The Democrats’ War on ICE: Vilification and Encouraging Resistance That Leads to Violence
On National Law Enforcement Appreciation Day, the Trump Administration issued a statement outlining how Democratic officials and activists have repeatedly used extreme and inflammatory rhetoric against U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and law enforcement more broadly. These attacks represent a sustained campaign by Democratic leaders to delegitimize and demonize federal officers. The administration emphasizes that this rhetoric is reckless and dangerous, and that it contributes to hostility and violence against law enforcement.
The piece lists 57 examples involving governors, senators, members of Congress, mayors, and local officials who compared ICE to Nazis, the Gestapo, secret police, fascists, or terrorists, accused the agency of terrorizing communities, or called for ICE to be abolished or driven out of their jurisdictions. Several officials are quoted encouraging resistance, “pushing back,” or “fighting” ICE, while others are cited for excusing or downplaying violence directed at federal officers.
The administration argues that this rhetoric goes beyond policy disagreement and amounts to incitement, normalizing obstruction of federal law enforcement and encouraging public hostility. The White House concludes that such language undermines public safety, erodes respect for the rule of law, and places ICE agents and their families at risk, particularly when paired with organized activism and sanctuary policies opposing immigration enforcement.
Some of the most egregious attacks on ICE by public officials have come from Minnesota Governor Tim Walz, whose state is now being investigated for widespread fraud, particularly within the Somali community. So far, Walz himself has not been implicated as personally benefiting from the diverted funds, but he has demanded that the investigations be called off, arguing they amount to a demonization of Somalis.
Walz smeared ICE officers as “reckless” and a “threat to the public.” He went so far as to call them the “modern-day Gestapo” and suggested the state was at “war” with federal officers and “under attack.” After an ICE officer was forced to shoot Renee Nicole Good in self-defense, Walz issued a “warning order” to prepare the Minnesota National Guard for deployment and authorized the mobilization of 85 members of the Minnesota State Patrol Mobile Response Team to support law enforcement in the Twin Cities.
Walz stated that “Minnesota will not allow our community to be used as a prop in a national political fight” and warned residents, “Do not take the bait. Do not allow them to deploy federal troops into here. Do not allow them to invoke the Insurrection Act. Do not allow them to declare martial law.” He urged “peaceful resistance” and called protesting the administration “a patriotic duty.” He told President Trump and DHS Secretary Kristi Noem, “We do not need any further help from the federal government. To Donald Trump and Kristi Noem, you’ve done enough.” He also characterized Trump administration operations as “dangerous, sensationalized operations” that are “a threat to our public safety.”
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey is another elected official taking an activist stance against federal law enforcement. He called ICE agents’ self-defense narrative “garbage” and “bulls***” in the context of the Renee Nicole Good shooting, despite video evidence showing that she hit an agent with her car. Frey stated, “They want an excuse to come in and show the kind of force that will create more chaos and more despair. Let’s not let them.” This “chaos” narrative is another example of how framing is used to exacerbate the problem.
The chaos does not originate from federal law enforcement but from activists interfering with ICE, illegal aliens refusing to self-deport, individuals resisting arrest, and public officials encouraging resistance. Frey called on ICE agents to leave the city, asserting that federal immigration authorities were “ripping families apart and sowing chaos on Minneapolis streets.” Once again, the “ripping families apart” phrasing is used to vilify ICE.
That narrative stems from one of two situations. In cases where an entire family is arrested, children are often placed in juvenile detention while adults are sent to adult detention, and the family is reunited after deportation. In other cases, the children are legal U.S. citizens and only the parents are deported. Citizens cannot be deported, but parents have the option of taking their citizen children with them. If they exercise that option, the family can be together after deportation. If parents choose to leave their children in the United States, that is their choice and does not constitute “tearing families apart.”
Frey also made the categorically untrue claim that “up until last night we hadn’t had any shootings in this city other than ICE.” Minneapolis experiences crime and shootings on a regular basis. In Democratic jurisdictions, crime rates are often misrepresented by reclassifying offenses or failing to report or prosecute crimes.
Frey, like Walz, also opposes investigations into fraud and appears invested in supporting the Somali community irrespective of documented immigration fraud, welfare fraud, other forms of financial fraud, and links to the transnational terrorist organization al-Shabaab.
Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner called President Trump the “criminal-in-chief” and said federal agents were being ordered to break the law by “a bunch of thugs.” He issued direct threats to ICE agents, stating, “Let me be clear, if any law enforcement agent, if any ICE agent, is going to come to Philly to commit crimes, you can get the F out of here. Because if you do that here, I will charge you with those crimes.” While it is legal to prosecute someone for committing a crime, this framing suggests to the public that ICE enforcement itself is a crime.
Krasner claimed ICE officer behavior violated law enforcement protocols, citing Philadelphia Police Department rules directing officers not to stand in front of vehicles and not to shoot into cars unless being shot at. He emphasized his office’s history of prosecuting police officers for criminal homicide and threatened to do the same to ICE agents. This framing attempts to force ICE agents to follow local police protocols, which is complete nonsense. Federal agencies have their own protocols, as do local police, and there is little precedent suggesting federal law enforcement is required to observe local police procedures during federal operations.
Furthermore, irrespective of Krasner’s claim that the ICE agent violated police protocol, this does not change the fact that Renee Nicole Good intentionally hit him with her car, prompting a response.
City Councilmember Kendra Brooks declared, “We are doing everything in our power to prevent ICE from murdering anyone here in Philadelphia.” Liberals would say this statement is acceptable because preventing murder is good. However, it suggests that ICE has committed murder, which it has not, and further implies that the purpose of ICE is to commit murder in the city. In reality, ICE is present to enforce immigration law in accordance with the Constitution.
Portland, Oregon, a city that allowed rioters to attack federal buildings, burn businesses, terrorize locals, and seize control of a portion of the city following George Floyd’s death, is yet another city where elected officials are fomenting hatred toward ICE. Mayor Keith Wilson called on ICE to “end all operations in the city until a full investigation is completed.” He pledged that the Portland Police Bureau would not support ICE and stated that Portland “has not requested and does not require” intervention from the National Guard, despite widespread unrest. He said the city would fight unwarranted federal intervention in court and characterized the federal presence as “a show of force” and “just a big show.”
Seattle officials called on residents to sign up for “ICE Mobilization Alerts” to track federal operations. They issued executive orders developing new guidance for police responses to ICE activities and drafted ordinances banning the use of face masks by law enforcement and prohibiting the use of city property for federal immigration enforcement. The face-mask ban appears to be central to many of these anti-ICE programs promoted by Democratic politicians. It is well known that if ICE agents’ identities are exposed, they and their families are placed in danger, yet Democratic politicians pretend not to know this, with figures such as Gavin Newsom saying, “Take off the masks. Come on, what are you afraid of?”
The president outlined a much longer list of Democrats attacking ICE in his message. At the same time, social media and even mainstream media are amplifying these messages to the point that some people not only believe ICE has no authority and that it is acceptable to obstruct or attack agents, but also that, as Tim Walz said, doing so is a patriotic duty. Meanwhile, none of these critics have encouraged illegal aliens to self-deport or suggested an alternative means of deporting the approximately 18 million illegal aliens who remain in the country.
The post The Democrats’ War on ICE: Vilification and Encouraging Resistance That Leads to Violence appeared first on The Gateway Pundit.