and we will win in court, with the help of our amazing Attorney General, and his leadership, and other folks who are fighting those fights, the delays have real impact.

It has a real impact on whether or not kids are going to have what they need to achieve their potential in school. It has real impact on whether or not folks who have been working steady in the building trades are going to continue to have empty benches, and the work that they need done because we have the funding coming through and the Department of Transportation isn’t continuing to cancel projects based on a political agenda.

And so I think that protection and that mentality of holding the line is one of the most important pieces.

After that it’s about investments. It’s about investments in bonding. It’s about investments in our schools, and our healthcare programs, and the places where people really need these services, and oftentimes union members are the ones delivering them.

And I think if I was going to name a third, it would be accountability around ICE. We know that we have folks who are not being held accountable at the federal level. They’re working extrajudicially. They’re not even upholding their own laws. We need to make sure that we are using every lever we can to protect Minnesotans from ICE and the administration overall however we can legally as a state.

Hagert:

What barriers to organizing, and touch on this a little bit, to organizing and collective bargaining are workers still facing in Minnesota and what are some fixes that lawmakers should prioritize this session?

Winkels:

I think the biggest thing is that federal labor law has become so impossible to navigate for the average people who want to form a union.

And that isn’t right. The ability to collectively bargain - that’s a right. That’s a right people have fought and died for and that we should have across our nation. And when the laws literally undermine that ability, or when you have brave workers who sacrifice so much to win a union contract or to win a union, then have people who refuse to sit down and bargain a first contract in good faith.

The Amazon Workers Union is still not able, nor has Starbucks truly, come to the table with a full contract. Their goal is always to delay, delay, delay, right? To the point that the union effort hopefully on their end dries out.

And they have the resources that it’s easier to withstand because they are so exploitative. So we need federal changes to our labor law. And the PRO Act which if folks haven’t made themselves aware of this, they should. They shouldn’t just think, oh yeah, I’ll vote for that. They should know why they should vote for it. They should be fighting to vote for it.

They should be bringing it to their leadership at the federal level saying, this needs to be a priority. The Employee Free Choice Act back in 2008, President Obama, he really prioritized healthcare. It was important to make steps, right? But we know Obamacare isn’t perfect.

We also know if ESCA had actually passed, organizing and the power of workers would look very different today. So we cannot miss that next opportunity. We have to prioritize and pass real federal reform, and the PRO Act is the bill to do it.

Hagert:

As demand accelerates for the critical minerals made up for clean energy and housing construction, and Minnesota competes to be a leader in that supply chain. What role should responsible union built mining play? What guardrails are necessary to ensure those jobs align with long-term environmental sustainability?

Winkels:

So the first thing I would say is we have to acknowledge the need to innovate. We have to address the climate crisis. We also have to make sure that we’re not pushing off our needs onto countries and workers that have less safety that have more exploitation, that is a horrible action for a powerful country to take.

And so when it comes to things like mining, if you are going to Indonesia, if you are going to some other countries, they don’t even have mining equipment. We see small children who are doing this work with their bare hands. And that’s not an overstatement. So we really do need to be honest with ourselves not just about our moral imperatives around climate change, but also our moral imperatives about being a global superpower.

And just because we can force others to mine this for us, and then all of us have cell phones, and all of us demand electric cars, what are the real outcomes of that?

When it comes to how do we protect our waters, how do we protect our land? Absolutely, we need to follow the science.

We need to have strict protocols which in Minnesota we do, and we can continue to strengthen those as science dictates. And we also need to acknowledge when you have a unionized workforce, in and of itself, you are going to have an extra check and balance that doesn’t exist when you don’t. That is a good thing. Anytime we are losing market share for the labor movement, everyone should be concerned about that.

And it is not as simple as, these folks should get resort jobs.

I cannot tell you how frustrated I am by the lack of understanding of what a union job that has been fought for, and worked on, and a contract means to a family, versus earning $17 an hour six months out of the year

So we do have real questions to ask ourselves and people need to not pretend that they have all the information just because it feels good to be part of a group that seems to have a catchy slogan.

And when I think about mining specifically, I just think Minnesota can and should be an innovator and a leader. We have done that going back to Wheat and Norman Borud, I think I’m saying his name right. We have done that at the University of Minnesota in a variety of ways. We have so many resources in this state to think through innovation, safety, standards, how to be a model.

