Apr. 7—The Portland City Council is grappling with how to respond to the Trump administration’s executive orders on diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives, immigrants and transgender people — or whether to respond at all.
While some councilors say they feel it’s imperative that they, as city leaders, make a statement condemning the attacks and offering protection, others are concerned it could make Portland a target and give residents a false sense of security that goes beyond what the municipality can promise. And with Maine already in the sights of the Trump administration after Gov. Janet Mills’ public clash with the president over transgender sports policies, that’s a risk some don’t want to take.
In the months since President Donald Trump took office, he has signed a series of executive orders banning DEI programs, rolling back health care access for transgender people and increasing attention on undocumented immigrants, who are now terrified of deportation.
As the City Council has watched fear grow among their constituents and a continued slew of executive orders stream in, members say they’ve struggled to agree on the best course of action.
PROPOSED RESOLUTIONS
Just after Trump took office in January, Councilor Pious Ali proposed a resolution affirming the city’s commitment to DEI. He sent a draft of the resolution to the City Council via email. Mayor Mark Dion responded, expressing concern that the resolution could make Portland a target of the Trump administration.
“I’m sure we are all being pressed to ‘take action’ in response to these presidential edicts, as these Orders promote a legitimate, tangible fear for our constituents. But in considering next best steps, we must also fully assess what results might be put in motion,” Dion wrote, according to a copy of the email provided to the Press Herald.
Councilor Wes Pelletier said he was concerned that Dion had blocked the resolution from reaching the agenda because he didn’t personally support it.
“I guess the mayor doesn’t want to anger Trump or whatever. In my opinion, we’re dealing with one of the most capricious people who’s ever held office,” Pelletier said in a phone call this week. “It’s been really disappointing and frustrating to be stonewalled by the mayor.”
In a phone interview on Thursday, Dion said he had no intention of blocking the resolution but was simply sharing his concerns. After sharing his opinion, he said, Ali agreed to hold off on bringing it forward. Ali confirmed this.
“He made a compelling argument for not including the resolution, primarily to avoid putting the city in direct conflict with the Trump administration. While I firmly support DEI initiatives, I recognize the importance of strategic decision-making, especially when navigating potential political and legal repercussions,” Ali said in an emailed statement.
Ultimately, the resolution never came before the Council.
Soon after, Ali began crafting another resolution that would have directed Portland police not to collaborate with Immigration and Customs Enforcement. However, after speaking with city staff and local leaders in the immigrant community, Ali said he realized that there already is a city policy barring the Portland police from working with ICE, so he put it on hold.
Dion said ICE reached out to the city recently, asking if the police department would be willing to help with immigration enforcement, which, Dion said, would have violated an existing policy. So they said no.
“Our primary goal is public safety. If somebody ICE is interested in starts shooting at people, we’re coming,” said Dion. “But we’re not knocking on doors asking about people’s status.”
Finally, Councilor Pelletier said that he and Councilor Anna Bullett have begun work on a resolution that would declare Portland a “sanctuary city” for transgender people. The resolution was inspired by a similar resolution that passed last month in Cambridge, Massachusetts.
Dion said he was concerned that such a resolution could give people a false sense of security.
“I want (transgender people) to feel safe in our city, but I’m concerned we could be giving people a false understanding of what the city can do. We aren’t immune from state and federal law,” he said.
Pelletier said he was expecting to hear more about how to proceed with crafting such a resolution, but hasn’t yet. Dion said Pelletier hasn’t brought him a completed resolution and he has no intention of blocking such legislation.
DELICATE BALANCE
While Pelletier wants to see the Council firmly condemn Trump’s attacks, other councilors don’t share his conviction that resolutions are a strong course of action.
Dion said the balance between signaling solidarity while still protecting critical federal funding sources is delicate. He noted that resolutions, unlike council orders, are non-binding and have no direct impact on policy. Effectively, resolutions only express the feelings of the Council publicly.
For her part, Councilor Kate Sykes said she understood Dion’s assessment of the proposed resolutions. Like him, she doesn’t view them as an effective tool.
“Its not that I don’t think it’s important to stand up and say things when we need to say things, but I don’t think we get that much done when we issue resolutions. Policy speaks louder,” said Sykes.
Councilor April Fournier said that while she believes resolutions are a great tool for showing solidarity, because of the current president’s tactics, strategic action is more important than ever. She shares Dion’s concern that Portland could become a target.
“I don’t think that means you stop speaking up, but I do agree you have to be very strategic about what you’re going to do,” she said.
Fournier said she is concerned about immigrants and transgender people feeling afraid, but she hopes there might be practical steps the Council can take to protect them, rather than sweeping resolutions that might draw the ire of the president.
“I want us to keep doing very, very local work. Even if it’s quiet and it’s not flashy, that’s what’s going to be most impactful,” she said.
Copy the Story Link
We believe it’s important to offer commenting on certain stories as a benefit to our readers. At its best, our comments sections can be a productive platform for readers to engage with our journalism, offer thoughts on coverage and issues, and drive conversation in a respectful, solutions-based way. It’s a form of open discourse that can be useful to our community, public officials, journalists and others.
We do not enable comments on everything — exceptions include most crime stories, and coverage involving personal tragedy or sensitive issues that invite personal attacks instead of thoughtful discussion.
You can read more here about our commenting policy and terms of use. More information is also found on our FAQs.
Show less