The shooting of Alex Pretti during protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement in Minneapolis has become the emotional accelerant Democrats were waiting for. Within hours, political leaders across Minnesota did not urge restraint, patience, or de-escalation. Instead, they assigned blame, inflamed anger, and framed a federal law enforcement operation as an occupying army. The result was predictable: rage in the streets, chaos on the ground, and two deaths—Alex Pretti and Renee Good—woven into a political narrative before the facts were even settled.
The media may pretend that the unrest on the streets is organic, with citizens putting their lives on the line to protect their undocumented neighbors. That’s how it’s being spun. There is nothing organic about this. This is manufactured outrage, fomented by Democrat politicians who are looking to win political power. There is blood on their hands.
From the first statements issued on January 7, Democratic officials spoke less like public servants responsible for order and more like movement leaders stoking grievance. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey declared that ICE agents were “not here to cause safety” and accused them of “causing chaos and distrust.” In a second statement, he dismissed any uncertainty outright, saying, “that is b******t. This was an agent recklessly using power that resulted in somebody dying.” Governor Tim Walz echoed the tone, telling Minnesotans, “I feel your anger, I’m angry,” while insisting that the Trump administration’s operations were so dangerous that “someone was going to get hurt.” He then urged Minnesotans to make “good trouble,” whatever that means.
That language matters. Leaders set cues. When governors, mayors, senators, and attorneys general tell the public that federal officers are lawless, violent, and illegitimate, they are not merely criticizing policy. They are signaling that resistance is justified. Tim Walz actually claimed that ICE was not law enforcement, comparing them to Gestapo and comparing illegals to Anne Frank.
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison went further, asserting that the presence of ICE was “causing serious harm and spreading terror throughout our communities.” Senator Tina Smith called for ICE to “leave now for everyone’s safety.” Representative Betty McCollum demanded that ICE “cease and desist” so state authorities could “restore order,” implicitly casting federal agents as the source of disorder itself.
By late January, the rhetoric had escalated into open delegitimization. Senator Amy Klobuchar claimed that ICE “invaded” Minnesota and accused agents of ramming into homes without judicial warrants. Representative Ilhan Omar declared that ICE was “killing white citizens who want to document their illegal stops” and later concluded that the agency was “beyond reform” and should be abolished. Governor Walz framed the confrontation in existential terms, asking Minnesotans which side they wanted to be on: an “all-powerful federal government” that could “kill, injure, menace, and kidnap its citizens,” or a civilian who “died bearing witness.”
Let’s not pretend that this is motivated by care and compassion. This is purely political. Democrats are in the minority in the House and the Senate, and this is an election year. They are hoping that enough deaths occur so they can use those deaths to gain political power. Two facts expose the political nature of this moment.
First, the unrest is geographically selective. There are no comparable ICE riots in Republican-led states. Federal immigration enforcement is not uniquely aggressive in Minnesota, yet the anger is uniquely intense there. That is not coincidence; it is the product of political leadership that treats resistance as virtue and frames enforcement as oppression. When Democratic officials validate confrontation and portray federal agents as criminals, protest escalates into chaos. When Republican officials emphasize compliance with the law—even while criticizing policy—streets remain calm.
Second, the moral outrage is historically selective. When Barack Obama presided over one of the most aggressive deportation regimes in modern history, Democrats did not march, riot, or accuse ICE of terrorism. They certainly did not call for abolition. They funded ICE during the entirety of the Obama era. It’s not as if ICE had a better record during Obama’s time, far from it. The numbers prove that Trump’s ICE is more efficient than Obama’s.
Between President Trump’s January 20, 2025 inauguration and the end of November, ICE arrested approximately 595,000 illegal aliens and deported 605,000. According to ProPublica, 170 U.S. citizens were detained—but roughly 130 of those arrests were for interfering with or assaulting officers, plainly lawful under any reasonable reading. Only about 40 individuals claimed to be U.S. citizens mistakenly detained, and just half of those were held longer than a day. That is an error rate of 0.0067 percent—roughly one wrongful detention per 14,925 arrests. There were no erroneous deportations of U.S. citizens during that period.
Under Obama, the record was worse by every measurable standard. In fiscal years 2015 and 2016 alone, ICE recorded 263 mistaken arrests, 54 mistaken detentions, and four mistaken deportations of U.S. citizens. With only 239,645 arrests during those two years, the mistaken detention rate was 0.0225 percent—one error per 4,444 arrests—more than three times higher than under Trump. Obama-era ICE deported four U.S. citizens in just two years.
Deaths in custody tell a similar story. During Obama’s two terms, 56 individuals died in ICE custody. Using the best available detention estimates, that equates to roughly one death per 14,314 detainees, a higher rate than the most recent Trump figures of one per 18,594 detainees.
There were no mass protests. No demands to abolish ICE. No claims that enforcement itself was illegitimate. Democrats defended the system when they ran it—and denounced it when they lost control of it. Tom Homan, who was Obama’s executive associate director of ICE prior to being named border czar by President Trump, was awarded Presidential Rank Award as a Distinguished Executive in 2015. The Washington Post praised Homan at the time, claiming that, “Thomas Homan deports people. And he’s really good at it.” Once again, no chaos in the streets.
That hypocrisy is most glaring when compared to January 6. Democrats insist that rhetoric questioning institutions or elections is inherently dangerous, that political leaders bear responsibility for violence that follows heated language. Yet those same leaders now accuse federal agents of murder, call for crowds to “hold the line,” praise legal observers “putting their lives on the line,” and describe law enforcement as kidnappers and occupiers. They demand investigations before facts are known and absolution for protesters before accountability is discussed.
Alex Pretti and Renee Good should not be political symbols. Their deaths were pointless, but they are being turned into martyrs. Democratic leaders are celebrating their deaths privately and encouraging more violence based on those deaths publicly.
Some Republicans are calling for the Trump administration to back down in Minnesota. That would be negotiating with terrorists, and law enforcement around the country would be impossible. If anything, Trump should double down, send in all available ICE agents, and prove to the Democrats of Minneapolis that they cannot undermine federal law.
Moshe Hill is a political analyst and columnist. His work can be found at www.aHillwithaView.com and on X at @HillWithView.