And anyone who’s calling for a moratorium on anything, that’s saying no more innovation. Prove it first, right? Or moratorium on X. That’s just telling everyone this is our quick way to stop it until some imaginary boundary that they are very rarely able to acknowledge is clear and true and transparent gets met.

It’s the the same Republican tactics of delay, delay, delay, undermine, undermine, undermine, that the boss is using in contracts and that the Republicans are using in negotiations. And when we see that from activists, even well-intentioned activists who want to at the end of the day, protect things like the boundary waters, as we all do, as folks who live up there do, it’s very frustrating.

We need folks to act from a space of grounded, good faith reality, and not try to simplify very complex conversations. We shouldn’t be afraid of expertise. And too often we see that.

Hagert:

What role should the legislature play in strengthening prevailing wage laws and project labor agreements, particularly in the bonding years, legislators consider investments in infrastructure and clean energy?

Winkels:

They should take any actions they can, right? Those are things that ensure that we don’t have municipalities or the state pitting themselves against each other, racing to the bottom, workers being stuck in the middle of those jurisdictional or budgetary battles.

When it comes to the specifics, I would defer to my brothers, sisters, and siblings in the trades. And we work closely with them regarding the expertise that they bring to those laws.

But any protections we can do to make sure that the working people aren’t politicized, that they’re not given the short end of the stick, those should be prioritized. We should be looking at that. And I would hope that elected officials are keeping that front of mind they’re considering what they want to prioritize.

Hagert:

Last question here, when all things are said and done, how will labor evaluate whether this legislative session was a success?

Winkels:

Because of the occupation of our communities by ICE, I think that we are all in a space where we are playing it day by day. A year ago, I could have never imagined that the first day of session would have been focused on remembering the life and loss of Melissa and Mark Hortman. Now, of course, that is the thing we are all focused on.

We are in horrifically challenging times and I don’t think it’s helpful to set benchmarks when we don’t understand the context. There is so much about this context that is very much not only not understood, but actively being manipulated by folks who just want to have power grabs wherever they can.

While politics is often analyzed from the outside, BNB’s Guest Editorial Series aims to flip that perspective by highlighting the firsthand experiences of those working inside the political and policy arena. This includes lawmakers crafting and ushering legislation, candidates navigating the campaign trail, career civil servants implementing public programs, and political operatives shaping strategy behind the scenes.

The goal is not to litigate every claim or endorse every position, but to provide readers with direct insight into how decisions are made, how institutions function, and how power operates in practice.

Below, is a guest editorial from Mahbub Sarwar, a former federal employee working for USAID before it was significantly dismantled last year by the Trump administration. Sarwar shares his experience at USAID and his reactions to the Trump administration’s decision to dramatically reduce the size and scope of USAID.

—--

“We spent the weekend feeding USAID into the wood chipper. Could [have] gone to some great parties. Did that instead.” - [Elon Musk]

That was what the richest person in the world wrote about the Agency I was proud to serve on behalf of the American people. Today, the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) is mostly gone. Sure, some programs have been shifted to the State Department, and a few former colleagues remain, but the institution I knew has been dismantled. Its people scattered, its programs closed out, its purpose seen as expendable.

I could write about USAID’s value in an increasingly multipolar world, as well as its effectiveness in reducing poverty, saving lives, educating children, and fostering goodwill across the globe, but this post is not about that. It is about the year I lost the job I worked more than a decade to earn, and the deeper loss that came with it: the ability to do good on behalf of the country that gave me a place to call home.

I wasn’t born in the US. I came here as an immigrant when I was seven years old. We landed in the US around Christmas, and my younger self couldn’t comprehend how bright the city of Angels was at night. How can there be so much light when the sun had gone down hours ago? My parents, brother, and I immigrated to the US from Bangladesh (yes, the country Ravi Shankar and George Harrison held a worldwide concert for in MSG in 1971) and grew up living the American Dream. To this day, I am forever grateful and indebted to our country, this beautiful and diverse place that I sometimes don’t recognize.

