I assume the President will get severely criticized for this, and he will deserve it. “Make America Weenies Again.” Is that the strategy?
President Trump said yesterday that he has personally ordered the withdrawal of 700 I.C.E. officers from Minnesota and that his administration could use a “softer touch.” Earlier in the day, Tom Homan, the White House mush-mouthed “border czar,” said about 2,000 officers and agents would be left in the state because an “unprecedented number of counties” were finally cooperating with federal officials and allowing ICE to take custody of unauthorized immigrants before they were released from jails. “This is smart law enforcement, not less law enforcement,” he said.
Okaaaaay. Maybe that’s true. It doesn’t matter. How the action will be received by the open borders mob, not just in Minnesota but in Illinois, New York, Massachusetts, California, Oregon, Virginia and the rest, is that interference with law enforcement works, riots work, elected officials demonizing law enforcement works, and open defiance of the federal government and U.S. laws work. Trump’s move, especially in a week when The Nation, the Far, Far Left magazine, nominated Minnesota for a Nobel Peace Prize for encouraging attacks on I.C.E officers, is a retreat that can only encourage more George Wallace -style nullification.
I know he is stuck with a party of weenies who will always surrender first principles when the whining from voters gains volume (“Why does law enforcement have to be so mean?”) Nevertheless, The President should have driven a hard bargain here, beginning with a demand that Tim Walz and his lackeys shut the hell up and stop talking about fighting law enforcement, arresting officers, the Civil War and the Holocaust. Trump should have threatened to use the Insurrection Act and added a “Dirty Harry”-esque “Go ahead. make my day.”
I get it: Trump doesn’t want to invoke the Insurrection Act. But his decision to try to avoid conflict only increases the likelihood that he will have to.
Ethics Alarms 
Maybe Here’s Johnny will return now.
Didn’t ICE get what they wanted in the form of cooperation with respect to detainers? The surge was used to offset the lack of cooperation. Moving 700 out to other areas seems reasonable.
It might be reasonable. But Trump’s timing is terrible. He has to get concessions from the state and its leaders.
Isn’t cooperation a concession?
It is, unless defiance is getting more publicity, which it is.
That’s a function of Leftist propaganda media though… your options then are for republicans to run harder deals (which are unlikely to be made with radicals like the progressives) or to always be seen as capitulating or to actually capitulate.
Perhaps for those already in custody, though I would trust Walz, Frey, or Ellison to honor whatever agreement they made – they are already obligated to cooperate with I.C.E. but we have seen where that got the Administration.
jvb
Alright, I’m going to suspend my concerns here and just focus on yours. Let me know if this sounds like an accurate description of your position.
Does that sound right?
Pretty close.
The macro issue is that as with all laws, immigration laws must be followed and enforced.
The theory that some variety of law breaking is excused as long as you get away with it long enough is unworkable and encourages more lawbreaking.
Open boarders, which is what you get when there are no enforceable immigration laws, is suicidal economically. legally, culturally and societally.
Interfering with law enforcement is itself a crime.
Those who do interfere are the proximate cause of their own injuries unless an officer uses excessive force without justification.
Self-defense and fear of injury is justification.
President Trump said yesterday that he has personally ordered the withdrawal of 700 I.C.E. officers from Minnesota and that his administration could use a “softer touch.” Earlier in the day, Tom Homan, the White House mush-mouthed “border czar,” said about 2,000 officers and agents would be left in the state because an “unprecedented number of counties” were finally cooperating with federal officials and allowing ICE to take custody of unauthorized immigrants before they were released from jails. “This is smart law enforcement, not less law enforcement,” he said.
My impression? Donald Trump seems always to begin with bluster, aggression, and a peculiarly outdated and forceful way of declaring his will and getting his way. Simply put, you cannot do things this way at the present time. It is far too obvious, and it shows your adversaries exactly what you are trying to do.
It was a blundering mistake to take the approach he did in Minnesota. Duh! How could he (and those surrounding him) not have realized that the defeated Left needed, and would seek, any opportunity around which to rally themself and their cause(s)? So this is really really smart: Send Federal officers that look a great deal like the tactical teams that invaded Randy Weaver’s compound into Minnesota and set it up that an agent blow the head off a WOMAN and a mother and not expect the entire world to look at that incident and say: This is madness. There is this industry and it is called Public Relations. And here is a small morsel of advise: Do not shoot women in the head and blast their brains on the inside of a car. Let us establish that as a ‘first principle’ within the Culture Wars.
The entire undertaking was mistaken. And look: it is not working out. And now they have to back out or, as everyone is saying, the losses in the midterms will be devastating. Thanks Trump, you drooling idiot! You said you were going to restore things and instead you are acting like a pendejo.
He should have taken full advantage of his popularity and his well-wishers in red states and done his operations there. Only an idiot would rush in to a territory completely occupied by the ‘enemy’ and expect that enemy not to find ways to ruin his plans.
(There is a ‘on the other hand’ though. I do not deny this. A way to try to present certain policy choices more favorably.)
I agree that President Trump leads with “bluster and some degree of shock value” and doesn’t really do “the PR thing.” But I don’t think the results in blue states such as Minnesota would have been any different had this Administration decided to begin operations in red states.
He would still get better cooperation in redder states and large amounts of resistance and shrieking in blue states. And frankly, the media would have ignored any real cooperation and only covered the protesters anyways. They’ll say nothing that puts the President or the Administration in any kind of positive light.
