SUBSCRIBE TO OUR FREE NEWSLETTER
Daily news & progressive opinion—funded by the people, not the corporations—delivered straight to your inbox.
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
5
#000000
#FFFFFF
dana nessel
‘Frightening’: Tom Homan Uses War Jargon to Describe ICE Operations in Minnesota
"'In theater' is an expression that has no place anywhere within the United States," said one critic.
Jan 29, 2026
White House border czar Tom Homan on Thursday sparked alarm when he used terminology associated with overseas war to describe federal immigration operations taking place in Minnesota.
During a press briefing, Homan was asked about the number of US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) agents operating in Minnesota.
"3,000," Homan replied. "There's been some rotations. Another thing I witnessed when I came here, I'll share this with you, I've met a lot of people, they've been in theater, some of them have been in theater for eight months. So there's going to be rotations of personnel."
Q: Can you be specific about how many ICE and Border Patrol agents are currently operating in the state?
HOMAN: 3,000. There's been some rotations. They've been in theater a long time. Day after day, can't eat in restaurants, people spin on you, blowing whistles at you. But my… pic.twitter.com/1Vz8mKYCAv
— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 29, 2026
Typically terms such as "rotations" and "theater" are not used to describe domestic law enforcement operations, but overseas military deployments.
Many critics were quick to notice Homan's use of war jargon to describe actions being taken in a US city and said it was reflective of how the Trump administration sees itself as an occupying force in its own country.
"'In theater' like they're landing marines at Guadalcanal or something," wrote Aaron Fritschner, deputy chief of staff for Rep. Don Beyer (D-Va.), in a post on X. "This stuff is happening in suburban American communities, that's where they're sending violent, masked invaders."
Northwestern University historian Kathleen Belew also expressed shock at Homan's rhetoric.
"'In theater' is an expression that has no place anywhere within the United States," she wrote on Bluesky. "'In theater' means in a war."
Andrew Lawrence, deputy director of rapid response as Media Matters, said Homan's war talk was "a crazy way to describe Minneapolis," while documentary filmmaker John Darwin Kurc described it as a "frightening characterization."
Shelby Edwards, a retired US Army major, also recognized the violent implications of Homan's words.
"Incredibly damaging how military language has infiltrated these agencies," she observed. "'In theater' is used for deployments into foreign nations, when we deploy soldiers we say things like this. This is America. This is an American agency assigned to an American city."
Keep ReadingShow Less
As Democrats Push for ICE ‘Reforms,’ a Judge Shows How Flagrantly the Agency Already Violates Law
"ICE has likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence."
Jan 29, 2026
Amid the latest budget standoff in Congress, Senate Democrats on Wednesday said they may be willing to make a deal to fund the US Department of Homeland Security in exchange for a slate of "reforms" designed to rein in what Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer described as Immigration and Customs Enforcement's "state-sanctioned thuggery."
But just because something is written in law doesn't mean ICE agents will follow it.
That's what Chief Judge Patrick J. Schiltz of the US District Court in Minnesota—a conservative jurist appointed by former President George W. Bush—demonstrated when, as part of an order issued Wednesday, he published a list of nearly 100 court orders ICE has violated in just the month of January.
Schiltz issued the list as part of an order canceling a hearing for acting ICE Director Todd Lyons, whom he’d previously ordered to appear in court on Friday or face contempt. The judge demanded Lyon's personal appearance after ICE ignored the judge’s order to give a bail hearing to a detainee, Juan Hugo Tobay Robles, one of “dozens of court orders with which respondents have failed to comply in recent weeks.” Schiltz canceled Lyons’ hearing when Robles was released from custody.
"That does not end the Court’s concerns, however," Schiltz wrote on Wednesday. "Attached to this order is an appendix that identifies 96 court orders that ICE has violated in 74 cases."
"This list should give pause to anyone—no matter his or her political beliefs—who cares about the rule of law," he went on. "ICE has likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence."
"ICE," he said, "is not law unto itself."
This scathing document of ICE's willful disregard for the law was top of mind for many critics of the compromise Democrats appear poised to make in exchange for passing a budget package that includes $64.4 billion in DHS funding, including $10 billion for ICE and $18 billion for Customs and Border Protection (CBP).
On Thursday, seven Republicans joined Democrats in a 45-55 vote to block the spending package, which needs 60 votes to pass in the Senate. Democrats have said they want to separate DHS funding from the rest of the bill in order to negotiate a series of "reforms." If a deal is not reached by January 30, funding for DHS and several other agencies will lapse, causing another partial government shutdown.
On Wednesday, Schumer told the press that Democrats are "united" behind three key reforms to DHS. Per TIME Magazine:
“We want to end roving patrols,” Schumer said, laying out Democrats’ first demand. “We need to tighten the rules governing the use of warrants and require ICE coordination with state and local law enforcement.”
