Dozens of San Jose speakers urge city to divest from companies tied to Israel; council asks staff to review investment policy

Dozens of San Jose residents urged the San Jose City Council to adopt a divestment resolution removing city investments in companies they said are tied to Israel's campaign in Gaza and the West Bank. Speakers named Caterpillar, Alphabet and Microsoft and said the city's most recent quarterly investment report shows more than $50 million invested in those companies.

The call for divestment came during a lengthy public-comment period. Miranda Collett, a resident who opened the remarks on this topic, said, “Please counsel people. Divest from Caterpillar, Alphabet, and Microsoft. You have more than $50,000,000 invested in these companies.” Other speakers repeated that figure and asked the council to introduce a resolution for the March review of the city’s investment portfolio.

Why it matters: speakers framed divestment as a moral step San Jose can take—an action they said would be consistent with prior city decisions, including divestment from South African apartheid-era interests in the 1980s and fossil-fuel-related investments in 2020. Advocates also argued any local financial risk would be small because the cited holdings represent about 2% of the city's portfolio, and that divestment would increase pressure on companies they say enable human-rights abuses.

What the council did: the council did not adopt a divestment resolution at the meeting. Maria Olberg, the city’s finance director, described the existing investment policy's social-responsibility clause: when two investments are otherwise equal, the city may favor a green bond or similar option. Council members asked Olberg to investigate “any sort of concerns” about potential investments and to bring findings back to the council in advance of the March portfolio approval. One council member pulled item 2.7 from consent and recused themself from that item; the broader consent calendar passed and item 2.7 was later approved with two recusals recorded.

Public claims and council response: many speakers cited casualty counts and described direct observations from the West Bank and Gaza; the council recorded the comments but did not make policy on the spot. Council discussion focused on process: whether the city’s policy permits values-based screens, how other jurisdictions have implemented divestment, and the practical steps needed to change holdings. Maria Olberg said the investment policy already includes a “social responsibility clause” but that specific, formal changes would require a future agendized discussion.

Next steps: council members directed staff to look into the investment-policy options and to report back in advance of the March vote on the city’s portfolio. Speakers urged the council to act at that March review.

Ending: The public-comment period produced a sustained, multi-hour set of remarks urging divestment; the council pledged a staff review but took no immediate policy action on divestment at the meeting.