Playing the race card to pander to his disgruntled base blows up in Brandon Johnson's face
Not only is the mayor in constant trouble with his own voters in this town, he’s also now in trouble with the Feds on a regular basis since the Trump administration took over. First, he got embroiled in a fight with Washington over Chicago’s so-called “sanctuary city” status — something that has caused growing frustration among his core base: Black Chicagoans who are seeing their neighborhoods bear the brunt of the migrant influx.
Then came the squabble over Trump’s budget proposals, where Mayor Johnson played the usual progressive role — grandstanding about moral values and equity while doing nothing to actually secure Chicago’s share of federal support. And now — proving the adage that when it rains, it pours — Brandon Johnson is under federal investigation for racial bias in hiring. The irony here is so rich it could finance next year’s budget deficit.
The Justice Department has now launched an official probe into whether Johnson’s administration violated the Civil Rights Act of 1964 by prioritizing Black candidates for top City Hall jobs. The mayor, apparently oblivious to the implications, practically dared them to do it — boasting from the pulpit at a South Side church about how many Black people he had “put in power” to “protect our people.”
Someone should have told Brandon: that the Civil Rights Act applies to everyone — and the Feds are paying attention.
A new kind of civil rights fight
The letter from Assistant Attorney General Harmeet Dhillon made it plain: the DOJ sees “reasonable cause” to believe that hiring in Johnson’s office has been based not on merit, but on race. And while Johnson and his defenders are trying to spin the probe as a political attack from the Trump administration, the actual trigger was the mayor’s own words. “You highlighted the number of Black officials in your administration,” Dhillon wrote. “You then listed each of these individuals, emphasizing their race . . . and said you were laying these positions out to ensure that ‘our people get a chance.’”
This wasn’t a one-off gaffe. Johnson has been hitting this theme repeatedly since his election, explicitly framing his administration as one centered around racial reparation. In March, he told The TRiiBE that “the first thing I did for our people was make sure I put key Black people in positions of power to protect it.”
This might play well at activist roundtables and progressive town halls, but it’s not how equal opportunity employment is supposed to work. What Johnson sees as uplifting his community, the law might see as excluding others. And when you run the third-largest city in the country, that distinction matters.
The numbers don't lie
According to Johnson’s own press office, the current racial breakdown of his 105-member senior staff is:
- 34% Black
- 30% White
- 24% Hispanic
- 7% Asian
Compare that to the most recent U.S. Census data for the city of Chicago:
- 28% Black
- 32% White
- 29% Hispanic
- 7% Asian
While none of these variances are outrageously disproportionate, the data does suggest a measurable overrepresentation of Black staff and an underrepresentation of both whites and Hispanics. The issue here is less about a few percentage points and more about intent — and Johnson’s intent has been clearly, vocally race-conscious.
The point isn’t that it’s wrong to have a diverse staff. Of course, it isn’t. Diversity is good. But when diversity becomes code for excluding one group to privilege another, it ceases to be a value and starts to look a lot like discrimination. And yes, under the law, discrimination goes both ways.
A mirror held to progressive dogma
This whole saga reflects a broader reckoning underway in American politics. For years, the political left has advanced the idea that discrimination is a one-way street — that only those in power can be prejudiced, and that historically marginalized groups are exempt from charges of bias. According to this worldview, Black people can’t be prejudiced, because only the oppressor can be prejudiced — not the oppressed.
But that’s not how the law sees it. And more importantly, it’s not how reality works when you’re the one holding the reins of power.
When you control a $16 billion city budget, when you appoint department heads and award massive public contracts, and when your policies affect the lives of millions of people — you’re no longer the oppressed. You are the establishment. And if you use that power to prioritize one racial group over another, then you’re engaging in precisely the kind of conduct the Civil Rights Act was designed to prevent.
That the law was passed in the name of Black Americans in the 1960s doesn’t mean it only applies to protect Black Americans. It means it applies to everyone. And that’s exactly what the Trump administration appears ready to enforce.
Follow the money
Why does this matter beyond the headlines? Because what’s at stake isn’t just political embarrassment for Brandon Johnson — it’s federal money. Lots of it.
The city of Chicago receives roughly $3.5 billion in federal funding annually. That money supports everything from housing and public health to police grants and infrastructure projects. A finding that the city is engaging in discriminatory practices could jeopardize a significant portion of that funding, especially in an administration that has shown little patience for progressive grandstanding.
Chicago is already facing an avalanche of fiscal pressures — from the cost of caring for tens of thousands of migrants to ballooning pensions to a stagnant tax base. Losing federal aid now could be catastrophic.
And yet the mayor shows no signs of backing down. His press secretary responded to the DOJ letter by saying Johnson is “proud to have the most diverse administration in the history of our city.” He may be proud, but that doesn’t make it legal.
It didn't have to be this way
What’s especially frustrating is that it didn’t have to come to this. Johnson could have quietly staffed his administration with a diverse set of qualified professionals without turning every personnel decision into a racial billboard. He could have focused on results — crime reduction, better schools, efficient services — instead of symbolism.
Instead, we have a mayor who treats governance like a campaign rally, who sees every policy through the lens of racial grievance, and who now finds himself under federal investigation — while the city he runs continues to spiral.
Sadly, we’re so obsessed with race, but that’s been the way of the world since the ’60s, when the Civil Rights Bill passed and every employer started being judged not by their competence, but by the color composition of their organizational charts. Dr. Martin Luther King said we should judge people by the content of their character, but in today’s Chicago, we’re still checking boxes and counting skin tones.
Maybe it’s time we stopped. Maybe it’s time we focused less on who’s Black or white or brown and more on who’s getting the job done. Maybe we should elect a mayor who sees people as individuals, not as demographic groups.
Given the racial realities of city politics — where power has shifted but divisions remain — it’s time for a Hispanic mayor. Someone like Susan Mendoza, for example. Someone who can bridge communities instead of pitting them against one another. Someone who sees all Chicagoans as their constituents, not just “our people.”
Because in the end, what matters isn’t your background — it’s your backbone. And it’s clear that Brandon Johnson’s obsession with race isn’t just divisive. It may now be illegal.