Since I was young, I have always wanted to repay all of the opportunities I was given by someday serving my country. I got my chance when I landed an internship at USAID’s Office of Foreign Disaster Assistance (OFDA). OFDA was the team that rushed into disasters, saved lives, and rebuilt communities. During my time, they were still helping rebuild after the devastating effects of the earthquake in Haiti and responding to cyclones that were hitting Asia. From there, I bounced around as what is commonly known as an institutional contractor working for some funnily named companies, while sitting inside the Ronald Reagan Building in DC, working alongside other contractors and direct hires alike. I ultimately joined the Foreign Service with USAID a month before my wedding in 2022, and helped launch policy reforms, update strategies, and strengthen our communications efforts. Ironically, some of my biggest professional opportunities came under the first Trump Administration. The political leaders I worked with then had a clear plan to improve aid effectiveness. Coming from Bangladesh, I saw the corrosive effect of corruption and the increased use of predatory loans in our partner countries. I believed completely in former Administrator Mark Green’s mantra that foreign assistance should be a hand up, not a hand out.

USAID was never a charity. It was a strategic investment in stability, democracy, and American leadership. But again, this essay is not about those arguments. It is about what happened in 2025 and what I failed to do.

The order came in abruptly: pause all work and all payments until we could prove how our programs made Americans safer, stronger, and more prosperous. At USAID/Malawi, where my wife and I both served as officers with our newborn son, we complied. We drafted notices to partners, suspended activities, and waited for clarification. I believed that as long as the request was not illegal, we had a duty to follow it. That was my oath. We serve the United States, not a political party.

But the requests kept escalating. Program freezes turned into threats of forced evacuation. There was talk of flights out on military aircraft. Rumors that our phones and email would be shut off, cutting us off from the Embassy. We were told to wind down, pack up, and prepare to leave with little notice.

I kept waiting for someone in leadership to intervene. Senior leaders at USAID or the State Department. Congress. The Supreme Court. Anyone. I kept telling myself this could not actually happen. That our system of checks and balances would function. That someone would say enough.

No one did, and neither did I.

In June, we packed up our lives in Malawi, left behind the career we had built, and came home to be officially separated from the government. Half a year later, I still wake up some mornings thinking that there will be an announcement admitting this was all a big mistake, that USAID will be restored, that my badge will be given back to me.

I know that won’t happen, and the truth is that during that tumultuous time, my silence accomplished nothing.

I know why I stayed quiet. I was scared. I hoped more experienced leaders would step up. I trusted the system to correct itself. I believed that loyalty meant restraint, even when everything in my gut told me the policies we were executing were reckless, unpatriotic, and harmful to the very people we served.

But silence is its own decision. It signals consent to those issuing the orders, and it leaves the burden for speaking out to someone else who is just as afraid. My cowardice helped no one, least of all the colleagues who were looking for someone, anyone, to say this was wrong.

Losing my job has been difficult, but the hardest part has been losing who I was. Being a USAID Foreign Service Officer, a diplomat, was always something more than work. It was a purpose. I was in Malawi for only a year and a half, but in that time, I saw what American leadership could do. I attended school openings, tree plantings, and youth events where Malawians would smile when they heard I was with USAID. I met women entrepreneurs building the future of their local economies. I saw firsthand how PEPFAR and other U.S. investments increased Malawi’s life expectancy by nearly 20 years and helped achieve 95/95/95 HIV control. These were not abstract outcomes. They were people’s lives.

That is why I think about my silence so often now. I believed our institutions would hold. I believed others would intervene. But as I am learning, democracy does not sustain itself through hope alone. It requires ordinary people in unglamorous jobs to say no when the line is crossed.

I lost my career. I may never get it back. But I still believe in the country that welcomed a seven-year-old boy and allowed him to build a life in service. I still believe in the America whose lights dazzled me that first night we landed in LA. We are at a crossroads now, deciding what kind of nation we want to be and what kind of public servants we want to be.

If there is one thing I want my colleagues still in public service to hear, it is this: do not wait for someone else to speak first. Document everything. Question orders that violate policy or law. Tell the truth to the American people. You are not disloyal for upholding your oath. You are fulfilling it. Do not go gentle into the quiet night. While compliance feels safe in the moment, the cost will eventually catch up. Do not repeat my mistake. Speak up while you still can, and help keep America a nation we are all proud to serve.

My son is 20 months old now. He knows nothing of politics or of what happened to us in 2025. One day, I will tell him about it, and when I do, I want him to know I spoke up.