The 47th President and the Post-Biden World

Tens of thousands of Minnesotans took to the streets today in bitter cold temperatures with wind chills of -20°F (–28°C) to protest the occupation of Minneapolis and St. Paul by federal agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP). Status Coup News interviewed a protester walking down the street holding a sign that said: “CLASSIC NAZI BLUNDER: INVADING IN WINTER.”

The protester compared ICE agents to the Ku Klux Klan, noting that both wore masks and raided immigrant communities. He went on: “You know, there’s like all this talk of revolution. We’re the counterrevolutionaries, right?”

He explained: “[T]here is a minority who is trying to create a post-law, orderless, lawless society, where their might makes right. And because, you know, they have guns and are willing to use them, they think they can suspend the Constitution, suspend habeas corpus…, suspend civil liberties, generally speaking.”

He continued: “[T]here was a memo that came out that said that they think they can break into people’s houses without warrants, you know, basically just like, trust us, which is, you know, fundamentally against the Fourth Amendment. And so if you look at the amendments, I mean, they’re trying to tear it down the First, they’ve gassed people, they’ve shot people, you know, hit people with beanbag guns and batons for exercising their First Amendment rights, they don’t want people to, you know, exercise their Second Amendment rights, and certainly their Fourth, but also the Fourteenth, you know, basically, they’re attacking the whole Constitution.”

In his assertion that the Trump administration is engaged in a radical attempt to remake the American government while those trying to stop them are protecting our traditional government, the Minnesota protester was echoing another midwesterner from our history who also had to contend with a minority that had seized control of the federal government and was trying to rewrite the history of the United States of America to justify using the government to enrich themselves.

On February 27, 1860, Abraham Lincoln of Illinois spoke at New York City’s Cooper Union.

Five years before, in his controversial annual message of December 1855, Democratic president Franklin Pierce had ignored the Declaration of Independence and, in service to the elite southern enslavers who ran the Democratic party, retold the founding of the United States as a republic of “free white men.” The rights and privileges of belonging to that republic did not include “the subject races” of Indigenous or Black Americans, the president said.

He called out as fanatics and partisans those northerners, living in free states, who obeyed state free laws and protected enslaved Americans who had escaped from the South. They were radicals who rejected the federal law demanding their return to their enslavers. Even worse, they opposed the 1854 Kansas-Nebraska Act that overturned the 1820 Missouri Compromise prohibiting the spread of human enslavement to the American West.

At Cooper Union, Lincoln rejected Pierce’s rewriting of American history. He also retold the history of America. In his version, though, that history was one in which the Founders opposed enslavement and those who stood against those trying to create a white man’s republic were the nation’s true counterrevolutionaries.

Resting his vision on the Declaration of Independence, the nation’s foundational document, he defended the principle of human equality and told Democrats: “[Y]ou say you are conservative—eminently conservative—while we are revolutionary, destructive, or something of the sort. What is conservatism? Is it not adherence to the old and tried, against the new and untried? We stick to, contend for, the identical old policy on the point in controversy which was adopted by ‘our fathers who framed the Government under which we live;’ while you with one accord…spit upon that old policy, and insist upon substituting something new…. Not one of all your various plans can show a precedent or an advocate in the century within which our Government originated.”

Lincoln was on solid historical ground when he reminded Americans of his era that those trying to impose a new system of white nationalist oligarchy on the nation were the true radicals, while those defending equality were conservatives.

The colonists who threw off the rule of King George III also stood firmly on the idea that they were protecting longstanding principles of self-government that British officials were trying to replace with tyranny. In the Declaration of Independence, the Founders called out “a long train of abuses and usurpations [that] evinces a design to reduce them under absolute Despotism, it is their right, it is their duty, to throw off such Government, and to provide new Guards for their future security.”

After enumerating the many ways in which the king had usurped the powers of Englishmen that had been established over centuries, beginning with the 1215 signing of the Magna Carta, the Founders launched a new nation. And then, when the Framers wrote a constitution for that new nation, they were careful to place within it a bill of rights to protect Americans from the rise of another tyrant.

