On the evening of February 11th, 2025, the City Council of Worcester, Massachusetts—the second largest city in New England—voted to designate themselves a "Sanctuary City for Transgender and Gender Diverse People." As with most city council meetings, it was open to the public, and comments from citizens were on the agenda, particularly from representatives of the LGBTQ+ community, who had been attending meetings en masse every Tuesday for the past few weeks.

All Worcester City Council meetings are live-streamed and uploaded to the City of Worcester website for the public record. And, like most city politics, this one was largely ignored thereafter. However, the subject, high rate of attendance, tenor, and colorful constituency of this particular meeting attracted a lot of outside attention, launching the city into the viral morass of social media and national news (particularly the right-wing outlets), complete with an already infamous supercut of impassioned Worcester residents exercising their right to civic participation.

The video was weapons-grade cringe of the woke variety, and don't pretend like you don't know exactly what I'm talking about. The supercut was cherry-picked to cut out all the good (or at least sane) speakers, of course, but I watched the whole damn thing, and it was a lot of hysteria, histrionics and self-indulgence. People of all political leanings responded emphatically to the circus, with laughter, scorn, disgust, fremdschämen, weltschmerz, and probably a whole bunch of other German words that you experience when you're watching a large group of human beings testifying like lunatics. But when a moment this big goes viral, shouldn't someone dig into it, beyond the spectacle?

Meet Thu Nguyen

On January 3, 2022, Worcester elected Thu Nguyen, the city's first non-binary council member. Nguyen's Mass Alliance bio introduced the millennial activist-turned-candidate as "a proud Vietnamese refugee, auntie, artist, youth worker, and the first non-binary candidate for Worcester City Council At-Large." 

Pretty regular stuff for a millennial politician: public schools, Clark University with a Bachelor of Arts in Studio Art and Sociology, something called "youth work," which started with helping students from their old high school get into college. Co-founded an unnamed org "that showed young people how to use art to tell their stories." Also was employed at the Southeast Asian Coalition, "working with and supporting small businesses, promoting civic engagement and strengthening communities." Buncha Covid Mutual Aid, you get the idea. So that's Thu, mostly.

Also, the Nguyens immigrated to the US from Vietnam when Thu was one-year-old, and the family struggled in poverty as their parents worked in factories while trying to learn English. Mass Alliance explains that Nguyen's father "had fought for democracy and freedom in the Vietnam War and sought Asylum shortly after being held as a prisoner for seven years."

There's an old joke of undetermined origin, done to death, but I still love it: My grandpa died at Auschwitz, fell out of a guard tower.

On January 15th, Thu Nguyen released a statement: they were taking a month-long hiatus from work "to prioritize [their] mental and emotional safety." They had faced transphobia, "felt unsafe," and had filed a complaint with the Worcester DEI office after three years of transphobia and a "toxic council culture," in which Mayor Petty and Councilor At-Large Toomey had misgendered them, and "upon recently learning" that Councilor Mero-Carlson has referred to them as "it" multiple times.

The Mayor admits he has accidentally misgendered Nguyen at a council meeting in 2022, but he quickly apologized. Toomey said much the same—it was early in Nguyen's term, it was an accident, she apologized, and acknowledged the possibility she "may have done so a few times," but never consistently or intentionally.

Mero-Carlson was a little more vague, saying she doesn't remember, but "acknowledges that it was a challenging and emotional week where difficult conversations took place" and that Nguyen “misrepresents my character, my record, and the values I have consistently upheld.”

Pretty weird response for a normal human being, but not that weird for a cornered politician. There is a rule of thumb in politics where you're supposed to say "I can't recall" when accused of something you think your average voter wouldn't care about, especially if it's unprovable, whether it's true or not. Otherwise, you're in the worse position of having called your accusing colleague a liar, which makes everyone even madder, no matter which person they believe, and the back-and-forth of "they said/she said" becomes your entire job.

