Good evening, everyone:

As we contemplate what our zones of influence might be as the current administration evolves its policies, priorities, and budgets, one appears clear: cities. We have deep, abiding, and inviolate interest in ensuring that cities safeguard and enhance economic opportunity and social mobility, social capital and cultural vibrancy, environmental health and resilience, educational excellence and citizen agency.  In ways too numerous to catalogue, the federal government has long been an essential partner in providing financial resources, technical expertise, and other forms of support in making that possible.

Kathy Ko-Chin recently sent me an article from the Washington Post that sketched in ominous terms the fears of one city – Cleveland – about what the new administration might have in store. The title says it all: “Cleveland thrived under Biden. It faces a storm in the Trump era.” Its subhead states: “Cleveland finds itself at the center of a growing storm over what it stands to lose as President Donald Trump’s agenda rattles largely Democratic cities.”

Written by Tim Craig, the article begins by describing a proposed landfill conversion for which the Biden Administration’s Environmental Protection Agency had allocated tens of millions of dollars for the site’s environmental remediation in favor of constructing solar panels. Those funds were frozen in January, un-frozen days later, frozen again in February, and are now un-frozen once again.

Craig writes:

"Amid widespread confusion over what federal funding remains available for a host of priorities, Cleveland now finds itself at the center of a growing storm over what it stands to lose as Trump’s agenda rattles largely Democratic cities by putting urban America in its crosshairs. It could offer a road map for how things could change as Trump, along with billionaire Elon Musk, attempts to slash and reorient the federal government."

From Baltimore to San Francisco, officials in major cities have drawn up legal challenges to Trump’s agenda, hoping to dim its impact on their residents while pushing back against what they see as an overreach of executive power. But the speed at which Trump is challenging environmental, and diversity programs has stunned officials, leading to fear and anxiety over just how rough things could get for America’s metropolitan regions, which typically rely on federal funding for infrastructure, education, health care and more."

Like Detroit, Cleveland found an effective, generous, and flexible partner in the Biden Administration. They received one of the nation’s highest ARPA allocations. They were awarded funds for solar panel installation, lead remediation, and high-speed internet subsidies for low-income families. They used federal dollars to upgrade their lakefront, construct trails, and replace run-down public housing.

We don’t yet know with certainty what kind of partner the Trump Administration will be for cities. It seems likely, however, that the terms of engagement will change, perhaps even dramatically. We’ve seen a great deal already: Immigration. Environmental de-regulation. Potential cuts to safety net human services and development programs. Reductions in federal agencies’ local office personnel.

These suggest that even more will follow. As Craig writes:

"In recent years, Cleveland and its suburbs in Cuyahoga County had embraced an agenda that includes more immigrants to help propel its economy; local diversity, equity and inclusion — or DEI — mandates; and major efforts to clean up the region’s polluting past. Cleveland’s agenda incorporates the values of a relatively liberal city but is also viewed as an essential part of a broader strategy to attract new residents after decades of population decline."

The question is accordingly how the city – and other cities like it – will choose to position themselves.

Cleveland Mayor Justin Bibb is concerned that the administration will seek to punish Democratic mayors. He has said that he will – both as the city’s mayor and as the new president of the Democratic Mayors Association – resist when the administration “undermines our values.”

The County Executive for Cuyahoga County, Chris Ronayne (who is also a Democrat), has sounded a more moderate note: “My attitude will be: Keep turning over stones. Keep conveying the value proposition of what we have been doing. Keep pressing forward with our congressional delegation. What I don’t want to do is poke someone in the eye prematurely.”

So, no easy answers about what to anticipate or how. To what extent do cities reserve their short-term responses to preventing and counteracting concrete harms – ICE raids, frozen funds, claw-backs of Greenhouse Gas Reduction Funds, and the like? To what extent will they seek to interpret the tea-leaves and adopt anticipatory postures – perhaps convening community conversations about changed local funding allocations or making requests from philanthropy for funding of at-risk activities? And to what extent will the public sector work with philanthropy to forge an integrated, cohesive response to whatever comes at cities?

Unfortunately, we just don’t know how, and where, and when, the administration will make its full impact felt on cities. And unfortunately, even this excellent article doesn’t suggest possibilities for how cities will behave.  

As painful as it is, we at Kresge may have to live in the ambiguous, unsatisfying, and morally-hazardous zone of waiting, seeing, and adapting in real time before we can calibrate fully the balance between short-term response, adherence to current strategies, and adaptations that will permit us to build anew.

Rip

‍