Now the Trump administration is made up of radicals who are ignoring that Constitution and that Bill of Rights in their open attempt to create a white nationalist nation.

The man on the streets of Minneapolis today was right to call out the administration’s assault on the First Amendment that protects freedom of speech, freedom of the press, and the right of people peaceably to assemble.

Thanks to an unsealed State Department memo, we learned today that the administration revoked the visa of Tufts University student Rümeysa Öztürk and detained her for six weeks solely because she co-authored an op-ed in the student newspaper calling for a ceasefire in Gaza. The administration concluded that her op-ed “may undermine U.S. foreign policy by creating a hostile environment for Jewish students and indicating support for a designated terrorist organization.”

ICE agents arrived in Maine this week, and one took pictures of a legal observer’s car, prompting her to remind him that it is legal to record their actions and to ask why he was taking her information. He answered: “‘Cause we have a nice little database and now you’re considered a domestic terrorist.” He appeared to be referring to Trump’s September 25, 2025, memo NSPM-7 that describes opposition to the administration’s policies—opposition protected by the First Amendment—as “domestic terrorism.”

Rachel Levinson-Waldman of the Brennan Center noted that this dramatic expansion of the legal framework for domestic terrorism appears to be the administration’s argument for suggesting Renee Good was a domestic terrorist after ICE agent Jonathan Ross killed her. Secretary of Homeland Security Kristi Noem falsely claimed that Good tried to run over Ross, calling it “an act of domestic terrorism,” and Vice President J.D. Vance suggested that protesters are engaging in “domestic terror techniques.”

But, as Levinson-Waldman explains, domestic terrorism has a specific definition in the law: actions that are dangerous to human life, violate criminal law, appear to be intended to intimidate or coerce a civilian population, or to influence the government by intimidation or coercion, and occur primarily in the U.S. “To actually be called a ‘domestic terrorist,’” she writes, “an individual must commit one or more of 51 underlying ‘federal crimes of terrorism,’” which involve nuclear or chemical weapons, plastic explosives, air piracy, and so on.

The Minneapolis protester was right about the administration’s assault on the Fourth Amendment as well. On Wednesday, Rebecca Santana of the Associated Press reported that ICE has been breaking into homes under the authority provided by a secret memo of May 12, 2025, signed by the acting director of ICE, Todd Lyons, saying that federal agents do not need a judge’s warrant to force their way into people’s homes.

This is a direct assault on the Fourth Amendment to the Constitution, which says the “right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,” and establishes that the government can violate those rights only after a judge agrees there is probable cause of a crime and signs a warrant.

Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-CT) warned: “Every American should be terrified by this secret ICE policy authorizing its agents to kick down your door & storm into your home. It is an unlawful & morally repugnant policy that exemplifies the kinds of dangerous, disgraceful abuses America is seeing in real time. In our democracy, with vanishingly rare exceptions, the government is barred from breaking into your home without approval from a real judge. Government agents have no right to ransack your bedroom or terrorize your kids on a whim or personal desire.”

The Minnesota protester was also right to call out the administration’s assault on the Fourteenth Amendment, which guarantees that no state shall “deprive any person”—not citizen, but person—“of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” It is this principle that is at the heart of the challenges to the administration’s rendering of immigrants to foreign countries without due process.

Instead of rooting itself in the real history of the United States of America, Ali Breland of The Atlantic noted on Wednesday, the Trump administration is embracing Nazi propaganda, trying to convince Americans that the nation’s roots are not in human equality but in the hierarchical system of European fascism. Rejecting the idea of liberty and equality proposed in the Declaration of Independence and defended by people like Abraham Lincoln as the nation’s foundational principle, they are trying to define the United States of America in an entirely new way: one made up of white Protestants who, in their minds, “belong” to the land here. Rather than a nation based in ideals, they want a nation based in “blood and soil.”

In the 1770s, and again in the 1850s, everyday Americans recognized the radicalism of those extremists who were trying to erase the nation’s principles and the rule of law, ignoring the longstanding rights of the people to liberty and equality and instead trying to impose a despotism.

