Citizen Portal
Sign In

Get Full Government Meeting Transcripts, Videos, & Alerts Forever!

Get email alerts on the Divestment topic

No spam. Unsubscribe anytime.

Community groups press Detroit to divest city contracts tied to war profiteering

Detroit City Council · January 13, 2026
AI-Generated Content: All content on this page was generated by AI to highlight key points from the meeting. For complete details and context, we recommend watching the full video. so we can fix them.

Summary

Activists from the Detroit Anti War Committee and allied organizations urged the city to investigate and divest from contractors they said profit from military operations and to publish lists of city contracts for public review.

Organizers told the Detroit City Council on Jan. 9 that the city should examine and divest from contracts with companies they say profit from military action and human-rights abuses.

Speakers from the Detroit Anti War Committee and allied groups described a city contracting pattern they said directs hundreds of millions of dollars to firms linked to U.S. military or foreign operations. “Based on the research that we did into the city contracts from 2024 to 2025, the city spent over $667,000,000 on companies that fulfill one if not more of this criteria,” said Joe Pico. Speakers urged the council to appoint staff to audit vendor lists and to consider a divestment resolution.

Councilmembers did not adopt a divestment ordinance at the meeting but agreed to staff research. Member McCampbell and others asked departmental staff to compile contracts that could involve data‑sharing or that activists flagged as profiting from war; the council directed the Detroit Police Department and other offices to assist with that review.

Speakers framed divestment as connected to other demands including sanctuary protections and protection of immigrants. Activists asked for public transparency about which vendors the city uses and for a process to ensure taxpayer dollars do not support policies or firms that activists described as harmful.

The council did not provide independent verification of the spending figures presented by speakers; staff were asked to review contracts and return findings to the council in a written memo.