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
department of justice
'Authoritarian Tactic': Trump's DOJ Is Investigating Minnesota Leaders Walz and Frey
"This is a clear weaponization of justice against Trump's political rivals and a desperate attempt to distract from ICE's growing brutality and Trump's lawlessness," one Democratic senator said.
Jan 17, 2026
The Department of Justice is investigating Minnesota leaders including Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, alleging that they are conspiring to impede federal immigration agents due to their outspoken criticism of the deployment of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection to the Twin Cities.
The investigation, first reported by CBS News on Friday, marks yet another escalation from the Trump administration following the January 6 launch of what the Department of Homeland Security claimed was its larger-ever immigration operation in the Minneapolis area and the killing the next day of legal observer Renee Nicole Good by ICE agent Jonathan Ross.
"Two days ago it was Elissa Slotkin. Last week it was Jerome Powell. Before that, Mark Kelly. Weaponizing the justice system against your opponents is an authoritarian tactic," Walz wrote on social media in response to news of the investigation. "The only person not being investigated for the shooting of Renee Good is the federal agent who shot her."
At the time of Good's death, Walz said the violence was the "consequence of governance designed to generate fear, headlines, and conflict" and told President Donald Trump and Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem, "From here on, I have a very simple message: We do not need any further help from the federal government... you've done enough."
"This is 100% political retaliation and an implicit threat to all of us standing up for the Constitution."
Frey, meanwhile, responded to the shooting by telling ICE to "get the fuck out of Minneapolis!”
A source informed CNN that the Justice Department has issued subpoenas for both Walz and Frey, but neither leader's office had received any communication from the DOJ as of Friday.
"This is an obvious attempt to intimidate me for standing up for Minneapolis, local law enforcement, and residents against the chaos and danger this administration has brought to our city," Frey posted on social media Friday. "I will not be intimidated. My focus remains where it’s always been: keeping our city safe."
Frey continued: "America depends on leaders that use integrity and the rule of law as the guideposts for governance. Neither our city nor our country will succumb to this fear. We stand rock solid."
A US official told CBS News that the leaders were being investigated under 18 USC § 372, which says it is illegal for two or more people to conspire to stop federal agents from doing their jobs through "force, intimidation, or threats." However, this statute has not historically been used against people using their First Amendment right to criticize federal operations.
Former federal prosecutor Harry Litman called the investigation "total garbage" and "a complete and utter non-starter."
He added that the statute DOJ was invoking "requires force, intimidation, or threats," and that "there’s no way they could prove that, but even more… the First Amendment prevents any kind of action unless it is imminent and lawless.”
Attorney General Pam Bondi, however, seemed to celebrate the investigation on social media, writing, "A reminder to all those in Minnesota: No one is above the law."
Several Democratic politicians joined Walz and Frey in speaking out against the investigation on social media, including several from Minnesota.
Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minn.) called the investigation "an assault on our democracy and the rule of law."
"Speaking out against what our government is doing is not a crime in America—not now, not ever," she continued.
Rep. Betty McCollum (D-Minn.) wrote, "America deserves justice, not President Trump’s use of DOJ as a weapon against his perceived enemies. I stand with Gov. Walz."
Rep. Angie Craig (D-Minn.) said that the investigation was "even more proof that this has never been about making Minnesota safer. It has always been about political retribution for President Trump and his allies."
Beyond Minnesota, California Gov. Gavin Newsom wrote: "Donald Trump’s corrupted DOJ will stop at nothing—including ridiculous theories unsupported by facts—in pursuing his revenge agenda. No one is safe from his abuse of power. It’s sick."
"This is 100% political retaliation and an implicit threat to all of us standing up for the Constitution," posted Rep. James Walkinshaw (D-Va.) "I won’t be bullied and neither will the American people."
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) pointed to other times that Trump's DOJ had gone after his political opponents: "First it was Tish James and James Comey. Now it’s Senators, Governors, and the Fed Chair. In Donald Trump’s America you get a bogus investigation for doing your job. Americans reject this kind of totalitarian bullying. Where are Republicans? Hiding."
Sens. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) and Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.) both redirected attention to the killing of Renee Good.