Today a protester in Minneapolis, one of those tens of thousands who filled the streets in below-zero weather to demand that ICE end its violent occupation of their city and its abuse of immigrants and people of color, made it clear that Americans in 2026 still believe in the nation’s founding principles of equality and the rule of law, and they utterly reject the right wing’s blood-and-soil radicalism.

As the world finally punches back, was this the week Donald Trump went too far?

The temptation is strong to hope that the storm has passed. To believe that a week that began with a US threat to seize a European territory, whether by force or extortion, has ended with the promise of negotiation and therefore a return to normality. But that is a dangerous delusion. There can be no return to normality. The world we thought we knew has gone. The only question now is what takes its place – a question that will affect us all, that is full of danger and that, perhaps unexpectedly, also carries a whisper of hope.

Forget that Donald Trump eventually backed down from his threats to conquer Greenland, re-holstering the economic gun he had put to the head of all those countries who stood in his way, the UK among them. The fact that he made the threat at all confirmed what should have been obvious since he returned to office a year ago: that, under him, the US has become an unreliable ally, if not an actual foe of its one-time friends.

That much was spelled out in ways both gross and insulting. In the second category comes his latest remark that Nato allies were “a little off the frontlines” in Afghanistan, a despicable affront to the families of the 457 British service personnel and their comrades from across the alliance who gave their lives in that conflict.

In the first category was the unveiling of his latest venture: having earlier told the Norwegian prime minister, who he falsely accused of denying him a Nobel medal, that he was becoming bored of peace, he came to Davos to launch his “board of peace”. Trump is the one book you can judge by its cover, and so the new body’s logo said it all: as one wit observed, it was basically the UN badge “except dipped in gold and edited so the world only includes America”.

That captured the essential points: that the “board of peace” is an attempt to supplant and monetise the post-1945 international architecture, replacing the UN with a Mar-a-Lago-style members’ club where a permanent seat costs $1bn and decision-making power lies in the hands of Trump himself, even after his presidential term expires. That Vladimir Putin has been invited, and Mark Carney shut out, tells you all you need to know.

For a while, the US’s allies comforted themselves with the belief that Trump was an aberration who would one day be gone, allowing the old ways to resume. That delusion has also been shattered. When Trump still seemed determined to make good on his Greenland threats, there was no sign of anyone or anything inside the US that would stop him. Over these last 12 months, Trump has demonstrated that the formal restraints designed to hold a US president in check are easily swept away. And if it can happen once, it can happen again. Which means it is not just Trump who is an unreliable ally. Sadly, it is the US itself.

There are some immediate lessons to learn from all this. The first is that Trump keeps going unless and until he meets resistance. His former adviser Steve Bannon told the Atlantic this week that Team Trump’s strategy in all areas is “maximalist”, to go as far as they can until someone stops them. Trump’s Greenland moves prompted a stock market plunge and domestic disapproval – 86% of Americans opposed an armed conquest of the island – but it also brought a united front and serious economic counter-threats from Europe. Europeans stood up and Trump backed down.

That points to a more enduring and essential lesson for longtime friends of the US. They cannot be in a position of such dependency on the US – whether economic or military – that they have to give in to its demands. For explaining that simple point so starkly, Carney was rewarded with a standing ovation in Davos following a speech that may come to stand as the defining text of this period. “The old order is not coming back,” the Canadian prime minister said. “We shouldn’t mourn it. Nostalgia is not a strategy.”

What Carney called for, and what the moment demands, is a new arrangement, a new formation. The “middle powers”, the nations of the democratic west outside the US, do not have passively to accept that the old world of “institutions and rules” has been replaced by a new world of “strongmen and deals”, as the former head of MI6 phrases it. Instead of competing with each other to be the most accommodating of the US hegemon, flattering the Oval Office emperor in the hope of being spared his wrath, they can, says Carney, “combine to create a third path”.

