San Marcos council rejects ceasefire resolution after hours of public comment

The San Marcos City Council on the night of May 6–7, 2025, declined to adopt a resolution that would have called for an immediate, permanent and sustained ceasefire in occupied Palestine, an arms embargo on the State of Israel, and recognition of Palestinian sovereignty.

The resolution, brought to the council by Council Member Amanda Rodriguez and seconded by Council Member Alyssa Garza, drew more than two hours of public comment from residents and students. Supporters urged the city to protest U.S. military aid that they said is funding civilian harm; opponents said the city should not weigh in on foreign policy and warned the governor could withhold state grants.

Why it matters: The proposal touched off a heated local debate about the scope of municipal authority, free speech and the political consequences of criticizing U.S. foreign policy. Supporters said a city statement would register community values and press higher levels of government; opponents said it risked local funding and exceeded the council’s responsibilities.

Dozens of speakers addressed the council. “This resolution allows those in San Marcos to declare that we stand against genocide and we do not want our taxes paying for it,” resident Miles Brownlee told the council. Leanne Staff, speaking remotely, urged the council to join more than 70 U.S. cities that have passed similar measures, saying, “That money could be reallocated to essential needs locally like education, housing, and clean water.”

Opponents framed the item as a local-risk decision. Monte Parker said he would “put San Marcos first and vote no,” warning that state funding could be jeopardized if the city adopted the resolution. Brandon Oles, a Marine Corps veteran who said he served in Afghanistan, told council members: “Your responsibility is to this city, and pushing this resolution won’t end this war.”

Council debate focused on two themes: the legal exposure the city might face under state law and the political consequences of taking a public position on an international conflict. Council members discussed edited language posted May 2 meant to clarify that the resolution would not require or encourage violations of state law and that it condemns the targeting of civilians.

Votes at a glance: - Resolution 2025-83R (ceasefire resolution): amendment to the draft passed 5–2; the main motion as amended failed 2–5. The amendment that passed added explicit language saying the resolution did not require or encourage violations of Texas law and broadened the text to condemn all wars and human-rights violations. (Motion to amend: passed 5–2. Final motion as amended: failed 2–5.) - Consent agenda: items 2–4 approved by a single motion, passed 7–0. - Resolution 2025-79R (renaming rooms at Dunbar Recreation Center): staff requested the item be postponed indefinitely; the council voted to postpone indefinitely, 7–0.

Council procedure and context: Council members said the item was placed on the agenda after two members requested it at a prior meeting and after the council met in executive session earlier in the day for legal advice. The governor’s office had sent a letter warning that state grant agreements must comply with state law that restricts certain government-supported boycotts of Israel; that letter was repeatedly referenced by speakers and council members in the meeting.

Several speakers said the proposed resolution was primarily symbolic but still important. “We deserve leadership that actually stands with their people,” said Eli Doyle, reading a statement on behalf of a resident who declined to speak in person. Other commenters said the proposal would divert attention from local needs; a number of speakers urged council members to prioritize local budgets, public safety and services.

What the council decided: After a short debate and an amendment intended to clarify the resolution’s legal and rhetorical scope, the full measure failed. Council members who voted against the resolution said their primary concern was the city’s limited legal authority to influence federal policy and the potential financial repercussions the governor threatened. Council members who supported the resolution said the votes reflected community values and free-speech concerns.

The meeting record shows the council completed its public comment period and the votes late into the night; the meeting was adjourned at 1:56 a.m.

What’s next: The council did not adopt the ceasefire resolution at this meeting. Because the final motion failed rather than being tabled with a date certain, the item could be reintroduced in a future meeting if council members choose to place it on a subsequent agenda.