There were quite a few speakers at the last few meetings who specifically denounced Mero-Carlson's alleged use of the word "it," which may have been complicated by the fact that one speaker (it might have been a few actually, but I only bookmarked one and I had already watched over 20 hours of Worcester City Council Meeting videos so I was getting delirious) identified its own pronouns as "He/it." I don't think it was kidding, but it's so hard to tell with this crowd.

However, Mero-Carlson also brought up Nguyen's attendance record.

Phoning It In

During Covid, both public and council made use of remote participation—via online interface or phone, and for public comment and Zoom for council members. Nguyen, who ran their campaign throughout Massachusetts lockdown in its entirety and assumed office five months before the Governor declared an end to the pandemic-triggered State of Emergency, began their political career remotely.

The day before Nguyen took their hiatus (during which technical problems prevented them from "being there" for roll call), item 14B was added to the Council Agenda: “ORDER of Mayor Joseph M. Petty—Request Standing Committee on Municipal and Legislative Operations hold a public hearing relative to public officials using remote participation at City Council and Standing Committee meetings that includes a review of any potential limitations and/or options associated with participating in meetings in such a manner.”

No council member wanted to place restrictions on public participation, but of the five council members quoted in Worcester Magazine a year ago (there are ten council members total), four—plus the mayor—said that council members attending meetings via Zoom was fine for emergencies, but it was important to be present in-person for meetings whenever possible. The other quoted council member, who was quick to mention that it was her first year on the council and she didn't really know how hard it might be for everyone else to balance council duties and a full-time job, very diplomatically replied that in-person was "personally" preferable for her. None were quoted in defense of Zoom as a substitute for in-person attendance.

Notably, after being accused of transphobia by Nguyen, Candy "It" Mero-Carlson didn't issue a full denial, but she did accuse them of half-assing the job, saying:

It's no secret that Councilor Nguyen and I approach public service differently. This year, Councilor Nguyen has the lowest attendance record of any City Councilor—a striking contrast to my near-perfect attendance and presence at meetings and events across the city nearly every night of the week. My focus has always been on showing up for our community, listening to constituents, and delivering results. Unfortunately, Councilor Nguyen's approach seems more centered on sowing chaos and division, rather than collaboration or addressing the real needs of our city.

Oh, and also Nguyen supported her opponent during the last election. Tea!

The accusations of Nguyen's poor attendance by fellow Worcester political figures actually started just before New Year's in 2023, when former Worcester Council member, four-term Mayor and catty little weirdo Ray Mariano published his "List of Wishes for the New Year" in Worcester Magazine, essentially a commentary on political events and a series of disdainful little swipes at politicians, local and national. In it, he "wishes" one council member would "give up" on some sort of housing and zoning project, and that a School Committee member would drop her "ridiculous crusade" to raise her own salary by arguing it's gender discrimination. (Of the five local politicians he singles out, four were women and one was Nguyen, and sometimes a coincidence is just a coincidence, but you'd be an idiot to write it off entirely.)

His comment for Nguyen: "My wish for the often-absent at-large city councilor is that they take the time to show up—show up at City Council meetings and show up at meetings in the community. You have a voice that should be heard, but to do that you need to show up."

Ten days after Mariano went bitch-mode, a response was published in the same magazine that actually broke down the absentee and remote attendance of each council member during 2023. I'll combine Standing Committee meeting and City Council meeting absences and remote attendance, for ease.

