It’s Time To Arrest Them.
This print is from the 1871 book "The Underground Rail Road" (p. 350) by William Still and depicts the Christiana Resistance. The Christiana Resistance was the successful armed resistance by free Blacks and escaped slaves to a federal raid to recover four escaped slaves under the Fugitive Slave Act of 1850.
Earlier today, Alex Pretti, an ICU nurse at a local VA hospital and dues paying member of AFGE Local 3669, was shot and killed by Border Patrol in Minneapolis.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) in a public statement argued that Pretti was carrying a handgun and “violently resisted” when agents attempted to disarm him. The video itself is very easily accessible. I encourage the reader to search and watch it for themselves, despite the horrific violence depicted, and form their own judgement. It is difficult to believe the extent to which the forces of Law and Justice will lie until the facts—and the lies—are observed directly.
Difficult to see in the video is that the agents in question had already disarmed Pretti before shooting him. Thomas Bordeaux and Yahya Abou-Ghazala write for CNN:
Video shows one officer reaching into the scrum of other officers seeking to restrain Pretti and retrieving a weapon that appears to match the firearm the Department of Homeland Security says Pretti possessed.
Officers can be heard shouting “he’s got a gun” when the unidentified officer reaches into Pretti’s waistband as the pile of officers try to subdue him. Just over one second after the officer emerges holding the weapon, a shot rings out, followed by at least 9 more, according to videos.
A man subdued by multiple agents, on the ground, disarmed—shot approximately ten times by armed state agents. It is not the first time the administration or the DHS in particular has flagrantly violated the basic letter of the law and the fundamental principles of humanity. But their stance is already clear: Stephen Miller says, “To all ICE officers, you have federal immunity in the conduct of your duties.”
The ‘Resistance’ is resisting: there are, according to Lawfare, 253 active cases challenging the actions by the Trump administration. The ones centered around immigration enforcement and led by states include Minnesota v. Noem (2026) and Illinois v. Department of Homeland Security (2026). In California, Governor Newsom has made it illegal for ICE agents to wear masks. Etcetera.
Again. This is not the first time the administration has crossed a legal or moral line. It will not be the last. In Tun-Cos et al. v. Perrotte et al. (2019), the U.S. Court of Appeals of the 4th Circuit ruled that the entry of ICE into the northern Virginia home of Jose Carcamo without a warrant was a violation of Carcamo’s constitutional rights. They also ruled that there was no legal remedy for victims of unconstitutional raids. Simon Sandoval-Moshenberg, Legal Director of the Legal Aid Justice Center’s Immigrant Advocacy Program, writes:
The effect of this decision is to treat ICE agents differently from FBI agents and other federal officers, granting ICE agents complete impunity if they commit egregious constitutional violations—a troubling result that should alarm all of us.
I am troubled. I am troubled by the brutality of how ICE treats both American citizens and the Americans that do not have the correct legal status. I am troubled by the impunity with which ICE sweeps through our streets—as an occupying force, not law enforcement.
The technocratic myopia of America’s progressives have led us to consistently underestimate the transformative threat posed by the Trump administration. This held true in Trump’s first term, but cannot be more obvious in his second. Trump is not just a more brazen or open version of past politicians: he wants something different—whether because of who he is or when he was elected—and he is willing to adopt novel means to achieve it. What is shocking is only that the contrary illusion is so robust it holds even in the face of election denialism and the seizing of Greenland.
American progressives in executive positions must begin arresting ICE agents. Primarily, this means governors. It means Tim Walz, sure, but it also means progressives and Democrat governors either also arresting ICE agents or otherwise making it impossible for them to operate in their states. Without a larger legal program and support, Walz, no matter whether he chooses to fight or appease Trump, will crumble with Minnesota.
It is not enough, in this current moment, to remain within the legally allowed limits of sanctuary cities and refusals to cooperate. These limits are already increasingly being challenged by the Trump administration and, as he continues to concentrate power into himself and weaken his political opposition, are unlikely to be maintained in the future, no matter the legal arguments adducible in their favor. More importantly, these limits do not actually stop ICE from carrying out its agenda—they merely slow them down. They are excellent stopgaps. We need more than stopgaps.
After the killing of Alex Pretti, federal investigative agencies have refused to transfer information to Minnesota state investigators. They do not believe they are legally justified. They believe they are legally empowered to avoid having to be justified, because no one forces them to justify themselves.
ICE is no longer functioning as a civil immigration agency. It is the enforcement arm of a larger political project: to entrench a white supremacist conception of “the nation,” suppress political opposition in advance of 2028, and end all meaningful pathways of immigration, legal or otherwise.
Not only should we say this, but we must also act accordingly. ‘Lawfare’ has failed in the face of a force unwilling to follow the law, or at least willing to manipulate the law enough for it to be ignorable. This is because the law is not binding: people are bound to the law by the use of law enforcement. Trump has turned to the Democrats of America, with their series of statements and suits, and said: “Now let them enforce it.”