“They’ll say nothing that puts the President or the Administration in any kind of positive light.”
Heck, Joel; they’ll even avoid the neutral or marginally negative lights like they’re syphilitic lepers.
PWS
Paul, I hope this keyboard is repairable.
Joel Mundt wrote: I agree that President Trump leads with “bluster and some degree of shock value” and doesn’t really do “the PR thing.” But I don’t think the results in blue states such as Minnesota would have been any different had this Administration decided to begin operations in red states.
He would still get better cooperation in redder states and large amounts of resistance and shrieking in blue states. And frankly, the media would have ignored any real cooperation and only covered the protesters anyways. They’ll say nothing that puts the President or the Administration in any kind of positive light.
If he doesn’t do the PR thing then he is foolish. To be successful in his radical plan to recover the nation it stands to reason that he must be far more careful and circumspect.
If he would have begun in red states I cannot see how such a bad situation would have developed in Minnesota.
I agree that the media — I am thinking of the NY Times which I unfortunately read — is terribly biased.
The question: What will become of all of this? (in respect to your statements certainly) needs to be asked. I have a strong feeling, I cannot say why, but I do not think Trump will make it through the term).
I am thinking BTW of opening up a Soothsayer site where I can make fortunes on ‘clicks’. 😉
He doesn’t do the “PR thing” and it IS foolish. It might even be disastrous.
He doesn’t do the PR thing, but he does drag a controversy down the road until there’s no meat left so that his opposition gets maximum exposure.
When I saw your headline, thought you might be discussing this: https://x.com/yashar/status/2019656598172627272?s=20
I think it’s safe to say I’m more forgiving of Trump’s baser moments than you but this is indefensible. I seriously doubt it was posted with racist intent (Trump is not a racist, or any “ist”, for that matter. He hates individuals, not groups, and makes it eminently clear who he loathes, i.e. Rosie O’Donnell) but this is a critical lapse in judgement, even for him.
That’s the post I am about to get out and was stopped from doing so yesterday by…life.
This does not excuse it in any way (he’s the President of the United States, he has to be precise) but if you look at the longer clip it’s entirely possible that he never saw the tacked-on ending which is from a completely different, longer form, meme. https://truthsocial.com/@realDonaldTrump/posts/116021857490657707
Either one of two things likely happened here:
I think #1 is far more likely. Trump knows how to draw eyeballs, but I have a hard time believing he’d play into his foes’ worst assumptions about him. He does not want to be thought a racist.
Whatever the case, it’s a mess entirely of his making and Karoline Leavitt’s attempt to dodge doesn’t cut it.
I have never before in my life wished so hard that I could personally dope slap an American President. Isn’t there anyone working in the White House who has the guts to talk some sense into him!?
There is an article in the Federalist from January 28th that actually says the same thing.
https://thefederalist.com/2026/01/28/trump-has-failed-his-nullification-crisis-other-states-will-follow-minnesotas-example/
The conclusion is that the ICE resisters, with Walz and Frey upfront, have booked a PR win as Trump blinked. This will set a template for all sanctuary states and sanctuary cities. The lesson is that if your resist ICE strong enough by all means possible, legal and (borderline) illegal, you will succeed in stopping all ICE enforcement.
In Minneapolis the anti-ICE protesters went to the mat to stop the arrest and deportation of people who have committed actual crimes in the USA in addition to illegally crossing the border, we are talking about sex offenders, gang members, and DUI offenders. In order words, very unsympathetic folks. If a President is unwilling to do whatever it takes to deport those criminals, then there is no hope for Trump on winning on his signature promise on which he was elected President. With as result that the MAGA base will sit out the mid term elections.
I like to apply game theory to political analysis, and I think most commenters here are familiar with the Prisoner’s Dilemma game that rewards defection rather than cooperation. There is an iterated version of this game, where the PD game is played an indefinite number of times. In this scenario the Tit for Tat scenario has been proven in computer simulations to give a better outcome than “Always Defect”. However the strategy to be followed by one player should mirror the strategy followed by the other player. If a defection occurs (either by accident or just to probe what happens) a risk is that you end up with endless recrimination (many defections) if both players follow Tit for Tat, instead of long streaks of cooperation. If one player follows the “Always Defect” strategy, the player who follows Tit for Tat has only one reasonable strategy to prevent being played for a sucker, and that is to continue defecting until his opponent changes his style. If instead a forgiving strategy is chosen, the party that always defects wins as defecting has a higher payout than cooperating.
If you look at how Democrats and Republicans are playing the game of politics, can you predict which party is winning the long game? The Democrats are winning as they always defect; the Republicans are nice and forgiving and are being played like suckers. The Democrats even play the game of always defecting if it will result in the loss of an election; this is because they capitalize on the ratchet effect of many of their policies which puts them in a strategic position to win the next election. This is partly due to knowing the weak playing style of the Republicans.
The application is that Trump has given away the game on immigration to the Democrats. He should have invoked the Insurrection Act no matter how unpopular, and brought the sanctuary states and city to heel with as much display of military power as needed. State of emergency, curfews, and a moderate willingness for anti-ICE resister death as an acceptable price for doing law enforcement. But as soon as one or two protesters die (whose deaths are their own fault) the administration panics and blinks…..If your nerves fail at that point you only proof that you do not deserve power.
Why, in your opinion, are Republicans nice and forgiving?