The budget counterproposal crafted by opponents of Mayor Brandon Johnson won a critical first full City Council vote Friday, setting up the mayor to soon concede their remarkable weekslong fight — or issue Chicago’s first mayoral veto of a budget in decades.
Aldermen pass 2026 budget in historic revolt against Mayor Brandon Johnson
Aldermen voted 29-19 to approve the revenue piece of an alternative 2026 spending plan that does not include Johnson’s corporate head tax. That’s shy of the 34-vote threshold needed to override a potential mayoral veto, however, leaving the door open for the City Hall standoff to escalate further still. And with under two weeks until an end-of-year deadline to approve a budget, all factions agree Chicago is inching too close for comfort to a government shutdown.
When the moment came Friday, aldermen debated for mere moments before quickly passing the plan.
“The city of Chicago’s financial position is at a critical juncture,” said Ald. Pat Dowell, Johnson’s handpicked Finance chair who played a critical role in the effort that outmuscled him. “And I think we have emerged today with a budget plan that protects programs which are vital to those most in need while setting on the right path toward a stronger fiscal future.”
The $16.6 billion aldermanic package contains a debt sale measure that Johnson has called Thursday “morally bankrupt” and his “red line.” His budget team warned such a novel proposal should not be counted on to raise any money at all, on top of attacking other components of the alternative budget that they argue is unbalanced and would require midyear amendments next year.
Whether the plan requires a veto, in Johnson’s eyes, is the question of the hour.
More Top Picks Union Scale Flexfit Hyken Mesh
The rest of the budget package could face a vote as soon as Saturday. But in his post-council presser, the mayor sought to pump the brakes by insisting “negotiations are still prevalent. This process is not over just yet.”
“I haven’t made that decision yet,” Johnson said about a possible veto.
Johnson adviser Kennedy Bartley told reporters after the news conference that the administration believes the mayor would be able to make line item vetoes in key budget legislation, a sign he is weighing such a possibility.
Should Johnson follow through, he would be the first Chicago mayor to veto a budget plan since 1985, when Mayor Harold Washington rejected a revenue package approved by a majority bloc of aldermen. Johnson first threatened a mayoral veto last month on any budget that hikes property taxes or garbage fees but has been less committal about his council rivals’ current plan.
But he also took pains in his news conference Friday to try to frame the revenue package aldermen passed as a compromise, despite the fact the council has so far rejected his key corporate head tax provision and instead embraced the debt sale he has railed against.
He pointed to the increased and new taxes on leased personal property and social media companies to argue the passed plan pulls from businesses.
The mayor has also taken credit for his aldermanic opponents backing off a plan to increase garbage fees.“These are gains that, had we not put forth this fight, they would not exist,” he said.
And Johnson meanwhile introduced a revised budget plan of his own Friday that would replace the debt sale plan with the head tax. In the plan, the city would make a full advance pension payment Johnson had earlier proposed halving, not legalize video gambling terminals and count on slot machines being placed at a Midway Airport lounge.
Aldermen opposed to Johnson used a legislative maneuver to delay consideration of the mayor’s tweaked proposal.
Johnson’s head tax idea remains at a monthly $33-per-employee surcharge for companies over 500 workers in his latest ordinance, even after a majority of aldermen have repeatedly rejected versions of the levy in votes and letters. But the mayor on Friday refused to move on, comparing his fight to tax corporations to crusades for racial justice, gender equality and suffrage movements throughout American history.
“That fight is not over. Do you know how many times people fought for civil rights, women’s rights, the rights to vote?” Johnson said when asked why he won’t accept defeat. “Wouldn’t that have been a shame if we would have had that same question for people a generation ago? That you’ve lost it, why not give up?”
The mayor and his leftist allies have been admonishing the majority council bloc for weeks, say they are siding with rich corporations and billionaires. The war of words has also stood out from other budget fights in its campaign-style messaging from outside interests, pitting wealthy business-backed groups against the Johnson-allied Chicago Teachers Union and other progressive organizations.
But even the progressives were not united with Johnson, who first introduced his own $16.6 billion package in October but failed to make the case that his pitch to reinstate the city’s head tax, among other new revenue measures, was Chicago’s best hope to stand up to President Donald Trump. That his aldermanic rivals gained such ground over Johnson was not just because of his focus on the head tax but because they championed a full advance pension payment from the start.
That’s a requirement for many council members who say Chicago must stop kicking the can down the road with its fiscal obligations — or else risk a catastrophic credit downgrade. But some holdouts are also reluctant to approve Johnson’s borrowing plan to cover firefighter backpay and police misconduct settlement costs. The council counterproposal preserves that part of Johnson’s budget.
On Friday, Progressive Caucus members Aldermen Desmon Yancy, Ronnie Mosley and Ruth Cruz voted with the mayor’s opposition, while Ald. Andre Vasquez abstained. He later said on the floor he would have voted no but encountered technical difficulties.
Though progressive Ald. Matt Martin voted against the rival revenue package, he stressed that was because he wants to leverage both sides to nix the borrowing plan to pay for firefighter backpay and police settlements. Like his colleagues, he agreed a government shutdown “is the worst outcome, and that’s not going to happen.”
Asked if relations between the mayor’s office on the fifth floor and City Council had any hope of improving given that doomsday scenario, he took a long pause before saying, “I don’t know, honestly. I don’t know.”
More Top Picks Best Womens Ankle Boots For Fall
Yancy, meanwhile, answered, “I guess the question is ‘Better than what?’ Right? The last couple of years has been really difficult. I think that has shown up in the way this budget conversation has gone.”
For his part Ald. Jason Ervin, Johnson’s pick to lead the powerful Budget Committee, argued afterward the vote did not signify an end to negotiations.
“I think that once the temperature dies down, folks go home for Christmas, take their pictures in their onesies and come back, I think we have a better result,” he said.
Asked if he believes the mayor should reject the spending plan he has criticized as unbalanced, he said “there are elements of it that should be vetoed.”
Outside chambers, Johnson’s empowered foes took a muted victory lap, with Ald. Brendan Reilly claiming the coalition was “awfully close” to winning over a veto-proof bloc of the council.
Dowell said that discussions should continue, as “a budget is a living document. It is a document that can be changed and modified, and if there are opportunities to do that or need to do that, we will.” She and her colleagues also disagreed with the mayor’s harsh rhetoric of that document.
“I don’t know what ‘morally bankrupt’ means,” Dowell said about Johnson’s ongoing criticism of their debt sale idea. “If you can explain that to me, I’ll answer the question.”
That Johnson’s third budget fight has gotten this combative shows how much the freshman mayor has lost control of the City Council. But Johnson himself may have inadvertently seen this coming months ago.
“It is my responsibility to present a budget,” the mayor said in February. “It is the City Council’s responsibility to pass that budget.”