"Instead of investigating the death of Renee Good, Trump wants to investigate Governor Walz and Mayor Frey. Despicable. This is a clear weaponization of justice against Trump's political rivals and a desperate attempt to distract from ICE's growing brutality and Trump's lawlessness," Van Hollen wrote on Friday.
In a follow-up post on Saturday, he continued: "Opening fraudulent investigations into Governor Walz and Mayor Frey is a textbook example of prosecutorial misconduct. Judges must start imposing sanctions and holding lawyers accountable. To every federal official participating in these shams: One day you will be held accountable."
Sen. Warren wrote: "Instead of seeking justice for Renee Good, Donald Trump is weaponizing the Justice Department to investigate and intimidate Democratic leaders in Minnesota. We will not stand by silently and be bullied into submission."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump and Hegseth's Boat Strikes Are International Terrorism
It falls on us, the American people, to hold the president and secretary of defense to account by strongly voicing our objection to their acts of international terrorism and by electing a Congress in 2026 that will impeach and convict them for their crimes.
Jan 06, 2026
There has been much heated discussion of the United States Navy’s attacks, ordered by the President Donald Trump and Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth, against numerous unidentified boats and their unidentified occupants. Many have characterized these lethal strikes as crimes under international law, which is valid position. However, what is less understood and more relevant is that the attacks are crimes under United States law and that they also constitute “international terrorism” as that term is defined in United States law.
Title 18 USC §2331 defines international terrorism as “violent acts or acts dangerous to human life” that:
- “Involve violent acts or acts dangerous to human life…;”
- Either are a crime under United States law regardless of where they are committed or would be a crime if committed within the United States; that
- "Appear to be intended... to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or... to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction [or] assassination...; and”
- “Occur primarily outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States."
The first, third, and fourth of those conditions are clearly met by the attacks off the coast of Venezuela because:
- 1) It is unquestionably true that the attacks on the boats have been violent and dangerous to human life because they have killed over 100 people;
- 3) Despite Trump’s and Hegseth’s ridiculous claim that the destruction of the boats and their occupants is necessary to stop the flow of fentanyl into the US, the real reason, as disclosed by White House Chief of Staff Susie Wiles, is that they were using the attacks to force Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro from power, i.e. “to influence the policy of a government by intimidation or coercion; or... to affect the conduct of a government by mass destruction [or] assassination…;” and
- 4) They have occurred in international waters far outside the territorial jurisdiction of the United States.
It is the second condition, i.e. whether the attacks (a) are a crime under United States law wherever they are committed or (b) would be a crime if committed in the United States, that determines whether they meet the definition of international terrorism under the law. If either or both are true, the condition is met.
As to the first alternative, i.e. whether the attacks are a violation of federal criminal law that applies regardless of where the attacks occur, the relevant federal criminal law is 18 USC § 2280. It provides that a person “who unlawfully and intentionally… performs an act of violence against a person on board a ship if that act is likely to endanger the safe navigation of that ship" or who "destroys a ship" commits a crime punishable by a fine or a prison sentence of "not more than 20 years, or both,” and if a death results from the violence or destruction, by a sentence of death or life imprisonment. The law’s definition of “ship” includes “a vessel of any type whatsoever,” i.e. the boats are ships within the meaning of the law. Finally, there is jurisdiction under the law when a person who commits the action is a “national of the United States.”
It is indisputable that the attacks constitute acts of violence against the people on the boats and that all of the boats have intentionally been destroyed. And even though Trump, Hegseth, and others have claimed that the attacks are lawful, their arguments do not stand up to even mild scrutiny. Their claim of lawfulness is based on a fictional state of war against the US, but there is in fact no war, no direct threat to the United States or its citizens, and no authorization by Congress for use of deadly force. Therefore, the attacks are clearly unlawful. Finally, Trump, Hegseth, and those in the chain of command who participated in ordering and commission of the attacks are nationals of the United States, so they fall within the jurisdiction of USC § 2280. Because the attacks have caused the death of those on the boats, the maximum penalty is death or life imprisonment, which means it is a Class A felony per 18 USC § 3559. Therefore, the attacks are a crime under United States law.