Second, he said, Democrats want to “enforce accountability,” including a uniform federal code of conduct and independent investigations into alleged abuses. Federal agents, he argued, should be held to the same use-of-force standards as local police and face consequences when they violate them.
Third, Schumer said, Democrats are demanding “masks off, body cameras on,” a reference to proposals that would bar agents from wearing face coverings, require they wear body cameras and mandate that agents carry visible identification. “No more anonymous agents, no more secret operatives,” he said.
Journalist and political analyst Adam Johnson described these proposals as "superficial," with many already being codified into law or even the US Constitution.
"As many scholars have noted, Trump arresting people without warrants is already unconstitutional and illegal, but his DHS is doing it anyway," he wrote. "Passing laws to enforce existing law may dissuade the Trump regime in some contexts, but it’s unclear why Trump wouldn’t just ignore the new law since they duly ignored the previous one."
He also said, "It’s unclear how much power Congress or states would have to 'enforce accountability' while Trump’s cartoonishly corrupt DOJ continues to investigate and threaten state lawmakers and leaders with prison time."
Johnson noted that the list of demands made by progressives, including Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), was more comprehensive, including bans on arrest quotas and forcing ICE to end its reign of terror in Minneapolis, but said "it’s unclear how Congress would define, much less enforce, these parameters. And most conspicuous of all, their demands make zero mention of reducing DHS’s obscene budget."
DHS funds were already increased by $170 billion over the next five years in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act passed by Congress last year, and ICE funding tripled, from $10 billion per year to $30 billion, making it the equivalent of the 13th most expensive military in the world.
Aaron Regunberg, a writer at the New Republic, questioned what good it was to subject ICE to new laws when, as Schiltz's order showed, "ICE breaks the law, courts order them to stop, and then they keep breaking the law."
"You have to be dumb as bricks to think the answer is to pass a law saying it's against the law to break the law," he continued. "The answer is to stop giving these fascist goons billions of our tax dollars."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why Trump's Attack on Minneapolis Is Also an Attack on Our Elections
This armed assault on a major American city, coupled with a thuggish offer implying that the bully boys might be pulled back if state officials will betray their voters, shows the damage that can be done without outright canceling the midterms.
Jan 29, 2026
The nation has been convulsed by the shooting of Alex Pretti in Minneapolis. Millions now see with sickening clarity a lawless assault by federal officers on an American city and its people. As The Wall Street Journal editorialized, it is a “moral and political debacle for the Trump presidency.”
The videos were followed by a fusillade of lies from senior government officials. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said Pretti had engaged in “domestic terrorism.” White House aide Stephen Miller called Pretti an “assassin” who tried to “murder federal agents.” Border official Gregory Bovino declared, “This looks like a situation where an individual wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.” The instant impulse by these high officials was to bully and smear.
Another outrageous statement by a cabinet official has not gotten enough attention.
On Saturday, Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote to Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz linking the violence in Minneapolis to a demand that the state give the Justice Department complete access to the state’s sensitive voter rolls, among other things. There’s no explicit quid pro quo offered—but anyone familiar with Grade B gangster movies won’t miss the implication. Certainly that’s how state officials have read it. Let that sink in: Federal agents have killed innocent civilians in cold blood. And the response of the attorney general of the United States is to use it as leverage to illegally access voter data. That is an unambiguous abuse of power.
That sense of crisis, consciously instigated, can create opportunities to undermine the election and sow doubt and division.
As my colleague Wendy Weiser has written, “What do voter rolls have to do with ICE? Nothing. But they have a lot to do with the administration’s ongoing efforts to meddle in elections.”
Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon provided Bondi with the only legal and responsible answer (a simple “no”), describing her offer as “an apparent ransom.”
Make no mistake: The federal government has no authorization to demand confidential voter information from the states. In our constitutional system, states are responsible for maintaining and protecting voter rolls. Indeed, various state and federal laws limit how much data the federal government can collect.
But that hasn’t stopped it from trying. Bondi’s Justice Department has demanded access to the voter records of 44 states and Washington, DC, and it has sued more than 20 states for not complying. Two courts have already ruled on the side of the states.
Why would the administration want to hoover up this data? It would give election deniers new ammunition to push false claims of voting by people who are not US citizens. It would help the federal government pressure states into reckless voter purges, which would kick eligible citizens off the rolls just as November rolls around.
Plainly, it’s all part of a broader strategy to meddle with our elections. Last weekend, House Majority Leader Steve Scalise (R-La.) said Republicans are looking into yet another version of the unpopular SAVE Act—the bill that would require American citizens to produce a birth certificate, passport, or similar document to register to vote. At least 21 million Americans lack ready access to those documents, according to our research. The bill narrowly passed the House but stalled in the Senate last year after massive public pushback.
