Minneapolis City Council member Jason Chavez faced widespread criticism on social media after stating that autonomous vehicles, specifically those operated by Waymo, have killed cats and urging officials to mandate human operators in self-driving cars. The remarks accompanied a vote on an ordinance that narrowly passed, requiring a human operator and a special license for all autonomous vehicles within the city.

Chavez described the situation as a safety concern for pet owners, noting that he had viewed footage of the incidents. "I will say cats have been killed and cats have been killed by these autonomous vehicles," Chavez told fellow council members. He added, "I have a cat, I don't want my cat getting killed because of these autonomous vehicles so to those cat lovers out there, just know that these Waymo vehicles, these autonomous vehicles have killed cats and that's unfair."

What the Left Is Saying

Supporters of the ordinance argue that the technology poses genuine safety risks to pedestrians, cyclists, and animals, and that the absence of human oversight is problematic. Some critics of the specific 'cat' framing, such as journalist Zaid Jilani, noted that other autonomous systems like Tesla's Full Self-Driving (FSD) have successfully avoided animals, suggesting the issue may be implementation-specific rather than inherent to all self-driving tech. Jilani stated, "Fwiw I've been in a self-driving Tesla that stopped for cats to cross the road and Waymo is a lot more advanced."

Proponents of the ban or restriction often frame the issue around job preservation and local control, arguing that fully autonomous fleets remove human drivers from the equation. While the source material highlights the mockery from the right, the underlying policy debate includes concerns about accountability when an AI system causes harm, a perspective often aligned with progressive calls for stricter regulation of emerging technologies.

What the Right Is Saying

Conservative commentators and critics mocked the ordinance and Chavez's specific focus on cats, viewing it as a misallocation of legislative priorities. Townhall columnist Dustin Grage highlighted the disparity between the councilman's salary and the issue raised, posting on X, "The Minneapolis City Council wants to require a human in driverless vehicles because cats are being 'murdered' by them... This guy's salary is $110,000/year, by the way." Grage further satirized the situation, writing, "They're calling it the cat genocide" and "Hide your cats. The Waymos are coming."

Conservative commentator Gunther Eagleman framed the incident as evidence of failed leadership in Minneapolis, contrasting the focus on autonomous vehicles with more severe local issues. "A council member in a city that let rioters burn down a police precinct and watched a $250 million fraud scheme happen under its nose now wants a human in every driverless car to protect the cats," Eagleman wrote. He argued that the city has "a leadership problem" rather than a driverless car problem. Three Rivers Park Commissioner Jennifer DeJournett also criticized the councilman's salary relative to housing affordability concerns, asking, "Why is a city council member making 110,000 when families and seniors are getting priced out of their homes in Minneapolis and taxes are sky rocking?????"

What the Numbers Show

The ordinance mandating human operators in autonomous vehicles passed the Minneapolis City Council by a narrow margin. However, its implementation is uncertain, as Mayor Jacob Frey announced plans to veto the proposal. In a statement to multiple Minnesota outlets, Frey said the ordinance "doesn't make sense" and affirmed the city's intention to continue embracing "innovative technology," including transportation options. Frey acknowledged safety concerns but stated he would not support what he termed a "backdoor ban" of the vehicles.

Councilman Jason Chavez earns an annual salary of $110,000, a figure cited by multiple critics on social media to contextualize the legislative focus. The debate centers on the operational model of companies like Waymo, which currently deploy vehicles without human drivers in certain markets. Supporters of the technology argue that requiring human operators would effectively ban autonomous taxi services and lead to higher fares for consumers, while opponents cite safety risks and the displacement of driving jobs.

The Bottom Line

The Minneapolis council vote and subsequent mayoral veto plan highlight a growing national tension between rapid technological adoption and local regulatory control. While the specific catalyst for the ordinance was the reported deaths of pets, the broader policy question involves how cities balance the benefits of autonomous transportation—such as reduced labor costs and increased efficiency—against concerns over public safety, animal welfare, and workforce displacement. Mayor Frey's expected veto suggests the city may pursue a middle ground or allow the ordinance to be overridden, keeping the regulatory status of self-driving vehicles in Minneapolis in flux as similar debates continue in other cities like Atlanta and San Francisco.