The attacks on the boats also meet the alternative standard that they “would be a criminal violation if committed within the jurisdiction of the United States.” That is, the intentional killing of people without due process, i.e. unlawfully, is the crime of murder pursuant to 18 USC §1111(a).
It is shameful for our country and our people that international terrorism is being openly committed by our government in our name.
The conclusion is that the attacks clearly constitute crimes of violence against maritime navigation and murder under United States law. Therefore, the attacks are acts of international terrorism per 18 USC §2331. That is, Trump, Hegseth, and those in the chain of command that furthered the implementation of these attacks are international terrorists. And because the attacks are being made by the United States armed forces in the name of the United States government, it follows that the United States is now a state sponsor of international terrorism.
Even though the Supreme Court has given Trump immunity and impunity, and even though the Department of Justice under Pam Bondi will never prosecute Hegseth, et al., under 18 USC § 2280 or for murder, that does not affect the conclusion that the attacks on the boats are acts of international terrorism as defined by 18 USC §2331, and that the United States is now a state sponsor of international terrorism. The facts speak for themselves.
I believe it is important that the American people recognize that the attacks on the boats constitute international terrorism under United States law and that the United States has thus become a state sponsor of international terrorism. The United States government has condemned, and continues to condemn, foreign governments, e.g. Iran, as alleged state sponsors of international terrorism. That the United States government has now become the world’s most egregious state sponsor of international terrorism makes those condemnations of other countries utter hypocrisy.
It is shameful for our country and our people that international terrorism is being openly committed by our government in our name. It falls on us, the American people, to hold the president and secretary of defense to account by strongly voicing our objection to their acts of international terrorism and by electing a Congress in 2026 that will impeach and convict them for their crimes. Only then can the United States begin to expunge the stain of being a state sponsor of international terrorism.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Why the Trump Admin Can't Investigate Minnesota Fraud Without Scapegoating Somalis
By framing what’s occurring in Minnesota as ‘the Somali fraud network,’ the Trump administration is looking to legitimize its months-long attack on the Somali community and distract from its own unpopularity.
Jan 03, 2026
On December 26, YouTuber Nick Shirley posted a video entitled, “I Investigated Minnesota’s Billion Dollar Fraud Scandal.” So far, the video has amassed over 2 million views and has been lauded by major conservatives including Elon Musk and Vice President JD Vance. Via Twitter, Vance posted that, “This dude has done far more useful journalism than any of the winners of the 2024 @pulitzercenter prize.”
In response to the outcry from this video, the Trump administration is reportedly freezing federal childcare funding across all states. Deputy Health and Human Services Secretary Jim O’Neill called the measure necessary given the “blatant fraud that appears to be rampant in Minnesota and across the country.” While each state will face new requirements to regain funding, Minnesota will be subject to stricter scrutiny.
This is a drastic response, especially since Shirley’s video didn’t reveal anything new. The Department of Justice (DOJ)—under both President Donald Trump and former President Joe Biden—was already investigating fraud in Minnesota. In 2022, 47 people were charged for their role in a $250 million fraud scheme that exploited a federally funded nutrition program during the Covid-19 pandemic. Several news outlets had reported on allegations of fraud regarding federally funded childcare centers in Minnesota months prior to Shirley’s video.
Shirley also doesn’t discover any new evidence. This is unsurprising given his deeply flawed approach. For instance, in the video, Shirley and his crew visit several Somali-owned daycare centers and ask the workers: “Where are the children at? Are there children here today?” Even if fraud was occurring at the sites he visited, the workers’ refusal to take a stranger with a camera to see the kids reveals nothing. Maybe there were no kids present. Or maybe they are simply responsible workers protecting the safety of the children from a potential creep.
This is not about fraud. It’s not about justice. It’s poor political theater from a battered and desperate administration.
Ultimately, if widespread fraud is occurring anywhere, then the people responsible should be held accountable. The problem, however, is that this outrage is being manipulated by the Trump administration to further scapegoat the Somali community.
Consider for instance this comment made by Attorney General Pamela Bondi via Twitter-X. She writes that the DOJ has been investigating this alleged daycare fraud case for months. Thus far, the department has “charged 98 individual—85 of Somali descent—and more than 60 have been found guilty in court.”
There is no reason whatsoever for Bondi to draw attention to the ethnic or racial background of any of the people being charged. She is emphasizing that information in order to help fuel and justify the Trump administration’s xenophobia.
By framing what’s occurring in Minnesota as “the Somali fraud network,” the Trump administration is looking to legitimize their months-long attack on the Somali community. In December alone, President Trump remarked: “We always take people from Somalia, places that are a disaster, right? Filthy, dirty, disgusting, ridden with crime. The only thing they’re good at is going after ships.” Vice President JD Vance said that Democrats “are not sending their best” in reference to Minnesota State Senator Omar Fateh. He claimed that Fateh was Representative Ilhan Omar’s “candidate for mayor of Mogadishu. Wait, I mean Minneapolis.” US Homeland Security Adviser Stephen Miller shouted, “If Somalians cannot make Somalia successful, why would we think that the track will be any different in the United States?”
The Trump administration is exploiting public outrage to further its assault on immigrants and their families. Already House Majority Whip Tom Emmer (R-Minn.) has called for deporting all Somalis linked to fraud in Minnesota, including naturalized citizens. He further adds, “Our nation will not tolerate those who take advantage of our charity and refuse to assimilate into our culture.” Putting aside that most fraud in the US is committed by white Americans, stipulating that the US will not tolerate those who fail to embrace US culture has far wider implications than punishing criminals. This is about punishing diversity.
This is also why the administration has moved to freeze all federal childcare funding. Again, this fraud was already known and is still being investigated. To implement a measure that so indiscriminately and callously harms Americans—during an affordability crisis—is meant to redirect people’s genuine frustrations with the Trump administration onto the Somali community.
They will be the scapegoats for Trump’s violence. And they are only the beginning. On December 31, Trump posted on Truth Social: “There is more FRAUD in California than there is in Minnesota, if that is even possible. When you add in Election Fraud, then they are tied for first. Two Crooked Governors, two Crooked States!”
Trump will capitalize on the public’s legitimate concerns about fraud to attack his political opponents, like Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and California Gov. Gavin Newsom. He will use it to further villainize immigrants. After all, California is the state with the nation’s largest immigrant population—guess who will be blamed for fraud there?
Trump has regularly insisted that Democrats “use Illegal Aliens to expand their Voter Base, cheat in Elections, and grow the Welfare State, robbing good paying Jobs and Benefits from Hardworking American Citizens.” These fraud allegations provide him with the perfect opportunity to extend this false narrative. The fact that the DOJ’s investigation thus far has charged less than 100 people is irrelevant. Most of them are of Somali descent, and Minnesota’s governor is a Democrat (who just ran against him as Kamala Harris’ vice presidential pick). That’s all Trump and his allies care about.
This is not about fraud. A truly anti-fraud president would not commute the sentence of David Gentile, a private equity executive convicted for his role in a $1.6 billion Ponzi scheme that defrauded thousands of investors. As part of his pardon, Gentile will no longer be required to pay $15.5 million in restitution to his victims. Perhaps if Gentile were of Somali descent, then Trump would be more concerned with justice and respect for the law.
There is no legitimate rationale for withholding childcare funding from the entire country because of the actions committed by so few. Trump supporters might argue that this extreme measure simply demonstrates President Trump’s unwavering and firm commitment to law and order. That he is simply rooting out fraud from the system in the most direct way possible.
But if this is true, then why only take these measures after a YouTuber posts a video about it? Why wait until there is public outcry?
It’s because that outcry; these extreme measures; and this anti-Somali, xenophobic framing are all politically useful for the Trump administration. This is not about fraud. It’s not about justice. It’s poor political theater from a battered and desperate administration.
2025 was a difficult year for the country, and 2026 is starting off on a rough foot. As the midterm elections approach, the Trump administration will likely resort to more drastic and violent measures. We cannot give into despair. Trump is waging a battle of attrition against the American public. He wants us stressed, afraid, and divided. The only remedy is for us to remain vigilant, unyielding, and united.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular