In the wake of escalating protests against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations in Minnesota, anti-borders politicians like Gov. Tim Walz, Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker and U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar have resorted to hysterical warnings about President Donald Trump invoking the Insurrection Act.
They paint a dystopian picture of federal troops storming the streets, suppressing dissent, and ushering in authoritarian rule. This is nothing more than inflammatory scare tactics designed to stir up tensions and deflect from the root causes of the chaos, which stem directly from their own failed sanctuary policies.
Far from being an overreach, Trump’s potential deployment of the Insurrection Act would be entirely within the bounds of federal law, a measured response to a situation where state officials are actively obstructing the enforcement of U.S. immigration statutes.
First, let’s clarify what the Insurrection Act is, and what it isn’t. Enacted in 1807 and amended over time, the Insurrection Act (10 U.S.C. §§ 251–255) empowers the president to deploy U.S. military forces or federalize the National Guard domestically when there is an insurrection, domestic violence, or unlawful obstruction that hinders the execution of federal laws. The third scenario described in the Act is precisely what is taking place in Minnesota now.
It has been invoked numerous times throughout history. Before the law, President George Washington led troops to quell the Whiskey Rebellion in 1794. It was used to enforce school desegregation in Little Rock, Ark., in 1957 under President Dwight Eisenhower, and again during the 1992 Los Angeles riots under President George H.W. Bush. What it is not is a blanket declaration of martial law or a tool for suppressing peaceful protest. It doesn’t suspend the Constitution or habeas corpus unless explicitly tied to other authorities.
Instead, it’s a targeted mechanism to restore order when local or state authorities fail or refuse to uphold federal law. In Minnesota’s case, where protesters have had violent exchanges with immigration officers and the state’s governor is threatening to deploy the National Guard against federal agents, the Act provides a legal pathway for the president to ensure that immigration laws are enforced without interference.
The situation in Minnesota clearly warrants such intervention if Trump decides to use it. The “ICE Watch” resistance training that Renee Good participated in is teaching agitators to obstruct ICE agents from enforcing federal law and create an atmosphere that is dangerous to both agents and demonstrators.
Walz has escalated the situation by talking about Minnesota having to fight a “war” with the federal government, preparing the state National Guard to “protect” residents from ICE, and slamming the administration’s actions.
If state forces are mobilized against federal agents enforcing duly enacted laws, that constitutes the very “unlawful obstruction” the Insurrection Act was designed to address. Trump would be well within his rights to invoke it, federalizing the guard if needed to prevent a standoff and restore lawful order.
The rhetoric of Walz, Pritzker, Omar and others is straight from the playbook of the division they claim to be against: exaggerate threats, ignore context, and rally the base against a phantom dictatorship. Far from deescalating, they’re pouring gasoline on the fire and potentially turning manageable protests into full-blown confrontations. Trump’s deployment of ICE to Minnesota has been a response to the obstruction, not a provocation.
At the heart of this mess are sanctuary laws, championed by these very politicians, which have created fertile ground for chaos. In the name of “diversity” and “compassion,” they’ve turned a blind eye to fraud like the alleged schemes at Minneapolis childcare centers now under federal scrutiny.
Mass migration without enforcement has resulted in overburdened communities, rising tensions, and now, violent protests. ICE is correcting disorder, not creating it. By deporting those who violated laws and investigating fraud, federal agents are upholding the rule of law that sanctuary advocates have undermined. Absent these toxic sanctuary policies, the fraud scandals might never have happened, and the shooting of Renee Good might have been avoided. Walz and Omar decry ICE as the villain, but their sanctuary policies invited the problems ICE is now fixing.
If Walz and his fellow travelers truly want peace, they should stand down, cooperate with ICE, and address the immigration failures they’ve enabled. Anything less is political theater at the expense of Minnesotans’ safety. The president has the law on his side; it’s time his opponents stopped playing games with it.