Vice Chairperson Donna M. Colorio
Remote Attendance: 1
Absences: 2 

Councilor Morris A. Bergman
Remote Attendance: 3
Absences: 0

Councilor Etel Haxhiaj
Remote Attendance: 5
Absences: 5

Councilor Khrystian E. King
Remote Attendance: 1
Absences: 2 

Councilor Candy Mero-Carlson
Remote Attendance: 0
Absences: 1 

Councilor Thu Nguyen
Remote Attendance: 5
Absences: 7

Councilor Sarai Rivera
Remote Attendance: 12
Absences: 5

Councilor Sean M. Rose
Remote Attendance: 15
Absences: 5

Councilor George J. Russell
Remote Attendance: 2
Absences: 1 

Councilor Kathleen M. Toomey
Remote Attendance: 5
Absences: 2

Councilor Etel Haxhiaj is Nguyen's biggest defender (and the other councilor that wears a keffiyeh in official photos). Rose, a former "Corporate Diversity and Wellness Coach," didn't run for re-election after that term (his third), but announced his campaign for the next election in December. Sarai Rivera's son got hit by a car and died on Christmas during that term, then she immediately got diagnosed with stomach cancer. So... extenuating circumstances.

So Nguyen's record doesn't look great, objectively or comparatively.

I went and looked up 2024 Council meeting records too. Three members have a perfect record. One has one remote, no absences. One has two remotes, no absences. Two have two remotes, two absences. One has two absences, one remote. One has two absences, two remotes.

Nguyen has one absence... and ten remotes (not to mention the month-long powder they just took). In his own statement, Mayor Petty damn near said outright that this has nothing to do with Nguyen "feeling unsafe," and everything to do with them not wanting to show up for work. After the political values bit—"I firmly believe everyone deserves the dignity of having their identity honored and respected"—he didn't mince words, saying "their concerns arose from the decision to mandate in-person attendance for City Council and sub-committee meetings."

Whatever city you're in, the majority of public comments during council meetings are probably gonna' be focused on local issues: public safety measures, zoning, infrastructure, etc. Traffic and parking is an essential feature of all three. Nguyen is on the Traffic and Parking Subcommittee and has missed half the meetings. More damningly—and not accounted for in the absentee and remote attendance records—Nguyen is the actual Chair of the Transportation and Public Service Committee, which is a big deal. Busses in Worcester have been free since the pandemic, which covers about four million passenger rides a year in a city over 207,000 people and a metro area of over 862,000. In their three years in office, Nguyen hasn't held a single meeting of the committee they chair.

Here’s Petty again: "Failing to participate in these essential responsibilities is unacceptable. I will not apologize for holding myself and my colleagues accountable to the responsibilities entrusted to us by the people we serve. Being available, accessible, and engaged is a fundamental expectation of our roles, and it is critical to the success of the city."

Nobody would argue that public service isn't stressful and boring. In an August 2023 article, Nguyen admitted as much, saying that they have "suffered from anxiety as a result of the unpredictability of meetings." 

“It gets tiring, it’s really hard to focus. Sometimes I just start doodling."

On Statementism

The same article had some comments from Idella Hazard, who has been attending City Council meetings for four decades. She reflected last year, when council member Sean Rose (the DEI guy who never shows up) put forth a resolution for the City Council of Worcester to demand the Federal Government of the United States renounce and disarm all nuclear weapons (everyone was still real worked up over Ukraine in those days).

People like Idella—"I don't know what the heck that has to do with the city of Worcester"—are so used to this kind of thing they just laugh, sometimes while attending the actual meetings... in person. Local journalist Bill Shaner has weekly livewatch parties, to "sort of see the humor in all of it."

There is an Old Left term, "statementism," that refers to a tendency of political organizations to make a point of declaring and debating their values and beliefs regarding topics that have nothing to do with the group itself, often over issues that they are too insignificant to change on their own, holding their own press conferences, so to speak, and ignoring the actually necessary work of building and maintaining a functional, effective political institution. 

There have been a lot of criticisms of statementism—that sermonizing is an excellent smokescreen for inactivity; that it attracts cranks and narcissists who hold the room hostage because they just want to hear themselves talk; that it fosters delusions of grandeur so that the group begins to overestimate their own significance, abilities and influence; that performative sanctimony is contagious and you often end up in an echo chamber/parade of people all saying the same thing anyway; that it becomes overbearingly pedantic as words are tweaked and edited in pursuit of some imaginary perfect press release; that it breeds and nurtures inter-group animosity over petty slights and irrelevant issues.