Let us enforce it. ICE agents can and must be arrested for the following: 1) unlawful imprisonment, 2) unlawful use of force, and 3) violation of the 1st, 4th, and 10th amendments. These claims have already been made by a number of different people of different outlooks over the last decade or so since Trump was first elected. None of these claims have, so far, been substantiated by arrests and prosecutions.
Is it possible for a state (or lower) executive to arrest federal agents as described? Although bad actors like Stephen Miller have attempted to make this question as confusing as possible, the answer is, without qualifications, yes. In fact, state prosecution of federal agents for crimes is significantly more common than you might assume. Bryna Godar writes for the State Democracy Initiative:
Some state prosecutions of federal actors are relatively non-controversial, like charging postal workers for reckless driving while on the job. Others involve core disputes between states and the federal government, including on desegregation, slavery, and prohibition.
This includes resistance to federal actions that were blatantly unconstitutional or inhumane. Godar continues:
On the overt resistance end of the spectrum, many cases in the 1800s stemmed from states’ disagreements with federal policies and represented outright efforts to obstruct federal action. […] In the mid-1800s, some Northern states opposed to the Fugitive Slave Act charged U.S. marshals for capturing or failing to release previously enslaved individuals. In some of these cases, state courts first ordered the marshals to release captured individuals under a writ of habeas corpus, and the marshals were then charged with criminal contempt and taken into custody if they disobeyed. The marshals typically then sought relief in federal court, also under writs of habeas corpus. In one prominent episode, Wisconsin authorities arrested an enslaver and two U.S. deputy marshals, charging them with kidnapping and assault and battery for capturing and jailing a previously enslaved person.
It is difficult not to feel that the struggle for abolition is essentially similar to the struggle against white nationalism today. With that in mind, it is difficult also to condemn their methods. Not only do state authorities have the power to perform these arrests, but they have the precedent. Of course, the Trump administration (and, no doubt, all sorts of other bad actors) will claim that these arrests are baseless, insurrectionary, and interfere with federal authority.
It is difficult to find these objections meaningful when these methods are necessary for preserving a lawful, positive social order in the first place.
The main objection—and the one primarily deployed by the administration—is that the conduct of ICE falls under the umbrella of the ‘Supremacy Clause’. The ‘Supremacy Clause’ is the constitutional principle that federal law preempts all state or local law; in this context, it means that states cannot undermine federal law by, e.g., prosecutions of federal agents.Goran: “But this principle only applies when federal officials are reasonably acting within the bounds of their lawful federal duties.” For ICE to appeal to this principle for their conduct, they must show that their actions are reasonably within their mandate and reasonably necessary to fulfill that mandate. They cannot.
The Supremacy Clause is strictly limited to those actions which are necessary for the fulfilling of a federal law. Exiting your own vehicle, stopping another car, walking up to a woman, and shooting her multiple times is not protected under the Supremacy Clause. Surrounding a man, tackling him to the ground, taking his gun, and then shooting him ten times is not protected under the Supremacy Clause. Both of these are just known as murder, under the law.
Breaking into a man’s home, kidnapping him, and then locking him up in a camp or sending him abroad is not protected under the Supremacy Clause. It is unlawful imprisonment.
Let’s push harder and look deeper. ICE officers derive their power to arrest and detain noncitizens for immigration violations from the Immigration and Nationality Act (INA), primarily 8 U.S.C. § 1226 (administrative arrest/detention) and 8 U.S.C. § 1357 (general authority to arrest and conduct immigration enforcement in the interior). But the INA is civil, narrow, and procedural. It gives ICE limited authority: to detain removable noncitizens, subject to due process and constitutional oversight. That’s it. Where ICE exceeds these functions, it is acting ultra vires (“beyond its powers”), and is not protected by the Supremacy Clause.
Are ICE agents protected from state criminal charges under the Supremacy Clause for the shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti? Certainly not. The Supremacy Clause, as deployed by people like Miller, is a twisting of the principle for the aim of unlimited executive authority and complete irresponsibility in the use or deployment of the government’s policing power.
ICE is doing armed raids, warrantless home entries, and mass sweeps through immigrant communities. It performs detentions based on appearance and accent. It has detained U.S. citizens. It has shot and killed human beings. It has ignored judicial procedure entirely. ICE does not enforce the INA, it enforces Trump and Miller’s personal vision of immigration policy. It does what Trump wants.
And what does Trump want? He wants to suppress his political enemies, and he wants to end all immigration for the sake of a White America. He also says as much. In the administration’s National Security Strategy document, they write in the ‘What We Want’ section:
We want full control over our borders, over our immigration system, and over transportation networks through which people come into our country—legally and illegally. We want a world in which migration is not merely “orderly” but one in which sovereign countries work together to stop rather than facilitate destabilizing population flows, and have full control over whom they do and do not admit. [my emphasis—P.K.G]
The campaign of ICE terror against both legal and illegal immigrants alike can only be understood if read in this context. The scooping up of citizens and the shooting of protestors are not mistakes or overzealous accidents on the part of ICE, they are logical executions of state policy. ICE is not fulfilling the letter of the INA, but the wet dreams of Stephen Miller.
