I’ll explain why Chicago’s decision to stop buying U.S. Treasury bonds is reckless, outline the facts about the city’s portfolio, quote key reactions exactly as stated, and show how political motives are being put ahead of fiduciary duty.
Chicago’s treasury announcement stunned people because it targets U.S. Treasury bonds, widely regarded as the safest investment in the world. The treasurer claims the move is a protest against President Donald Trump, yet the city’s portfolio is a taxpayer-backed responsibility that should not be used as a political megaphone. When public money is involved, sound, apolitical stewardship matters more than signaling to a partisan base.
U.S. Treasury bonds are backed by the full faith and credit of the United States government and are a core building block for low-risk capital preservation. Investors rely on their liquidity and predictable repayment of principal and interest, making Treasuries a staple for individuals, corporations, and municipal portfolios alike. As someone who managed investments for decades, the role of Treasuries in stabilizing portfolios is hard to overstate.
Chicago Treasurer Melissa Conyears-Ervin announced the city would stop investing in U.S. Treasury bonds and framed the move as a political protest. Her office reportedly handled roughly $10 to $11 billion in city assets and disclosed that $200 million in Treasury securities had been held in the past three years. Replacing Treasuries with other instruments means exposing public funds to different risk profiles for reasons unrelated to prudent financial management.
Conyears-Ervin, who is running for Congress, said she made the decision to protest President Trump’s “authoritarian regime.”
The city’s portfolio is worth about $10 to $11 billion. Conyears-Ervin said the city held $200 million in treasury securities within the past three years, and also said the city has other comparable options that could bring a similar rate of return, including corporate bonds and money market accounts.
Putting political protest above a fiduciary duty is a dangerous precedent for any public finance office. A municipal treasurer’s primary duty is to preserve principal, maintain liquidity, and earn a reasonable return on taxpayer funds. Swapping Treasuries for corporate bonds or other alternatives may achieve yields, but it also invites credit risk, concentration risk, and potential liquidity stress that citizens did not vote for.
The treasurer’s statement leaned heavily on political rhetoric instead of financial detail, framing the action as an ethical stand against an administration she opposes. That politicization of investment policy drew immediate criticism from colleagues who pointed out constitutional and practical concerns. Elected officials taking oaths to uphold the nation’s values should think twice before publicly disinvesting from instruments that symbolize national creditworthiness.
We will continue to invest in securities that offer a competitive return, and we will not compromise the safety of the assets, the liquidity of the assets, or the rate of return. We will invest in the value of the residents of Chicago, and Chicagoans do not want us to bankroll the regime, the authoritarian regime of Donald Trump, where he has waged a war on our city.
Not everyone in city leadership bought into that rationale. One alderman confronted the move by pointing out the contradiction between swearing an oath to the Constitution and refusing to invest in the nation it protects. Those objections highlight how fraught this tactic is: it risks legal exposure, political backlash, and tangible harm to the portfolio’s stability. Public fund managers should be judged on risk-adjusted returns and compliance, not political theater.
I was upstairs, and I thought my ears deceived me. Did you just say you’re going to disinvest from the United States? I’m trying to make sure I understand why an American city, which 53 members of its elected body take an oath to the United States Constitution to support, defend — that is our values. To say we’re not going to invest in our values? Saying that we no longer as a city support the United States of America?
Outside observers called the move “more bonkers than bold,” using humor to underline the absurdity of the protest. The comparison to symbolic stunts—like saying you will stop eating a local food to make a point—captures how this step reads: loud, visible, but ultimately ineffective at achieving fiscal or policy goals. When you manage billions, symbolism doesn’t pay the bills or secure retiree income.
It makes about as much sense as President Trump saying that he will not eat deep-dish pizza to protest Chicago.
Chicago residents deserve professionals who put financial stewardship ahead of political signaling, especially when billions of taxpayer dollars are at stake. The decision to avoid Treasuries for political reasons unsettles investors and sets a partisan precedent for future portfolio choices. Public trust is earned by steady, prudent management, not by turning municipal cash into a protest banner.
Add comment