What would that look like? The obvious shape is a new constellation of the European Union plus the UK plus Canada, both an economic bloc with heft and a security alliance with muscle. Ultimately, it would aim to provide a positive answer to the question that has loomed this last year especially: could Europe defend Ukraine, and itself, without the US? At present, the cold, hard answer to that question is no. Volodymyr Zelenskyy was not wrong to say that today’s Europe “remains a beautiful but fragmented kaleidoscope of small and middle powers,” one that “looks lost, trying to convince the US president to change [when] he will not change”.

So the goal is nothing less than a new alliance of western democracies no longer dependent on the US for their own defence. It cannot happen overnight; it might take a decade or more to achieve. But, as the former foreign secretary Jeremy Hunt told me this week, it would be “a major dereliction of duty if we don’t do the work now” to reach that goal.

Because it will take time, it means there can be no sudden breaks from the US. As long as allies remain reliant on US protection, the likes of Keir Starmer will have to keep smiling as he shakes Trump’s hand. The Nato vehicle will have to stay on the road, even as its most powerful member keeps slashing the tyres. But all the while, a newly conceived grouping, perhaps presented innocuously as a mere “European arm of Nato”, will be consolidating and gaining strength.

The unavoidable key to this plan is vastly increased defence spending. That will remould the politics of all those countries who have enjoyed a peace dividend since the end of the cold war, one that freed them to spend less on guns and more on schools and hospitals. And it will reshape the decades-old debate over Britain’s relationship with Europe. Both parties will surely have to move, as Britain ditches its Brexit delusions and the EU grants Britain something closer to frictionless trade in return for the serious contribution the UK will be making to Europe’s defence.

There are opportunities here, including for Starmer. He can present manifesto-breaking tax rises as a matter of national security. He can present closer ties to Europe the same way. He can leave Nigel Farage marooned on the wrong side of public opinion, fanboy to the man who insulted Britain’s war dead. Starmer can cast Reform as the party in thrall to Trump, and Reform’s opponents as the true defenders of Britain’s sovereignty and independence.

The world we knew is dying, slain by the would-be emperor on the Potomac. But something else became visible this week: a new world waiting to be born.

Live Updates: Federal Agents Kill a 37-Year-Old Minneapolis Man

The victim was an American citizen with no criminal record who had a firearms permit, the city police chief said. Videos of the encounter contradict the federal government’s description of the shooting, a New York Times analysis found.



Federal agents shot and killed a 37-year-old Minneapolis resident on Saturday morning, the city’s police chief said. The shooting prompted clashes between law enforcement and hundreds of protesters, as Minnesota officials renewed demands that the Trump administration end its immigration crackdown, which has now resulted in two deaths.

Videos analyzed by The New York Times contradict the accounts of Homeland Security officials, who said that the man approached Border Patrol agents with a handgun and the intent to “massacre” them. Footage of the encounter shows the man was holding a phone in his hand, not a gun, when federal agents took him to the ground and shot him.

Federal officials posted images of a handgun they said the man was carrying. Chief Brian O’Hara of the Minneapolis police said the man who was killed, a 37-year-old American citizen with no criminal record, had a firearms permit. Open carry is legal in Minnesota.

A senior law enforcement official familiar with the investigation identified the man as Alex Jeffrey Pretti. Agents appear to have fired at least 10 shots within five seconds at him while he was on the ground, according to a Times analysis of verified videos posted to social media. Chief O’Hara said investigators believe that at least two agents opened fired.

In a news conference, Mayor Jacob Frey accused the Trump administration of invading and terrorizing his city. “How many more residents, how many more Americans, need to die or get badly hurt for this operation to end?” he asked.

At least two other people have been shot by federal law enforcement agents in Minneapolis this month, including Renee Good, 37, who was killed by an ICE agent on Jan. 7.

Here’s what else to know:

Federal accounts: Gregory Bovino, the official in charge of President Trump’s Border Patrol operations, said without evidence that the victim had “wanted to do maximum damage,” and that the agent who killed him was an eight-year Border Patrol veteran.

Street protests: Dozens of protesters at the site of the shooting blew whistles and angrily demanded that police officers arrest the federal agents. In response, law enforcement officials deployed tear gas and flash bangs to drive the crowd away.