Let us look at the other elements. ICE is not being sent to Minneapolis because of a pressing legal need for enforcement of immigration policy there, but because Minneapolis is a progressive city that votes blue every election cycle. On January 12th, Minnesota’s Attorney General Keith Ellison filed a suit against the federal government regarding the increase in Border Patrol presence in the flyover state. In it, he alleges:
Defendants [DHS, Kristi Noem, etc.] claim to have deployed over 2,000 DHS agents to the Twin Cities—a number that greatly exceeds the number of sworn police officers that Minneapolis and Saint Paul have, combined. Operation Metro Surge [the title of the operation of sending DHS agents to Minnesota] is, in essence, a federal invasion of the Twin Cities.
The suit further alleges that these agents are violating a large amount of basic constitutional rights of the residents of Minnesota: “being free from unlawful seizures, excessive force and retaliation are not a list of aspirations Minnesotans deserve; these are rights enshrined within state and federal laws.”
But the meat, and the real danger of taking a purely legalistic stance rather than proactively excluding ICE agents from blue cities and states’ jurisdictions, is contained in the following section of the suit:
On Friday January 9, 2026, President Trump expressed the root of his displeasure in plain terms during a recorded interview: he essentially claimed that Minnesota is “corrupt” and “crooked” because its officials accurately reported election results and those results did not declare him the winner.
In a statement regarding the suit, the Minneapolis Office of Community Safety additionally published the following:
The Trump Administration’s decision to target Minnesota and the Twin Cities has been motivated by a desire to retaliate against perceived political enemies rather than good faith immigration enforcement, public safety, or law enforcement concerns. President Trump made this clear himself on January 9, when he stated Minnesota is “corrupt” and “crooked” because its officials accurately reported election results and those results did not declare him the winner. “[T]hey’re crooked officials. . . . I feel that I won Minnesota all three times. I think I won it all three times . . . I won it all three times in my opinion . . . It’s a corrupt voter state . . . I won Minnesota three times and I didn’t get credit for it. That’s a crooked state.”
And later:
Operation Metro Surge instead fits the Trump Administration’s pattern of targeting Democratic municipalities, including Los Angeles, Portland, Chicago, and Washington-DC. [...]
In the lawsuit, Attorney General Ellison and the cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul allege this clear targeting of Minnesota due to the state’s voting habits and the political viewpoints of its leaders is a violation of the First Amendment to the Constitution and its prohibitions against both viewpoint discrimination and retaliation for engaging in protected speech.
ICE is fulfilling an extra-legal role on behalf of the President to achieve his political goals. Almost undoubtedly, the agent corp is packed with the ‘retired’ Nazis, white supremacists, and other freaks who used to go around in roving bands of ‘Proud Boys,’ etc. The fundamental legal principle here is that ICE is acting ultra vires—out of the legal scope of its authority.
But suits are slow. Trump is packing the courts, all the way down. At this point in time (let’s not forget the aborted attempt to prosecute to Trump in New York in 2024), Trump does not fear lawsuits.
So what do we do? The question is so entrancing because fixation allows us to pretend the answer is not already in front of our faces: Stop them! Arrest them! They are breaking the law! You have the means to do so. You have the precedent, too. This decision will require conflict. It may even escalate tensions! But there is are an existential threat to American democracy and American society, and we will perhaps never receive an opportunity like this one in the future.
There are four critical, time-bound factors making a decisive strike against ICE not only possible but likely to result in an effective crippling of the organization for the short- and medium-term and a significant setback for the Trump administration’s domestic agenda. We are in a situation where:
Anti-ICE politicians aligned against the ruling party, like Walz or Newsom, have political mandates and control over the instruments of the state, in addition to short-term support from a large variety of politicians and coalition partners such as labor unions;
These governors have the authority to control loyal and legally sanctioned policing forces. Walz has already brought the National Guard to Minneapolis. If Trump does not back down, it is the only possible way that these arrests could happen;
Opposition politicians are being increasingly pressured by the Trump administration to choose between direct resistance and ceding power (and potentially even facing politically motivated prosecution by the Trump administration in the case of Walz);
Within the state, a mass popular movement against ICE has already broken out and done the work of creating a united front around the issue, and which demands bold and decisive action. Walz only has to act as an extension of that coalition rather than cohere it or otherwise build it himself, and it provides the essential fount of popular support;
Finally, there is currently massive national anti-ICE sentiment, especially regarding the specific killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti. National sympathy, support, and perhaps even cooperation is the difference between Trump backing off or hitting harder.
When ICE agents storm a home without a judicial warrant, detain someone based on appearance, or shoot an unarmed person—they are no longer acting under color of federal law. They are breaking it. In such cases, state arrest is not “obstruction.” It is law enforcement.
More than that: it is self-defense. They want us gone. They are trying to get rid of us. We can either let them, or we can stop them.
Besides: it’s hard to imagine a better way to delegitimize ICE and the Trump administration than by getting them up on a stand and making them explain what they think and how they act in their own words.