But I favor two in particular. It wastes everyone's time, and it makes you look stupid.

During the nuclear disarmament meeting, Councilor Rose anticipated criticisms of irrelevance, and countered by saying that, while he had been asked why he doesn't just "stick to potholes," Worcester's voice needed to be heard on nuclear disarmament. "We are the second biggest city in New England," Rose said. "What we say matters. People are watching." 

Sweetie... no they're not. At least not anyone who matters. It's mostly Idella Hazard, Bill Shaner, and me. And at this point, I guess, millions of people on the internet—not because what you say matters, but because once in a while, you all get full of beans and show your asses and it's a laugh-riot. But not usually.

When there isn't a big national issue in the zeitgeist that hits a nerve with the local community—i.e., most of the time—council meetings are sparsely attended, regular events with the same (mostly old) people, and a few regular crackpots. And, I must reiterate, they're usually talking about local concerns, especially—seriously, cannot stress this enough—traffic. It is like... 90% traffic. Because that's one of the major things that a city council is charged with managing, and it really matters to people because it is important.

Municipal Budgeting

The Sanctuary City resolution was passed, 9 to 2, with the erstwhile Misgendering Mayor saying: “I don’t care what your beliefs are, but to take the word ‘transgender’ out of the vocabulary in the federal government is just wrong.” He added: “We’re just passing a resolution saying, ‘Hey, we’ve got your back.’ That’s all it’s saying.” He's right, that's all. Even the activists demanding the declaration described it as symbolic.

There were two council members, Donna Colorio and Morris Bergman, who dissented, Bergman noting: “There are no new rights that this resolution gives that don’t already exist. However, there’s a potential for federal dollars to be taken away from the city of Worcester.” This is true. The statement is not legally binding in any way. Even if it was, it doesn't define "sanctuary city." It made no promises, or even referred to a rejection or refusal to comply with any specific anti-trans policies. Just... they got your back. Whatever that means.

Some council members who voted for sanctuary did acknowledge that while Trump did, legally, have the power to withdraw federal funds for non-compliance, he had tried to cut funding to immigrant sanctuary cities during his first administration and failed, even though those sanctuary designations were actual ordinances (i.e., law) rather than a council's symbolic statement. That's a good point.

The thing is... I'm not totally sure that's how it's gonna' play out this time around.

Trump has been threatening to pull federal funding from every state that doesn't comply with his executive authority, and he's already managed to slash or at least delay essential programs that can't even afford to wait a few days for the check to clear. His executive orders against trans people—barring transgender women from women's sports and trans people from military service, banning puberty blockers, hormones, and surgeries for transgender people under 19 among them—are currently in flux at the time of this writing, with hospitals pausing and unpausing trans medical services, and states and judges challenging the constitutionality of various orders. So any list I could make of eliminated or slashed federally funded programs would likely be irrelevant by the time this is published. We have no idea what's going to happen; this is unprecedented.

With Musk and DOGE running the economy, Trump's second administration has completely abandoned the Republican Party's old (and successful) strategy of death by 1,000 cuts, in favor of a manic smash-and-grab so drastic and irresponsible that even GOP lawmakers are publicly critical. Even those demons over at the Supreme Court have been playing whack-a-mole trying to overturn a ton of things (if only in the service of a power struggle). Add to that Trump's general vindictive shittiness, and I could absolutely see him and Musk successfully taking revenge on Massachusetts, or even Worcester specifically, for something as slight as "we got your back."  

Councilor Colorio cited the the City Solicitor, who said: “We cannot be sure what Executive Order the president will issue or how the court, many members appointed by President Trump himself, will rule if any of the pending litigation matters get to that stage.”

But it's not that the Sanctuary City activists speaking out that night believed Worcester would never lose federal funding if they declared themselves a Sanctuary City; they just thought that a symbolic statement was worth the risk, asserting the declaration itself would save lives. One speaker asked: "How much federal funding is my life worth? Which matters more? Covering the legal fees of systemic police brutality, or protecting the lives of queer people in our community?"