White House call: Gov. Tim Walz of Minnesota, a Democrat, said on social media that he had spoken to the White House about the shooting. He called the incident “sickening” and said President Trump “must end this operation.” He added, “Minnesota has had it.”

Trump response: The president blamed local politicians and police officials for the shooting on social media, and accused Mr. Walz and Mr. Frey of “inciting insurrection.” He also accused Minnesota officials of orchestrating a “cover up” of government fraud.

Prosecutor’s concerns: Mary Moriarty, the elected prosecutor in Hennepin County, which includes Minneapolis, said that the “scene must be secured by local law enforcement for preservation of evidence.” Minnesota officials have been blocked by federal agencies from accessing evidence and pursuing an investigation of Ms. Good’s death.

Videos show pretty clearly that the person who was killed was holding nothing but a cell phone when he was maced by ICE agents.

ICE then proceeds to tackle him throw him to the ground, and, with three ICE guys already on top of him and the victim having both hands on the ground, another ICE guy draws a gun and fires it ten times at the victim.

Trump empowers a poorly trained paramilitary to kidnap people.

Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent needled Canada over the prospect of an independence referendum in Alberta this week, as President Donald Trump and Canadian Prime Minister Mark Carney are locked in a clash over Ottawa’s role in the hemisphere.

“Alberta is a natural partner for the U.S.,” he told conservative podcaster Jack Posobiec in an interview Thursday. “They have great resources. The Albertans are very independent people. Rumor that they may have a referendum on whether they want to stay in Canada or not.”

A U.S. Cabinet secretary cheering on a split in Canada is only the latest point of contention between the onetime close allies.

The specter of Albertan separatism is real for Canada. Organizers throughout the province need only to collect 178,000 signatures by May 2 to force a referendum on independence. If successful, the Canadian government would need to negotiate in good faith on a potential separation.

Conservative influencers in America have gleefully talked up the prospect of Alberta leaving Canada and eventually joining the U.S. Meanwhile, Carney and his Liberal caucus is attuned to the threat.

“People are talking,” Bessent said. “People want sovereignty. They want what the U.S. has got.”

Global Affairs Canada did not immediately respond to a request for comment on the barb.

Bessent, who called Carney a “globalist” and panned the Canadian leader’s time working as a climate envoy at the United Nations, spoke amid a series of clashes between Trump and Carney in Davos, Switzerland, where the two spent time this week at the World Economic Forum.

After Carney on Tuesday spoke of a “rupture” in the world order caused by great powers including the United States, Trump fired back, saying Wednesday that “Canada lives because of the United States.”

He then disinvited Carney from his new Board of Peace initiative.

“Canada doesn’t live because of the United States,” the prime minister responded Thursday in Quebec City. “Canada thrives because we are Canadian.”

This morning, on a street in Minneapolis, at least seven federal agents tackled and then shot and killed Alex Jeffrey Pretti, a 37-year-old ICU nurse for the local VA hospital.

Video from the scene shows Pretti directing traffic on a street out of an area with agents around, then trying to help another person get up after she had been pushed to the ground by the agents. The agents then surround Pretti and shoot pepper spray into his face, then pull him to the ground from behind and hit him as he appears to be trying to keep his head off the ground. An agent appears to take a gun out of Pretti’s waistband during the struggle, then turns and leaves with it. A shot then stops Pretti’s movements, appearing to kill him, before nine more shots ring out, apparently as agents continued to fire into his body.

It looked like an execution.

After he was dead, the agents walked away, apparently making no effort to preserve the crime scene, which people on the street later tried to secure by walling it off with trash bins.

As journalist Philip Bump noted, administration officials didn’t even pretend to wait for more information before jumping straight to “the opponent of the state deserved it.”

Mitch Smith of the New York Times reported that federal agents have blocked state investigators from the scene. Drew Evans of the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, a statewide investigations team that specializes in police shootings, told reporters his agency had obtained a search warrant—a rare step—but the federal government still refused them access.

