A stark warning emerged from the White House, detailing a troubling pattern: a sustained and escalating assault on U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) by prominent Democratic figures. This wasn’t simply disagreement over policy; it was a deliberate campaign to demonize federal law enforcement, fueled by increasingly inflammatory rhetoric.
The administration presented a comprehensive record – 57 documented instances – of elected officials, from governors to mayors, equating ICE to historical atrocities. Comparisons to Nazis, the Gestapo, and secret police weren’t isolated incidents, but a recurring theme designed to erode public trust and incite hostility. The message was clear: these attacks weren’t accidental, they were intentional.
Beyond mere condemnation, officials actively encouraged resistance. Calls to “fight” ICE, “push back,” and obstruct its operations were commonplace, often accompanied by the excusing or downplaying of violence directed at agents. This rhetoric, the administration argued, wasn’t just reckless, it was dangerous – a direct pathway to escalating conflict.
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz became a focal point of concern. While his state faced investigations into widespread fraud, particularly within the Somali community, Walz aggressively attacked ICE, branding its officers as a “modern-day Gestapo” and declaring a “war” with federal authorities. He even mobilized the National Guard after an ICE officer acted in self-defense, issuing a “warning order” and preparing for potential deployment.
Walz’s rhetoric didn’t stop there. He urged “peaceful resistance” and framed protesting the administration as a “patriotic duty,” actively seeking to undermine federal law enforcement efforts. He demanded the federal government cease operations, claiming they were a “threat to public safety” and “dangerous, sensationalized operations.”
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey echoed this sentiment, dismissing video evidence of an assault on an ICE agent as “garbage” and “bulls*.” He accused ICE of creating “chaos and despair,” framing their actions as an intentional provocation rather than a response to criminal activity. This narrative, the administration noted, consistently shifted blame and obscured the reality of the situation.
The “chaos” Frey described wasn’t born from federal enforcement, but from interference by activists, individuals resisting arrest, and the deliberate obstruction of immigration laws. He called for ICE to leave the city, repeating the emotionally charged claim that they were “ripping families apart” – a phrase used to vilify the agency’s work.
The administration clarified the complexities of family separations, explaining that in some cases, children are placed in juvenile detention while adults are processed, with reunification occurring after deportation. In others, children are U.S. citizens and parents choose to bring them along or leave them behind – a personal decision misrepresented as forced separation.
Frey also made demonstrably false claims about crime rates in Minneapolis, suggesting a correlation between ICE operations and shootings that simply didn’t exist. This pattern of misrepresentation, the administration argued, was common in Democratic jurisdictions, where crime statistics are often manipulated or underreported.
Philadelphia District Attorney Larry Krasner took an even more aggressive stance, calling President Trump a “criminal-in-chief” and threatening to prosecute ICE agents who operated within his city. He framed ICE enforcement itself as a crime, inciting public hostility and potentially endangering agents’ safety.
Krasner attempted to impose local police protocols on federal agents, ignoring the fact that ICE operates under its own established guidelines. His threats were a clear attempt to intimidate agents and obstruct their lawful duties, regardless of the circumstances surrounding an incident.
Portland, Oregon, a city recently besieged by unrest, also saw its mayor call for an end to ICE operations. Despite widespread chaos and attacks on federal buildings, officials pledged to obstruct ICE and refused assistance from the National Guard, characterizing federal presence as a “show of force.”
Seattle officials went further, issuing executive orders and drafting ordinances designed to hinder ICE operations. A particularly concerning tactic was a proposed ban on face masks for law enforcement, a move that would expose agents and their families to potential danger. This disregard for agent safety was particularly alarming.
The administration’s message was a sobering assessment of a growing crisis. The relentless attacks on ICE, amplified by social media and mainstream outlets, were normalizing obstruction and even violence against federal law enforcement. Meanwhile, critics offered no viable solutions for addressing the issue of illegal immigration, leaving approximately 18 million individuals in legal limbo.
