Seattle’s new mayor, Katie Wilson, ran on a socialist platform and says she will pursue heavy progressive taxes, expanded government programs, and collective solutions while navigating a major city budget shortfall.

Seattle voters picked 43-year-old Katie Wilson, a self-described socialist with a background as a barista and financial support from her parents, to lead the city into a new political direction. Her campaign promised to stop grocery store closures and expand city-run services, even as officials warn about a sizable budget gap. That gap means choices are coming quickly about priorities and the methods used to pay for them.

Wilson has signaled that higher revenue is central to her plan and that the city should look at bold new tax ideas to pay for expanded services. She framed the choices as a matter of reassigning resources, not simply cutting programs that don’t work. Voters should expect tax proposals tied directly to her platform as she pushes staff to convert campaign promises into legislation.

How, exactly, she plans to enforce that remains to be seen. But to pay for a slew of other socialist plans, she knows exactly what she’ll do: raise taxes exponentially.

Wilson is inherting a significant budget deficit, a reality most municipal leaders face when campaign rhetoric meets financial statements. She has talked about trimming programs that aren’t delivering and reallocating funds toward priorities she calls essential. That approach will put her at odds with entrenched interests and with residents worried about both service cuts and tax hikes.

“I am very committed to making sure we are using our existing resources as effectively and efficiently as possible,” Wilson said. “I am not adverse to ending spending on programs that were maybe well-intentioned when they were first implemented, but aren’t fulfilling their goals.”

“I do think that we will pursue new progressive revenue,” she added, “in order to fund our priorities and make sure that we’re delivering services to the people of Seattle. There’s several progressive tax options I proposed as part of my platform. We’re going to have city staff looking into developing those into legislation.”

Her campaign clearly broke with traditional city leadership on public safety and policing, and critics expect her talk of ending wasteful spending could include cuts to law enforcement budgets. That creates a tough balancing act: voters want streets that are safe and services that function, but those things cost money and depend on how priorities are set. If she pursues reductions in public safety spending, the political backlash could be immediate and fierce.

Wilson also emphasized government collectivism as a core principle, arguing that some problems can only be solved together through public action. She presented the city as the vehicle for collective effort and insisted residents need confidence in government institutions to get things done. Her language about collective governance highlights a sharp ideological contrast with leaders who favor smaller government and private-sector solutions.

“As a progressive and as a socialist, I believe in good governance. Our government is how we act collectively, how we accomplish the things that can only be done together,” Wilson said. “I believe it is a very bad thing when people begin to lose faith in the ability of their government to be responsive and effective.”

“I look forward to working alongside all of the dedicated public servants who work for the city of Seattle,” Wilson added. “Not just to advance a transformative policy agenda, but to make sure we are delivering basic services.”

The Democratic Socialists of America have been explicit about using Democratic Party infrastructure to elect candidates who will enact socialist policies, and their influence shows up in cities like New York, Minneapolis, and now Seattle. Opponents warn that ambitious redistributive programs and aggressive taxation can push wealthier residents and businesses to leave, shrinking the tax base and straining municipal services. That dynamic raises a real question: can progressive taxation and expanded public programs be sustained without driving away the very contributors the city needs to fund them?

Seattle faces a test case in applying bold progressive ideas to a large, complex urban budget. Wilson’s agenda will be scrutinized by taxpayers, business owners, public employees, and city council members as the administration converts platform items into policy. The coming months will reveal whether her promises produce measurable improvements, costly setbacks, or a bit of both as Seattle adjusts to a new governing philosophy.