Tonight, in a lawsuit against Homeland Security secretary Kristi Noem and other administration officials, Minnesota attorney general Keith Ellison asked a judge for a temporary restraining order to prevent DHS agents from destroying evidence related to the shooting. The suit noted the “astonishing” departure from normal investigations, seemingly trying not to preserve evidence but to destroy it. A judge, who was appointed to the bench by Trump, immediately granted the restraining order, barring the administration from “destroying or altering evidence” concerning the killing.

Ernesto Londoño of the New York Times reported that federal officials also “have refused to disclose the identities of federal agents involved in Saturday’s shooting, as well as the names of federal agents who have shot people in recent days.”

Minnesota police have refused to obey the federal officers, though. Local law enforcement has been talking to witnesses and finding videos of the shooting. Minneapolis police chief Brian O’Hara said at a press conference: “Our demand today is for those federal agencies that are operating in our city to do so with the same discipline, humanity, and integrity that effective law enforcement in this country demands. We urge everyone to remain peaceful.”

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has said that it, rather than the FBI, will investigate the shooting. But, as Alex Witt of MS NOW noted, DHS had already issued a statement about the shooting, which falsely asserted that Pretti had “approached US Border Patrol officers with a 9 mm semi-automatic handgun” and that he “violently resisted” as “officers attempted to disarm” him. The statement continued that “an agent fired defensive shots” and added that Pretti “also had 2 magazines and no ID—this looks like a situation where an individual wanted to do maximum damage and massacre law enforcement.”

“So,” Witt noted, “they’re gonna be investigating that which they’ve already issued a summary about…. It would seem that it’s a closed book?”

After repeatedly being exposed as liars over previous accusations against those they have shot, the Department of Homeland Security has so little credibility that Witt is not the only journalist calling out the federal agents for lying. Devon Lum of the New York Times wrote: “Videos on social media that were verified by The New York Times contradict the Department of Homeland Security’s account of the fatal shooting of a man by federal agents in Minneapolis on Saturday morning.

“The Department of Homeland Security said the episode began after a man approached Border Patrol agents with a handgun and they tried to disarm him. But footage from the scene shows the man was holding a phone in his hand, not a gun, when federal agents took him to the ground and shot him.”

But lying to the American people is the only option for the administration when we can, once again, all see what happened with our own eyes. Pretti did have a permit for a concealed handgun and appeared to have carried the gun with him, although witnesses say he never reached for it. Tonight Noem doubled down on the lie, saying again: “This looks like a situation where an individual arrived at the scene to inflict maximum damage on individuals and to kill law enforcement.”

When the Democratic Party’s social media account posted: “ICE agents shot and killed another person in Minneapolis this morning. Get ICE out of Minnesota NOW,” White House deputy chief of staff Stephen Miller replied: “A would-be assassin tried to murder federal law enforcement and the official Democrat account sides with the terrorists.” The Democrats’ social media account responded: “You’re a f*cking liar with blood on your hands.”

Miller continued to bang that drum. When Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) said that “ICE must leave Minneapolis” and that “Congress should not fund this version of ICE—this is seeking confirmation, chaos, and dystopia,” Miller responded: “An assassin tried to murder federal agents and this is your response.” When Minnesota Senator Amy Klobuchar similarly decried the killing, Miller responded: “A domestic terrorist tried to assassinate federal law enforcement and this is your response? You and the state’s entire Democrat leadership team have been flaming the flames of insurrection for the singular purpose of stopping the deportation of illegals who invaded the country.”

Miller is a white nationalist, who has recommended others read a dystopian novel in which people of color “invade” Europe and destroy “Western civilization.” Those who support immigration are, in the book’s telling, enemies who are abetting an “invasion”—a word Miller relies on—that is destroying the culture of white countries. They are working for the “enemy.”

In the wake of Pretti’s shooting, Attorney General Pam Bondi wrote to Minnesota governor Tim Walz to suggest he could “bring back law and order to Minnesota” if he handed over the state’s voter rolls to the Department of Justice. As Jacob Knutson of Democracy Docket noted, she explicitly tied the administration’s violence in the state to its determination to get its hands on voters’ personal data before the 2026 election. Minnesota has voted for the Democratic candidate running against Trump in the past three presidential elections, but he insists that he really has won the state each time.

