Lessons from Minnesota Governor Tim Walz’s response to the violence following the murder of George Floyd

MINNEAPOLIS – Kamala Harris’ selection of Minnesota Governor Tim Walz as the Democratic vice presidential nominee has reignited debate over how he handled the biggest crisis of his political career.

Riots broke out in Minneapolis and St. Paul after a white police officer killed George Floyd. The murder of the black man in 2020 sparked a nationwide reckoning with racism and police misconduct. What the governor did – or failed to do – during the protests and in their aftermath is still being sharply criticized by Republicans. They say he should have acted sooner. And some progressives complain that Walz has not been forceful enough in overhauling the state's police departments.

Here are some insights into how Walz handled the protests and police reform efforts:

A fateful week

Floyd was killed on May 25, 2020, Memorial Day. A video captured by passersby of him screaming his last words, “I can't breathe,” quickly spread, fueling outrage. The protests were initially largely peaceful, albeit with vandalism and clashes with police.

Two nights later, on May 27, there was widespread looting. The police chief asked Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey to request help from the National Guard. Walz, a 24-year veteran of the National Guard, authorized a limited deployment on May 28 but left the response largely to local authorities.

That night, the destruction got even worse. Protesters took control of the 3rd District police station and set it on fire.

On May 29, Walz criticized the “abject failure” of the city's response. On May 30, he ordered the mobilization of the Guard, and calm was restored. However, more than 1,500 businesses and buildings had already been damaged, and the cost was estimated at nearly $500 million.

Criticism from Minnesota Republicans and praise from allies

In July of this year, the Republican-dominated Minnesota Senate held hearings. The final report in October 2020 blamed executive failures at the state and local levels and a hesitation by the Democratic governor and city leaders to confront their ideological allies.

“Governor Walz, his administration, and Mayor Frey failed to recognize the seriousness of the unrest and the danger to the citizens of Minnesota if the rioters are not confronted and stopped,” the Senate Republicans' report said. “Both Governor Walz and Mayor Frey failed to act in a timely manner and confront the rioters with the necessary force because of the misguided philosophical belief that such action would make the unrest worse.”

Bipartisan reviews also revealed problems with the response.

A state-commissioned report by the nonprofit Wilder Research lamented a lack of clear leadership early on. The report says the state was late in setting up a multi-agency command center, four days after Floyd's death. It also says the National Guard was mobilized too late.

A separate operational report commissioned by the city said Minneapolis officials were unfamiliar with the process for requesting National Guard assistance, leading to delays in approving and deploying troops.

Meanwhile, Walz said he and other officials had risen to the occasion.

“Sitting on the sidelines and criticizing is not what being governor means. It means making the difficult decisions,” Walz said during a 2022 gubernatorial debate. He said the way local, state and federal agencies worked together should serve as a model. “I'm proud of Minnesota's response.”

Trump has changed his tone

In recent appearances in Minnesota, Donald Trump falsely claimed that he was personally responsible for the deployment of the National Guard during his presidency. In fact, it was Walz who gave the orders.

“Every voter in Minnesota needs to know that when violent mobs of anarchists, looters and Marxists burned Minneapolis four years ago, I couldn't get your governor to act – remember me?” Trump, the Republican presidential candidate, said in July. “He should have called in the National Guard or the Army. And he didn't.”

That's in stark contrast to the praise Trump heaped on Walz in 2020 when the dust from the crisis had settled. Two days after Walz ordered full mobilization, the then-president told governors and officials that Minnesota's leader had done an outstanding job.

“What they did in Minneapolis was incredible. They went in and dominated, and it happened immediately,” Trump said, according to an audio recording of the conference call. The audio recording shows that Trump did not criticize the governor at the time. “Tim, you called big numbers and those big numbers knocked them down so fast, it was like bowling pins,” Trump said.

Two bipartisan outside reports released in March 2022 found deficiencies in the city and state's responses.

Walz's efforts to reform the police have been met with both criticism and praise

In the months following the riots, Walz pushed for sweeping changes, signing police accountability packages in 2020, 2021 and 2023.

Michelle Gross, president of Communities United Against Police Brutality, said Walz was largely unresponsive to policies that would have led to more meaningful improvements, citing stalled efforts to end a legal doctrine called qualified immunity that shields police officers from liability for misconduct, as well as another proposal to extend the statute of limitations for police-involved manslaughter cases.

Political allies defended his push for change.

The state's Attorney General, Keith Ellison, who secured the conviction of the four police officers charged in Floyd's death, said Walz found himself in an “impossible situation” in the summer of 2020. Still, Ellison said, the governor weighed the concerns of a grieving city with threats to public safety.

“A loved one is killed by police and you can't restore that person because death is final,” Ellison said. “The best thing you can do is hold the (police) accountable.”

Ben Crump, the influential civil rights attorney who represented Floyd’s family, praised Walz as a “concerned and compassionate leader” of a grieving community.

“All leaders who are brave enough to actually lead are scrutinized and criticized. Some say they've gone too far, others not far enough,” Crump said. “That's usually an indication that they've found a necessary middle ground.”