Bondi’s letter is a gross escalation of this effort—an explicit abuse of this moment to coerce Minnesota to step into line.
Sen. Chris Murphy (D-Conn.) worries that this escalation is by design. Over the weekend, he warned that the “Trump administration is creating this mayhem, particularly in cities in swing states, in order to take control of the election.”
When Donald Trump took office the first time in 2017, he talked of “American carnage.” Shooting of bystanders, squads of masked armed men, terrorized immigrants, clouds of tear gas, vague claims of conspiracy, and more—all bring that “carnage” to life. That sense of crisis, consciously instigated, can create opportunities to undermine the election and sow doubt and division.
To be clear (and I get asked this a lot): Donald Trump cannot cancel the midterms. Presidents have no power to do that.
But this armed assault on a major American city, coupled with a thuggish offer implying that the bully boys might be pulled back if state officials will betray their voters, shows the damage that can be done nonetheless.
The dignified and angry public response from around the country to the latest killing suggests maybe something has snapped. It would not be the first time in our history that government violence kindled an even more powerful reaction.
It’s not only the safety and sanity of people in Minnesota that’s at stake. As we are reminded once again, our democracy is on the line.
Keep ReadingShow Less
US Senate, Do the Right Thing and Refuse to Fund ICE
Senators who believe in compassion and human rights have a unique opportunity to pull back the agency’s powers by refusing to back an appropriations bill passed by the House of Representatives that would renew ICE's budget.
Jan 29, 2026
More Americans now support abolishing Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE, than keeping it.
A January 13, 2026 Economist/YouGov poll found that 46% want to eliminate ICE, compared to 43% who support preserving it. It’s a trend that’s been growing since ICE agents have been running rampant in US cities during Donald Trump’s second term.
A majority of Americans in 2024 backed strict immigration enforcement, so this surge in anti-ICE sentiment likely stems from the agency’s draconian crackdown on immigrants, protesters, citizens, and even children. Most recently, federal agents shot and killed an ICU nurse named Alex Pretti in Minneapolis when he came to the defense of other protesters.
Pretti was only the latest casualty. On New Year’s eve, a Black man named Keith Porter was killed in Los Angeles, allegedly at the hands of an off-duty ICE officer with a documented history of abusing children and being racist and homophobic.
Imagine living in a nation where, instead of pouring our collective resources into hurting and killing our fellow human beings, we pay to house, feed, clothe, educate, and care for one another.
A week later in Minneapolis, ICE officer Jonathan Ross shot and killed a white woman named Renee Good in an incident that galvanized the nation.
During the same crackdown, ICE agents dragged an elderly Hmong American man into the street in his underwear in frigid temperatures after invading his home and terrorizing his family. Other agents tear-gassed a family of eight trying to get home from their son’s sporting event, causing their infant child to lose consciousness.
These are just the documented incidents involving US citizens. Meanwhile, immigrant children as young as 5 years old are being targeted and detained, and dozens of noncitizens have died in ICE custody.
Senators who believe in compassion and human rights have a unique opportunity to pull back the agency’s powers by refusing to back an appropriations bill passed by the House of Representatives. That bill, according to the American Civil Liberties Union, “would renew ICE’s excessive budget, with no strings attached, adding to the over $170 billion in taxpayer funds already allocated for immigration enforcement in July 2025.”
Although seven House Democrats voted for the bill alongside Republicans, a majority of Democrats voted against it and there are even rumblings within the party to support the idea of eliminating the agency altogether. Rep. Delia Ramirez (D-Ill.) recently introduced legislation to that effect.
Abolishing ICE is not only good for human rights in the nation—it would also free up funding for such critical needs as healthcare. “My position has always been clear that ICE funding should be cut,” explained Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) after Good was shot, adding: “the cuts to your healthcare are what’s paying for this.”
She’s right. Trump’s “Big Beautiful Bill” deeply slashed Medicaid funding and allowed subsidies that lowered healthcare costs for Affordable Care Act plans to expire at the same time it hiked ICE funding to historic levels.
ICE funding comes out of the pockets of all working Americans—who are currently, absurdly, funding an agency with striking similarities to Hitler’s Brown Shirts. This comes at a time of continued economic insecurity for a majority of Americans.
For a microcosm of what it would look like to reverse the equation, look at New York City. In just a few weeks the city’s popular new mayor, Zohran Mamdani, who has clearly stated his desire to abolish ICE, has taken actionable steps toward affordable housing, universal childcare, and other bread-and-butter issues.
Imagine living in a nation where, instead of pouring our collective resources into hurting and killing our fellow human beings, we pay to house, feed, clothe, educate, and care for one another.
The Senate now faces such a choice. It was only after Pretti was killed that Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) signaled his party would take a stand and block the vote.
This can and should be the first step toward eliminating ICE altogether.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular