Today, Explained - Minneapolis vs. ICE

Episode Date: January 24, 2026

Thousands of federal immigration officers have descended onto Minneapolis. The state is in a full-blown conflict with the Trump administration. What can Democratic leaders do, and what it would mean if Trump invoked the Insurrection Act there? This episode was produced by Jesse Ash, edited by Miranda Kennedy, fact-checked by Andrea Lopez-Cruzado and Danielle Hewitt, engineered by Shannon Mahoney, and hosted by Astead Herndon. A demonstrator holds a photo of Renee Nicole Good, the anti-ICE protester fatally shot by an ICE officer in Minneapolis. Photo by ROBERTO SCHMIDT / AFP via Getty Images.  You can also watch this episode on video at ⁠⁠youtube.com/vox⁠⁠. Listen to Today, Explained ad-free by becoming a Vox Member: vox.com/members. New Vox members get $20 off their membership right now. Transcript at ⁠vox.com/today-explained-podcast.⁠ Learn more about your ad choices. Visit podcastchoices.com/adchoices

Hi and welcome to Today Explain Saturday. I'm a Stead Herndon, and every week I'll be talking to someone in the news, in the culture, or just exploring an idea I can't get out of my head. This week, we're in Minneapolis, where thousands of federal immigration agents have descended on the city in recent months. And it's also the site of the fatal killing of Renee Good, the protester who was shot and killed by ICE officers, actually not too far from here. By now, we've all seen the video, and we've heard the statements from President Trump in this cabinet. But I wanted to dig in deeper into the context behind this fatal encounter.

Why is ICE in Minneapolis in the first place? What happens if Donald Trump invokes the Insurrection Act and what are Democrats going to do to push back against federal officials? So this week, I talked to Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, and I put all those questions in front of him. Attorney General Keith Ellison, thank you for joining us, particularly at this difficult time for your state. Good to see us, Ted. I wanted to talk to you not only because of the recent news, but also because you're, You have had a history here in Minnesota. Sure.

Also the political questions, I think, have come up for Democrats, for you and others in response to Donald Trump's deployment here in Minnesota. Sounds good. Obviously, one of the unique things about this incident is how quickly the White House moved to place blame on the victim. Secretary of State Christy Nome said this was an act of domestic terrorism almost immediately. Vice President J.D. Vance said that Renee Good was a quote-terrange leftist. I wanted to know, did those statements impact your ability to go about your job?

And if so, how? Yeah, I thought they were deeply callous and I thought they showed no compassion for Ms. Good or her family or her children or anyone. I thought to myself, this can't be how these officials are handling this. Normally officials in my position and in theirs say, wait, let's do an investigation. We're very sorry for all concerned here. That's been Democrats and Republicans. Democrats and Republicans, this is the normal way that we do these things. But we're not doing these things the normal way, and they came out swinging,

justifying the actions of the officer right away. And my thought is, if the officer is as innocent as you claim that he is, why not? Let's just have a investigation and then say, look, you know, this is a horrible tragedy. But here's the conclusion that we've come to after reviewing the evidence. That is not what they did. And that just really is another reminder of how much we're in new territory right now. You know, I don't want to make a one-to-one comparison to what Republicans said and what Democrats have said. But, you know, Mayor Jacob Fry here did famously say get the F out of our city to ICE.

You did have Governor Walls kind of characterizing this as an occupation. Do those statements from Democrats turn the temperature down? Or were they also, you know, part of a turning up of tension? No, because those statements were made in reaction to the escalation in which there was no Democratic conduct. sort of brought this escalation on. So the dramatic escalation happens, regardless of what either one of them say, temperate or intemperate. And I will say this, part of what it means to be an elected official is to channel the emotional vector of your electorate.

Of course, the latest escalation from the federal government was the announcement that the Justice Department is now investigating Governor Tim Walls and makeup Jacob Frye and saying impeded officers from doing their work here. I was going to put that in front of you. How do you see these criminal subpoenas and have Democrats in Minnesota impeded the federal government from what they would say

is lawful immigration enforcement? Well, you've just pointed out that the mayor and the governor are under federal investigation. You know who's not under federal investigation? Well, Jonathan Ross. That's who's not under investigation. So that gives you

some window into the justice element of this, right? This is clearly a weaponization of the criminal justice system, just like Letitia James, just like James Comey, just like others who have been unjustly targeted out of revenge, out of malice, out of retribution, his word, right? The president's word. Yep. You know, we've seen reporting that the federal government has shut down state and local agencies from the investigation into Renoy Goods killing. Is that true? And what's the status of the federal investigation and its relationship to what you all are doing in the state?

From the federal government's perspective, what we know is at least three or four things. Thing number one, the United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, whose job it is to investigate use of fourth death cases has declined before there's been any investigation. It's declined to open an investigation. They have said publicly, we will not even open an investigation. So there's that. And these are the people whose job it is to do this work. We've seen six assistant U.S. attorneys quit because they were told you're going to investigate Renee Good and Becca Good, her wife, and we're not doing any investigation on Renee Good's death. They quit in response to that. That's the other thing that happened.

As you've already noted, state and local prosecutors have been in front. that they're not going to be allowed to have access to the investigative file that the FBI has acquired so far. And what's in that file? You know, things like bullet casings, things like the car, which has the windows, which can help show trajectory. So you don't have access to the car? At this point, no. We're hoping that the federal government changes its mind because it's so clearly unjust for them to deny. and in the past, these kind of investigations are done jointly.

I guess one thing I was asking, though, is because of the degree to which Donald Trump made clear that his plans were to, you know, ramp up a mobilization in cities like Minneapolis, and because of the kind of growth we've seen over the last several months, is there anything that state officials could have done to prevent what has now become a deadly encounter? Like, is there a way that that kind of telegraphing could have been an off ramp and that off ramp wasn't taken? Well, this is a good question. I'm glad you asked it. And I would have to say not to my knowledge. Because our lawsuit, we're not saying that ICE doesn't have a right to exist in Minnesota. We're not, ICE existed before and we didn't sue them. Ice, even ICE, has an obligation to abide by the law and to obey the Constitution, the Fourth Amendment. They have a obligation. to not break and violate things like the Administrative Procedures Act. And the policy of the government, through ICE, cannot be arbitrary or capricious. And they can't violate the sovereignty of the state of Minnesota vis-a-vis the 10th Amendment. So, yeah, if ICE would have come here and even if they'd have had more people

and then just operated in the way that ICE historically has operated, which some agree with and some don't. I tend to be not that big of a fan. But I don't question their existence. But this lawsuit is about their conduct now. One thing I was going to ask, and this is not, again, I don't want to be placing blame on individuals. Yeah, you're asking a good question.

But I want to put it in front of you. Like, these are peaceful protests, yes, but they are disruptive ones. And there are folks who are coming out with the purposes of, at minimum, annoying. ice, but at maximum, disrupting some of their activities. And we've heard that even from folks who go out on these things. Do those actions, are those actions contributing to the environment of fear that we see? Look, in America, you have a right to express your views and peacefully assemble. That exercise of your right may be annoying to someone else.

There's no guarantee under the First Amendment that you, that everyone, that speaks, will say things that you find pleasing and agreeable. But the problem is exceeding the boundaries of the law. What about things like blocking them on the street? What about things like, you know, some of the whistles that we have seen? Well, see, that whistle, let's talk about whistles. How is blowing a whistle impeding the lawful exercise of a warrant for the arrest of an undioccurson? Now, can you assault an ICE officer?

No, you're going to be arrested for that. Can you... Can you impede them? Well, like, define that word, though. I mean, because what they say impeding and what a court might say is impeding is different. So can you physically block them? No, you can't do that. You can't.

You cannot physically block them. Can you criticize them as you're not blocking them? Yes, you can. You know, so there's a whole range of conduct that Christy Noem wants to say is impeding. But it's not impeding. It's First Amendment protected activity, and there are laws that, you know, people, you know, have to obey, like obstruction of legal process. But that is not just interrupting. It's interfering, right? I mean, these things do make a difference, right?

I guess I'm saying have Democratic officials done enough to tell the own kind of activist community, even though I know some of, you know, have told their own kind of protest anti-I's community about that distinction? Have they done enough to make clear that these folks are doing what you say in terms of peacefully protesting and not obstructing? I think the answer is clearly yes because there has not been. Look, there are some people who've broken the law and they've been arrested. And by the way, as a person who got arrested protesting in my youth, when you decide to do civil disobedience, you know what's coming next. But that's not been what most people are doing. You know, Trump has also consistently threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act. And he has said that specifically about Minnesota even recently.

I wanted, you know, maybe for folks who don't know, let's be clear to the Insurrection Act would allow Donald Trump to deploy federal forces without congressional authority, what could amount to a seeming federal occupation of Minnesota. Right. I wanted to know, have you all had, as Democratic of state officials, had conversations about what to do if Donald Trump does invoke the Interaction Act? Of course. So what is a plan of pushback? I mean, how would the state respond to that level of escalation? In court. This is something that can be tested and challenged in court, and we would do so.

We've been thinking that this is a possibility and have been hoping that it didn't happen, but planning for the eventuality if it did. What would a federal, what insurrection act mean for Minnesotans? What would Minnesota under the Insurrection Act mean? It would mean that we had federal active duty troops patrolling our streets. It would mean that they'd probably be guarding ICE as ICE went about what it does, which is concerning because the way ICE does its business is been proven over and over again to be deeply problematic. It would that's what it would not mean that the elections would be suspended.

That's something that people should know. the Insurrection Act does not give Trump the right to suspend the election. We will that, but, but, but, but, but, so, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, but, it's so, uh, it, it can't, it's, it's hard to describe how bad it would be in damaging for our society. Plus, the Inserrector Act requires that the president show that the local authorities have been overwhelmed and can't do the job or won't do the job. And neither one of those things are true. I think even about the defund the police kind of slogans that came out of some of the George Floyd Summer,

and people now looking at the calls to abolish ICE and wondering if those things are the same thing. I wanted to put that in front of you. Someone who's seen both of those things up close. When you hear calls now to abolish ICE, what do you think about that? And is that the solution for Minnesota? But the slogan was on the stage. But what they were saying was more reform-ish.

So, and then, next thing you know, every Republican in America is accusing Democrats of defund the police. So I believe that was always a political statement. strategy because Republicans correctly said no, that most people do like their police department and even low-income black communities tend to say, we want good police, but we do want, but we don't want to get rid of the police. Yeah, well, let's say here for a second. Because I do think that what you're saying is important in that it was not a mass call

from the Democratic Party or Democratic elected officials to say defund the police. And I think, you know, to the event you're talking about, It was more of an activist push that that was around politicians more so than it was Democrats kind of embracing it themselves. Right. I guess I would say then, before we get to the abolish ICE, part, did Democrats do enough then to make the distinction you're talking about and say, hey, yes, the activists are saying this, but we know our communities want some form of reform. Because I don't think that was that clear at the time. As a politician, I would say, look, I work with law enforcement. we embrace and lift up our members of law enforcement

who live up to the high standards we ask of them and the ones that don't deserve to be police officers. And then my Republican opponents would say, you're for defund the police. It was a political slogan that they were buying ads to try to perpetuate. You can't answer my question though. Were Democrats too deferential to activist language at that time?

I would say what I'm trying to say is no. but obviously we should have, could have maybe done more because too many people believe that narrative. but I would say that as a person, and what I was offering myself as one, so what I mean is, if I stop and say, and just all I do is just completely devote myself into refuting this false claim, then they've got me still,

even though, even if I convince half the people that I never said defund the police, the reality is the people who might just vote for me, they want to hear me talk about wages and housing and health care, but I'm not talking about that because I'm talking about what their, trying to make me talk about. So that is sort of the catch-22 of the Democratic politician. But one thing I will say is, just to belabor the point.

Yeah, yeah. Did Democrats present a affirmative vision of criminal justice reform, of law enforcement reform in that summer, that counterbalance defund the police enough? I would say, as a person who likes to be real with myself, maybe we could have or maybe we should have. I will tell you that one group of people would say we talked about it too much and we should have spent more time talking about an affirmative vision. And then there's some

people who said we didn't refute the negative vision enough. At the end of the day, Democrats had a tough year and maybe we could have done more. Maybe we should have done more. Now in this moment, where there is an opportunity for Democrats to make a pitch specific around

ICE and immigration law enforcement, do you see the calls to abolish ICE as the same as some of the progressive pushes from years ago? I just don't see nobody I'm talking to is saying that. No one's saying abolish ICE? I mean, let me be clear. I'm not saying no one's saying that. Okay.

I'm saying that as an elected official who asked people to vote for me, I'm not running into anyone who's saying that. One more question on this before we move off. I wanted to ask also about the argument the Trump administration is making that this is in response to Minneapolis being a sanctuary city. It's not a sanctuary city. Yeah, and I know that this distinction matters a lot. They have said that, in essence, that city and state officials are not cooperated with immigration officials,

that they cannot go into the jails to round up accused criminals, which is the reason why they are out in communities. I wanted you to respond to that. First of all, it's a separation ordinance. Yes. And second of all, what does that mean? Well, what that means is that we're not paid, we're not compensated, and it's not our statutory. obligation to be functionaries and deputies of ICE. We have other jobs that need to be done.

Our police need to worry about domestic violence, car theft, murder, gun-related crimes. We cannot be enforcing the immigration code. There's a whole department devoted to that from the federal government, and they need to go do that. And that is what I, that's pretty, it's pretty simple. But there are arguments that you all are blocking them from that enforcement. That's a lie. It's not true. So the question of them being able to go into jails and find somebody, is that true?

Everyone who has a legal right to enter a jail goes into the jail. I mean, that's what it is. The fact is that actually the Department of Corrections alerts people who have immigration status. They alert ICE. But to hold them there beyond. the amount of time that they would legally, and I'm talking about the detainees, if a court determines that a detainee should be released

based on, say, a DUI, then they're going to be released. And it's not the business of the state of Minnesota to hold people beyond that charge. If somebody is there to pick them up because they got other legal problems, that's on them to do. The state is free to execute it.

immigration detainers. But what Minnesota's not doing because of said separation ordinance is they're not making it their business to hold people longer or do something above and beyond for the purposes of... We believe you would expose the state of Minnesota to liability to hold someone beyond the amount of time that the court has deemed them to be held based on what they're charged with. But if somebody is there to collect them, they can collect them and have been doing so. Right now in the world of AI, two things are happening simultaneously. One, the technology is getting better fast. People are finding new uses for it.

It's more popular than ever. And two, every company that makes AI is absolutely hemorrhaging cash. On the Vergecast this week, we're talking about what Open AI and other companies are doing to try to finally figure out how to make some money off of this technology. Spoiler alert, it's mostly ads. And we're talking about whether any of it's actually going to work. All that. plus some stories about the Chinese company that appears to be beating Tesla on the Vergecast wherever you get podcasts.

You know, Minnesota's obviously changed a lot. I'm thinking specifically about the changes in demographics. The Somali population has exploded in the Twin Cities in the last 20 years. Almost some estimate, say, 100,000 Somali Americans in the Twin Cities alone. How did the increase in population shift the governmental priorities in a city that has changed over the last 20 years? Well, I mean, from my perspective, you know, more workers, more consumers, more professionals, more people to be a part of our economy. If you don't have a population growth, you're going to have economic decline. And so I, for one, think that the Somali community has actually helped us hang on to the number of Congress people we have because we've had not just Somali immigrants, but also.

So, you know, immigrants from all over the world, Europe too. We've had them from Asia. We've had them from Africa. We've had them from Latin America. And we've had migrants who are from the United States come to Minnesota. And that has been to the benefit of Minnesota. Minnesota is a state where people feel included and welcome. Is there any argument that Democrats were slow to investigate challenges the Somali community,

be it immigration enforcement or allegations of social services fraud because of their political importance to the party? I know that Republican talking point is absolutely wrong. And it's kind of racist and bigoted. Let me just say, I've prosecuted over 300 cases of Medicaid fraud in the last several years since I've been the AG. And it's multicultural in terms of the people we've prosecuted. They've been every color under the rainbow, every culture, plenty of Olsons, plenty of Johnsons, plenty of Anderson's, right? So that the idea that fraud lives only and exclusively. Not only an exclusively.

Or even mostly. You know, it's not true. And so it's not true, right? And, you know, again, you want to talk about fraud. You know, let's do that. You know, the bottom line is that fraud is something that the Trump administration has certainly not taken seriously. some of the worst fraudsters in American life have been people who Trump has not only pardoned, but pardon maybe twice. I'm not even, I'm not, I know you're not.

But see, but see, that's how it goes, right? But defeating our future scandal is a legitimate one in Minnesota. It is, but what does it mean? Does it mean Somalis are not good people? No, it doesn't mean that. What does it mean? What does it mean Minnesota doesn't prosecute fraud? Of course we prosecute fraud.

What it means is that some people, who were dishonest, stole from a program to help feed kids, and we investigated them, and we are prosecuting them, and many of them are in jail at this very moment. And, you know, but here's a thing. There's people in every, and there are people in every single state in this country who've committed fraud.

Why is Minnesota the special selection for this sort of attention? And in fact, Trump says that all this ice surge, is about fraud, but he's sending armed men with guns wearing masks. He's not sending accountants. He's not sending forensic financial investigators. He's sending guns and men with aggressive men with guns. So you get to the impression that we're not really talking about fraud. We're talking about Somalis.

And is that right? It's undeniably been fueled by Republicans who have in bad faith in several instances, misrepresenting facts. I will say that as an absolute fact. Thank you for saying that. because it is true. But look, as a part, I have a Medicaid fraud program that I supervise as Attorney General. It has about 30 people in it. It's pretty busy all the time. And guess what else? Every other Attorney General also has a Medicaid fraud unit and it's prosecuting people all the time. This thing is political. And let me just tell you, any good, any politician who is sincerely

trying to elect the people always laments when something doesn't go right. and always ask themselves, what could I have done to make it go better? And so, sure, let's figure out what we could do better. Well, one reality of the impact of at least the discussion around the allegations of fraud has been Governor Walls stepping down from his campaign for re-election. I know that you have been rumored as a potential Democratic candidate for governor. I wanted to know what you thought of Wallace's decision and if you're planning to enter the race. Well, this is a dear friend of mine, and I'm so grateful for the time we spent in office, whatever his decision he wants to make for himself and his family, I support it.

What am I going to do? Let me tell you, I love the job that I have, and I feel a tremendous urgency to keep doing it. At the same time, what could a person do who wants to help people afford their lives if they were governor? But unfortunately, Osteed, I'm not here to make any announcements. Looking ahead, how do you push back against a Trump administration that is continuing to target Minnesota and shows no signs of stopping? Tell them the public the truth about what's going on. That's part of the pushback. Supporting the county of Hennepin in their investigation regarding the death of Rene Good.

That's pushback. and putting forth a positive vision and encouraging people to protest in a disciplined manner that's pushed back and then encouraging people to vote like their lives depended upon it because I think that they really, really do. Certainly our democracy depends upon it.

Yeah, I mean, I asked because I was at, you know, the side of the deaf today, and you could feel someone even say there like how powerless they feel, how they feel as if this kind of invading force has shown up and has imposed on them something that feels inextraptible. So I'm saying.

As someone who doesn't see it like that, you know, I was just really asking to say. Well, no, I appreciate that. And I thank you for bringing that out. Because, look, what I'm saying to people is, you know, what my mother used to say to me, do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with. Good. Yeah. And so that's what I'm saying, you know, this, we're in a situation where basically the president is persecuting our state.

stay firm, stay strong, stay faithful. And we're going to get through this. We are going to get through this. I promise we will get through this. And we're going to get through it better than ever. We need a leader to bring us together, not one to separate us like him. We need somebody's going to prioritize affording your life

and make a prosperity, a real possibility. So that is right within our grasp, but we just got to last a little longer through this. Tony General, thank you for your time. I really appreciate it. Thank you. Thank you. Every Saturday, we'll be in your feeds with an interesting interview in culture or in politics.

And you can also watch these Saturday interviews this week and every week on the Vox YouTube channel. Just go to YouTube.com slash Vox or click the link in the show notes. This show was produced by Jesse Ash, fact-checked by Andrea Lopez Crusado, and mixed by Shannon Mahoney. Our art director is Kuhnui, and our head of video is Christina Vallis. The executive producer of Today Explain is Miranda Kennedy. I'm a Stan Hurndon, and this is Today Explained.