Category: civil rights

Los Angeles, CA – January 24: A sign is raised in support of Renee Good and Alex Pretti at a candle light vigil during a peaceful protest in support of a 37-year-old man shot and killed by immigration officers in Minneapolis was under way Saturday evening along Olvera Street in Los Angeles. Demonstrators gathered at the historic Placita Olvera marketplace on Saturday, Jan. 24, 2026 in Los Angeles, CA. (Gina Ferazzi / Los Angeles Times via Getty Images)

The fatal shootings of Renee Nicole Macklin Good on January 7, 2026 and Alex Jeffrey Pretti on January 24, 2026 by federal immigration enforcement officers in Minneapolis, Minnesota are not isolated tragedies; they are stark indicators of an enforcement paradigm that is failing to protect public safety, eroding civil liberties, and operating with alarming impunity. Good, a 37-year-old mother, was killed by an ICE agent during an immigration enforcement operation earlier this month, prompting widespread protests and demands for accountability (CBS News, 2026). Weeks later, Pretti, a 37-year-old ICU nurse and U.S. citizen, was fatally shot by federal agents while documenting and intervening in the enforcement activity; his death significantly intensified local and national outrage (ABC News, 2026).

These killings have unfolded amid “Operation Metro Surge,” a large-scale federal immigration enforcement initiative deploying ICE and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents to Minneapolis and surrounding communities. The presence of thousands of armed federal agents in contexts far from the U.S. border has coincided with at least two fatal shootings of civilians in the span of weeks, incidents that have drawn protest, political backlash, and legal scrutiny (CBS News, 2026; ABC News, 2026). In the case of Pretti, footage and official preliminary reports indicate that two federal agents discharged their firearms during an encounter with Pretti, even as eyewitness accounts and bystander video challenge the notion that he posed an imminent threat (Star Tribune, 2026; ABC News, 2026).

The responses to these shootings reveal deep tension between federal agencies and local communities. Good’s family publicly denounced Pretti’s killing as “terrifying, deeply disturbing, and heartbreaking,” and called for a cessation of ICE activities, asserting that official accounts mischaracterized the circumstances of his death (People, 2026). Meanwhile, protests in Minneapolis and other cities have grown in size and intensity, with demonstrators expressing outrage not only over the deaths themselves but over the broader militarized approach federal immigration enforcement has adopted (El País, 2026; ABC News, 2026).

Federal officials have at times defended the actions of agents, framing them as lawful enforcement measures. Yet political pushback has emerged across the spectrum: senior legislators are seeking Justice Department records on both Pretti’s and Good’s killings, while even some Republican lawmakers have called for independent investigations and questioned the federal narrative (CBS News, 2026; Washington Post, 2026). These developments underscore that the core issues extend beyond partisan disagreement to fundamental questions about the role and accountability of ICE, CBP, and related agencies.

The argument for withdrawing ICE from Minneapolis and similar urban environments is compelling when one considers the lethal outcomes that have accompanied its operations, the erosion of public trust, and the disruption of civic life. Deploying armed federal agents into densely populated cities has resulted in confrontations with residents, journalists, and peaceful observers — encounters that should never escalate to loss of life in contexts unrelated to border security. The deaths of Good and Pretti, both U.S. citizens killed in broad daylight, demonstrate the high cost of maintaining such a deployment without robust accountability, transparent oversight, and clear limits on the use of force.

Moreover, these killings raise broader questions about the continued existence of ICE as an enforcement agency. When an agency tasked with upholding immigration laws repeatedly engages in operations that endanger the lives of citizens and long-term residents, it is reasonable to question whether reformation within the current institutional framework is sufficient. Critics and activists increasingly argue that ICE’s mandate — and the violence inherent in its domestic deployment — cannot be reconciled with the values of safety, justice, and civil liberties. For many, this leads to the conclusion that ICE should be abolished, and its functions reassigned to civilian agencies with clear lines of accountability and strong protections for human rights.

The tragic deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti are more than isolated headlines; they are a test of democratic norms and the limits of federal power. Their loss compels us to confront the consequences of allowing an immigration enforcement apparatus to operate in U.S. cities with insufficient oversight, minimal transparency, and a penchant for militarized tactics. For the safety of communities and the integrity of constitutional rights, wise leaders should support an immediate withdrawal of ICE from Minneapolis and initiate a broader conversation about dismantling an agency whose operations have culminated in the deaths of innocent Americans.

References

ABC News. (2026, January 27). Minneapolis live updates: Stephen Miller says CBP may not have followed protocol. https://abcnews.go.com/US/live-updates/minneapolis-ice-shooting-live-updates-doj-investigating-apparent?id=129340693

CBS News. (2026, January 27). Key legislators seek Justice Department records on Alex Pretti and Renee Good killings by next week. https://www.cbsnews.com/news/key-legislators-seek-doj-records-on-alex-pretti-and-renee-good-killings-by-next-week/

El País. (2026, January 26). Minneapolis clama contra la “impunidad” de la policía migratoria que mató a Alex Pretti. https://elpais.com/us/migracion/2026-01-26/minneapolis-clama-contra-la-impunidad-de-la-policia-migratoria-que-mato-a-alex-pretti.html

People. (2026, January 26). Renee Good’s family reacts to Alex Pretti’s “deeply disturbing” death: “We urge all Americans to trust their own eyes”. https://people.com/renee-good-family-reacts-to-alex-pretti-death-11892182

Star Tribune. (2026, January 28). Minneapolis Border Patrol shooting: What to know about investigations, protests and immigration operations. https://www.startribune.com/ice-raids-minnesota/601546426

Washington Post. (2026, January 27). GOP backlash on Minnesota signals a tougher landscape for Trump. https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/2026/01/27/pretti-shooting-trump-minneapolis-republicans/

Trump’s War on Dissent

By Katherine Walter

On June 8, 2025

In civil rights, Donald Trump

EDITORS NOTE: Graphic content / US Department of Homeland Security Police officers and members of the National Guard stand guard outside the Metropolitan Detention Center, MDC, in downtown Los Angeles, California on June 8, 2025. Hundreds of National Guard troops took up positions in Los Angeles on June 8 on US President Donald Trump’s orders, a rare deployment against the state governor’s wishes after sometimes violent protests against immigration enforcement raids. (Photo by Frederic J. Brown / AFP) (Photo by FREDERIC J. BROWN/AFP via Getty Images)

On June 8, 2025, President Donald J. Trump took the extraordinary step of deploying the California National Guard to Los Angeles without the consent of Governor Gavin Newsom. The move was prompted by days of civil unrest following aggressive ICE raids in predominantly Latino neighborhoods in Southern California. While the official justification cited the need to restore order, the action fits within a broader historical pattern of Trump’s antagonism toward civil protest, particularly those that question his policies or leadership. The deployment is significant not only for its legal implications but also for the insight it offers into Trump’s authoritarian inclinations and his evolving use of federal power.

The protests began on June 6, when ICE agents conducted a coordinated series of raids on businesses in Los Angeles, including several clothing wholesalers and a Home Depot, reportedly detaining 44 undocumented workers (Associated Press, 2025a). Demonstrators gathered almost immediately in response, particularly in the communities of Paramount and Compton. Local news outlets and protest organizers described the raids as racially motivated and disproportionate. Over the next two days, confrontations between protesters and law enforcement escalated. Reports from the Los Angeles Times indicated the use of tear gas, pepper spray, and flash-bang grenades by federal agents (Vanity Fair, 2025). Protesters were accused of throwing rocks and concrete chunks, and by June 7, over 100 arrests had been made (Schneid, 2025).

On the morning of June 8, Trump invoked Title 10 of the U.S. Code to federalize the California National Guard, ordering the immediate deployment of approximately 2,000 troops to the Los Angeles area (Associated Press, 2025a). The initial wave of around 300 soldiers was stationed outside federal immigration facilities, including detention centers in downtown Los Angeles. Department of Homeland Security personnel, joined by local law enforcement, used smoke and crowd-control tactics to clear demonstrators from the perimeter of these buildings (Vanity Fair, 2025). More troubling still, Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth placed active-duty Marines at Camp Pendleton on high alert, stating that additional support would be mobilized if local resistance intensified (Wall Street Journal, 2025).

The legal basis for this intervention drew immediate scrutiny. Unlike the Insurrection Act—which has historically required consent from governors unless rebellion or national security threats are imminent—Title 10 allows the president to assume control of a state’s National Guard under more ambiguous circumstances. Trump’s use of this authority without consultation or approval from Governor Newsom represented a sharp departure from precedent (Washington Post, 2025). While prior instances of federal deployment have occurred—most notably during the civil rights era in 1965 and again during the 1992 Los Angeles riots—those actions typically involved collaboration between state and federal governments. Trump’s unilateral order broke with this tradition and raised immediate constitutional concerns.

Governor Newsom condemned the move, calling it “a political stunt masquerading as public safety” (Schneid, 2025). He emphasized that while some violence had occurred, local law enforcement had the situation under control. Los Angeles Mayor Karen Bass similarly criticized the decision, asserting that federal interference had inflamed tensions rather than de-escalated them (Associated Press, 2025b). Civil liberties organizations, including the ACLU, filed emergency injunctions in federal court, arguing that the federalization of the Guard in this context violated the Tenth Amendment and constituted an overreach of executive authority (Reuters, 2025).

Trump, meanwhile, defended his decision by invoking the language of law and order. On his Truth Social account, he referred to the demonstrators as “Radical Left agitators” and accused them of trying to undermine ICE’s lawful operations. He further announced a new federal regulation banning the use of masks at protests, which critics argued would further chill lawful dissent (The Daily Beast, 2025). In a televised address, he declared that “these protests are not about immigration—they’re about chaos, and we will not allow our cities to be taken over by mobs” (Vanity Fair, 2025). The administration’s framing of the protests as a rebellion rather than protected expression marked a dramatic escalation in tone.