Many argued that citing budget concerns was putting a price on trans peoples' survival, and that the queer people supporting the Sanctuary City motion were "plead[ing] with you for their lives." One said that since the federal government didn't recognize their humanity, they didn't even want federal funds ("If my boss isn't going to respect me, I'm just gonna' keep showing up to work and I don't even want him to pay me!"). 

Massachusetts relies on $15 billion in federal funds a year, and I'm not sure how many of the Worcesterians (?) know where that money goes. Would there be more trans suicides than there would be deaths from lack of healthcare from the elimination of Medicare and Medicaid? Or the lack of heating credits for the elderly? In fact, 70% of long term senior care in Massachusetts is covered by federal funds.

According to Kate Walsh, Secretary of the Executive Office of Health and Human Services: “It’s going to be a long walk on this to basically kick people out of nursing homes."

There's the Emergency Solutions Grant Program, for homeless families and households, and there's the $20 million federal emergency funds Massachusetts received to increase overflowing homeless shelters. What would happen to free school lunch? WIC? SNAP? Are there no trans people in Worcester on food stamps?

If a politician can't promise that federal funds won't get cut, then don't they have a responsibility to explain that this may be exposing everyone—including trans people—to that risk, all for a statement that is, by its advocates’ own characterization, a symbolic gesture with no material or legal benefit? 

I mean... Massachusetts gets pretty cold at night.

If a politician can't promise that federal funds won't get cut, then do they still have a responsibility to expose everyone else to that risk, all for a symbolic gesture? 

Are We Responsible for What We're Actually Responsible for?

When Nguyen showed up at a city council meeting for a “Cease-fire in Palestine” petition, there was predictable push-back from other council members, many of whom had been adamant that things like Palestine, nuclear disarmament, and abortion law were outside the purview of the Worcester City Council—who frankly have a lot on their plate right now, what with their city being such a poor, miserable shithole. Nguyen responded to this call for focus: "Let us not prioritize potholes and snowplowing over Palestinian lives."

When I explained all this to my born-and-raised Providence boyfriend, he said: "I don't think what Worcester does matters to Palestine or Palestinians. What Worcester does doesn't matter to Providence, and we're 40 minutes away. We have no idea what those people are up to." (I'd add that most people don't even know how to pronounce it correctly.)

It's probably not a good sign that a city council member thinks potholes are such a punchline, a metonym for "insignificant." Potholes kill people. Unplowed roads kill people. Statements and petitions don't save people, and austerity kills more people than anything.

It's probably a worse sign when that council member rarely shows up, and when someone asks them to please do their job, they fuck off for a month because they feel "unsafe"—as if Morris fucking Bergman is gonna hate crime them. Politicians have a responsibility to people who are actually unsafe, and sometimes that means figuring out exactly who is actually most vulnerable, and who is just the loudest. They have a responsibility to at least try to foster political engagement between the public and elected officials, rather than let statementism run roughshod over the public square. And sometimes, they have a responsibility to be bored, anxious, and frustrated, prioritizing the small, unsexy, unromantic parts of the job they were elected for. They have a responsibility to show up for work.

Because their job is important. Their job is fixing the fucking potholes.

Potholes kill people. Snowy roads kill people. Statements and petitions don't save people, and austerity kills more people than anything.

*Update: On February 19th, the day after the submission of this piece, Thu Nguyen announced they will not be returning to the council floor indefinitely, saying they will not "partake in performative politics or a council that refuses to hold themselves accountable to human decency and the unravelling of transphobia, discrimination and the toxic council culture we've all witnessed in the last month."

The next day, President Trump issued an executive order targeting immigration sanctuary cities to ensure undocumented immigrants aren't benefiting from any federal funds or programs.

Amber A’Lee Frost is a writer, the erstwhile co-host of the Chapo Trap House podcast, and the author of Dirtbag: Essays.