Does the minneosota governor let cities burn
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Was this fact-check helpful?
1. Summary of the results
The question about whether Minnesota Governor Tim Walz "lets cities burn" appears to stem from criticism of his response to the 2020 George Floyd protests and riots in Minneapolis. The analyses reveal a complex picture that contradicts the simplistic framing of the original question.
Governor Walz did ultimately deploy the Minnesota National Guard during the 2020 unrest, though there was criticism about the timing of this deployment [1] [2] [3]. The fact-checking analysis specifically addresses claims made by Senator JD Vance and former President Donald Trump that Walz allowed rioters to burn down Minneapolis, concluding that while Walz didn't deploy the National Guard as quickly as some believed he should have, he did ultimately activate the guard and take steps to address the unrest [3].
The timeline reveals that there was an 18-hour delay after Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey initially requested military personnel, which may have contributed to some destruction [4]. However, Walz's office confirmed he activated the National Guard following official requests from both St. Paul and Minneapolis, and this activation occurred before Walz spoke to the White House [1].
Interestingly, the analyses show that former President Donald Trump actually praised Walz's handling of the protests at the time, telling Walz in 2020 that he was "very happy" with his response [4]. This creates a stark contrast with later Republican criticism of the same response.
More recent evidence contradicts the "letting cities burn" narrative entirely. In response to a mass shooting in Minneapolis, Governor Walz ordered the deployment of state law enforcement officers to support public safety efforts, demonstrating active engagement in preventing urban violence rather than allowing it [5].
2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints
The original question lacks crucial context about the unprecedented scale and nature of the 2020 protests. The analyses reveal that Walz, Mayor Frey, and public safety officials did not expect unrest on such a large scale and that the response took days to develop [6]. This suggests the delay was partly due to the unexpected magnitude of the situation rather than deliberate inaction.
A significant missing element is the complexity of deploying the National Guard. The city's initial request for the National Guard lacked a detailed action plan, which may have contributed to delays in deployment [6]. This procedural context is essential for understanding why the response wasn't immediate.
The analyses also reveal that Walz initially underestimated the size of the crowds and their level of aggression [2], providing context for why the initial response may have been insufficient. This represents a judgment error rather than a policy of allowing destruction.
Political motivations behind the criticism become apparent when considering that Trump praised Walz's response in 2020 but later criticized it, suggesting the criticism may be more about political positioning than genuine concern about public safety [4].
3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement
The framing "does the Minnesota governor let cities burn" contains several problematic elements that suggest bias or misinformation. First, it uses inflammatory language ("let cities burn") that oversimplifies a complex emergency response situation and implies deliberate negligence.
The question appears to be based on Republican talking points that have been fact-checked and found to be misleading [3]. The characterization ignores the fact that Walz did take action, including deploying the National Guard and implementing law enforcement policy changes [2].
The present-tense framing ("does") is particularly misleading, as it suggests this is an ongoing policy or behavior pattern. However, the analyses show that Walz has actively deployed law enforcement in recent situations, directly contradicting the implied narrative [5] [7].
The question also lacks acknowledgment of the extraordinary circumstances of the 2020 protests following George Floyd's death, treating the response as if it occurred in normal circumstances rather than during a period of national civil unrest.
Finally, the question ignores the contradiction between Trump's initial praise and later criticism of the same response, suggesting that the criticism may be politically motivated rather than based on objective assessment of public safety management [4].