This pattern is not new. During the summer of 2020, following the police murder of George Floyd, Trump threatened to deploy active-duty troops to major cities under the Insurrection Act. At the time, his Secretary of Defense, Mark Esper, opposed the idea, and the deployment was ultimately shelved in favor of National Guard assistance requested by governors (Baker et al., 2020). Still, the president’s language—especially his tweet that “when the looting starts, the shooting starts”—signaled an aversion to protest and a readiness to treat dissent as criminality. Twitter flagged the post for glorifying violence. Although he stopped short of federalizing troops in 2020, Trump’s second term has shown a greater willingness to follow through on such threats.

What has changed between 2020 and 2025 is both the legal assertiveness and the composition of Trump’s inner circle. Pete Hegseth, a conservative media personality and military veteran, now heads the Department of Defense and has shown no hesitation in using federal power to advance Trump’s agenda (Wall Street Journal, 2025). The administration no longer faces internal resistance to military deployments within U.S. borders, and Hegseth’s public statements indicate an expansive view of executive authority over domestic security.

The deployment of the National Guard in Los Angeles is troubling not only for its immediate impact but also for the precedent it sets. Legal scholars argue that the president’s invocation of Title 10 without compelling justification stretches the intent of the statute and undermines the balance of power between federal and state governments (Washington Post, 2025). By reframing peaceful protest as rebellion, the Trump administration expands the conditions under which future presidents might justify similar interventions. The deployment also serves to delegitimize public dissent and normalize military presence in response to constitutionally protected speech.

Politically, the move appears calibrated to energize Trump’s base. By portraying the protests as violent and anarchic, Trump crafts a narrative of national chaos that only he can control. This strategy, first evident in 2016 and refined in 2020, has become more explicit in his second term. Commentators have described the Los Angeles deployment as a “dress rehearsal” for federal crackdowns in other cities, particularly those governed by Democratic officials (The Daily Beast, 2025).

Civil liberties advocates warn that this could lead to an erosion of protest rights nationwide. If the federal government can override local control whenever political opposition manifests in the streets, then public assembly may become subject to partisan suppression. Already, activists report increased surveillance, aggressive policing, and prosecutions under federal statutes that were rarely used in past administrations (Reuters, 2025).

Perhaps most ominous is the symbolic weight of military deployment in a democratic society. The sight of uniformed troops in American cities sends a chilling message about the limits of dissent. It transforms the public square into a battleground and reduces the space for political disagreement. As historians have pointed out, democracy depends not only on laws and elections but also on norms of restraint and mutual respect. The willingness to call out troops against fellow citizens erodes those norms and creates a political culture of fear and coercion.

Trump’s aversion to civil protest is not merely personal—it is ideological. He views opposition as illegitimate and protest as rebellion. This worldview has shaped his policies and informed his rhetoric from the beginning of his political career. The events of June 8, 2025, are not an anomaly but the logical conclusion of a long-standing approach to governance—one that prioritizes control over compromise and sees federal power as a tool to crush dissent rather than uphold democratic rights.

As Americans reflect on this moment, the stakes are clear. The deployment of the National Guard to Los Angeles raises profound questions about the future of civil liberties, the separation of powers, and the health of our democratic institutions. It challenges us to consider whether protest will remain a protected right or become a pretext for martial intervention. And it forces us to ask what kind of country we want to be: one where dissent is respected, or one where it is suppressed at the point of a gun.

References

Associated Press. (2025a, June 8). What to know about Trump’s deployment of National Guard troops to LA protests. https://apnews.com/article/national-guard-trump-los-angeles-protests-2025

Associated Press. (2025b, June 8). California governor calls Trump’s move “inflammatory” as Guard arrives in L.A. https://apnews.com/article/newsom-trump-national-guard-2025

Baker, P., Shear, M. D., & Schmitt, E. (2020, June 3). Trump’s authority to send troops into states, explained. The New York Times. https://www.nytimes.com/2020/06/03/us/politics/trump-military-authority.html

Reuters. (2025, June 7). White House aide calls Los Angeles anti-ICE protests an insurrection. https://www.reuters.com/world/us/trump-declares-los-angeles-protests-insurrection-2025

Schneid, R. (2025, June 8). Trump sparks backlash as National Guard arrives in L.A. on his orders. TIME. https://time.com/trump-national-guard-backlash-los-angeles-2025

The Daily Beast. (2025, June 8). It’s summer in Trump’s America and fascism is in bloom. https://www.thedailybeast.com/donald-trump-has-a-bad-case-of-premature-despotism

Vanity Fair. (2025, June 8). National Guard troops arrive in Los Angeles after Trump signs orders. https://www.vanityfair.com/news/story/national-guard-arrive-in-los-angeles-after-trump-signs-orders

Wall Street Journal. (2025, June 8). Trump advisers once opposed using active-duty troops at protests. Not anymore. https://www.wsj.com/politics/elections/trump-advisers-once-opposed-using-active-duty-troops-at-protests-not-anymore-96afb208

Washington Post. (2025, June 8). Trump charts new territory in bypassing Newsom to deploy National Guard. https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/2025/06/08/trump-national-guard-la-protests-law