As G. Elliott Morris of Strength in Numbers wrote: Republicans could stop this at any time they wanted to.

“All it would take to end the murder of American citizens by an untrained government goon squad is 16 Republicans in Congress voting with Dem[ocrat]s to defund ICE (or 23 to impeach and remove Trump—3 in House & 20 in Senate). That’s it. 23 Americans can vote for the public and end all of this.”

Morris also pointed out that in December, Trump’s approval rating was negative in 40 states, including 10 he won in 2024. That covers 30 seats currently held by Republicans. Pretti’s shooting will likely erode Trump’s support further. Tonight, even right-wing podcaster Tim Pool reacted to Pretti’s killing by noting that it looked as if the agent had disarmed Pretti before the other agents shot him. “I don’t see Trump winning this one,” Pool commented.

The funding bill for DHS is effectively dead in the Senate, as Democrats have said they will not support any more funding for DHS. Tonight, Senate minority leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) told reporters: “Senate Democrats will not provide the votes to proceed to the appropriations bill if the DHS funding bill is included.” But the July law the Republicans call the One Big Beautiful Bill Act poured nearly $191 billion into DHS through September 30, 2029, with almost $75 billion going to ICE and $67 billion going to Customs and Border Protection (FEMA, the Federal Emergency Management Agency, got just $2.9 billion).

Representative Seth Moulton (D-MA) had more to say: “​​What we just saw this morning on the streets of Minneapolis is another outright murder by federal officials. And let me just be clear, those federal ICE officers are absolute cowards. I am a Marine veteran standing here telling you to your face they are unprofessional, pathetic cowards. Because if a Marine, an 18 year old Marine, did that in Iraq in the middle of a war zone, he would be court martialed because it is murder. And you pathetic little cowards who have to wear face masks because you’re so damn scared, couldn’t even effectively wrestle a guy [to] the ground, so you needed to shoot him? This is why ICE needs to be prosecuted. Yeah, I voted to defund it, but ICE, you need to be prosecuted, and Director [Todd] Lyons, who’s running ICE right now, I hope you’re hearing this from this Marine to you. You guys are criminal thugs. You need to be held accountable to law if you think you can enforce it, and you need to be prosecuted right now.”

Just hours after the killing of Alex Pretti, agents pinned U.S. citizen Matthew James Allen to the street while he screamed: “I have done nothing at all. My name is Matthew James…Allen. I’m a United States citizen…. You’re gonna kill me! Is that what you want? You want to kill me? You want to kill me on the street? You’re going to have to f*cking kill me! I have done nothing wrong.” Nearby, his sobbing wife screamed: “Stop please! Stop!! Please!! We were just running away from the gas. That’s all we were doing.”

“We all know the poem,” Blue Missouri executive director Jess Piper wrote, “and there is no shade of white that will save you from this murderous regime.”

Tonight, Susan and Michael Pretti, the parents of Alex Jeffrey Pretti, issued a statement:

“We are heartbroken but also very angry,” they said.

“Alex was a kindhearted soul who cared deeply for his family and friends and also the American veterans whom he cared for as an ICU nurse at the Minneapolis VA hospital. Alex wanted to make a difference in this world. Unfortunately, he will not be with us to see his impact.

“I do not throw around the ‘hero’ term lightly. However, his last thought and act was to protect a woman. The sickening lies told about our son by the administration are reprehensible and disgusting. Alex is clearly not holding a gun when attacked by Trump’s murdering and cowardly ICE thugs. He had his phone in his right hand and his empty left hand is raised above his head while trying to protect the woman ICE just pushed down, all while being pepper sprayed.

“Please get the truth out about our son. He was a good man.”

Most (not all blacks) of today's blacks say that Dr MLK, Jr was an Uncle Tom.

He was not nearly as violent as today's BLM cult...

...which has the majority of blacks', banks', politicians', and media supporting the destruction...

...of ***** people and ***** culture.

Minneapolis shooting: AG Pam Bondi gives Gov. Walz conditions for ICE to leave Minnesota