Here’s what ICE is really doing in Minneapolis — and it’s not enforcing the law

Key Takeaways:

• Current ICE operations differ sharply from past administrations’ approaches.
• Syracuse University’s data shows that President Obama deported more individuals per year than President Trump but used less aggressive methods.
• Reports of masked officers and violent tactics fuel accusations that ICE aims to spread intimidation rather than enforce the law.
• Stephen Miller and other administration figures assert that “raw, naked power” is necessary for governing.
• Many fear these actions undermine democratic norms and threaten civil liberties.

A Changing Climate in Minneapolis

In recent weeks, Minneapolis residents have witnessed a type of federal immigration enforcement unlike anything they have seen before. Rather than relying on conventional paperwork processes and civil procedures, masked ICE officers have taken to the streets in force. Critics contend that these raids are meant to terrorize communities and suppress dissent, rather than carry out lawful deportations.

From Paperwork to Paramilitary Tactics

A major point of contrast lies in how immigration violations were historically managed. Under President Obama, over 3.1 million people were deported in eight years, with a peak of more than 407,000 removals in FY 2012. The Obama administration was unequivocal—individuals without legal status would be required to leave. Yet, these actions were handled through documentation, legal timelines, and limited use of force. In comparison, current ICE operations under President Trump’s second term often involve tear gas, masked agents, and property damage.

Evidence in the Numbers

Despite the administration’s more aggressive style, data suggests President Trump has carried out fewer total deportations. From 2017 to 2020, there were fewer than 932,000 deportations, peaking at roughly 269,000 removals in 2019. Since his return to office, ICE reports around 290,000 removals through late 2025 and mid-FY 2026. This discrepancy introduces a fundamental question: Why is heavy-handed force being used at a time when overall deportations are lower than under Obama?

Shifting Purpose: Law or Fear?

Opponents of these tactics argue that when heavily armed agents arrive unannounced, kick in doors, and conceal their identities, they move beyond standard law enforcement. The article cites the story of a young man in Santa Ana who was shot in the face by ICE officers, as well as a disabled woman in Minneapolis allegedly dragged from her vehicle. Such incidents suggest an aim to project “raw, naked power,” an idea apparently reinforced by Stephen Miller’s public statements about unrestrained federal authority.

The Federal Mandate and Its Reach

In addition to physical raids, Trump’s National Security Presidential Memorandum-7 (NSPM-7) defines “potential domestic terrorism” in a way that critics say targets dissent. It includes individuals who express “extremism on race,” “anti-Christianity,” or opposition to “traditional American views on family.” Many worry such expansive language can be used selectively against minorities and protestors—effectively stifling opposition under the guise of rooting out threats.

A Warning for Democracy

The article draws parallels to autocratic tactics: demonizing perceived outsiders, ramping up a paramilitary presence, and threatening to deploy the full U.S. military against civilian protests. Observers note that rolling tanks down city streets comes much later in such scenarios; initial steps often involve stoking fear of an “other” to justify repressive measures. For longtime Minneapolis residents, the dramatic shift in ICE operations serves as a disquieting signal of what might come next unless officials, courts, and the public push back.

Final Thoughts

The warnings from this story are clear: this new form of enforcement is about more than immigration. With fewer overall deportations compared to prior administrations, it raises the alarm that terrorizing communities—rather than following well-established legal processes—has become an active tool of this administration. Where this path leads will ultimately depend on how citizens, state authorities, and the judiciary respond to the federal government’s handling of undocumented individuals and anyone labeled an “enemy