Dant'e Cottingham , who was formerly incarcerated, brings his perspective on the criminal justice system to students in a UW Law School class. | Photo courtesy UW Law School

A new class at the University of Wisconsin Law School aims to teach students about the perspectives of different people who are part of the criminal justice system, including those who are incarcerated. 

Dant’e Cottingham, one of the course instructors, was himself once locked up inside Wisconsin’s prison system. He said that according to stigma, he’s not supposed to be in the classroom.

“So I’m aware of that, and I carry that,” Cottingham said. “That’s important to me, because I want to make sure that the city, the state, the country knows that we are a lot more than our worst mistake.”

Instructing the class along with Cottingham is Adam Stevenson, a clinical professor and director of the Frank J. Remington Center, which houses the law school’s prison-based clinics as well as the public defender and prosecution externships. While Cottingham has the experience of being incarcerated in the prison system, Stevenson brings to the course the legal expertise of a law professor, and one who has worked with a program focused on legal assistance to incarcerated people. 

The Wednesday class, which has 19 students enrolled this semester,  counts for two credits. It’s titled “Criminal Justice System: A Lived Experience Perspective.” The class, examining how theory, policy and practice line up with reality — or diverge from it, according to the syllabus, may continue in the future depending on how this semester goes. 

In 1996, Cottingham was convicted of being party to a crime for first-degree intentional homicide for an offense that occurred when he was 17. While incarcerated, Cottingham applied to UW Madison’s program for legal assistance for incarcerated people and was assigned two law students who worked to help him win his release, he said. He was paroled in 2022. 

Cottingham served as interim associate director of the group Ex-Incarcerated People Organizing, and spoke publicly about Green Bay Correctional Institution, where he spent some of his imprisonment, and which has been the subject of criticism for inhumane conditions and calls to close the facility. Now 47, Cottingham is the reentry and outreach support specialist for the Remington Center. He said he helps men and women who are transitioning from incarceration.  

“I sit with people, build a rapport, get some insight and understanding to what their needs are,” Cottingham said. A person’s needs might involve housing, employment or medical care. 

Cottingham said that when he gave presentations in classes in the past,  students engaged with his description of his own experience, and he saw a need for the course he’s teaching now.

The experience of re-entering society after prison is one topic on the course schedule Cottingham shared with the Examiner. The arrest process, the trial process, sentencing, systemic inequality in criminal justice, and incarceration, and advocacy for reform and future directions are among the other course topics.

Guest speakers in the class range from Wisconsin Department of Corrections Secretary Jared Hoy, to Wood County District Attorney Jonathan Barnett, to Sharmain Harris, whose book “Rising Above the Odds: My Journey from Pain and Prison to Power and Purpose” is one of the required materials for the course. Requirements include book reports that analyze autobiographies of people who have experienced incarceration. 

Jini Jasti, a spokesperson for University of Wisconsin Law School, said UW Law’s motto is “Law in Action.” She said the school does not only teach the law on the books but also encourages students to see how it works from different perspectives, such as those of prosecutors, defense attorneys, victims, defendants and prisoners.  

“This unique class complements our other offerings, allowing students to hear about our trial, appellate and prison systems from someone who’s lived it,” Jasti said in a statement. 

State Public Defender Jennifer Bias and Robert Taliaferro, who was formerly incarcerated, visited the class on Wednesday. 

Bringing in these different perspectives helps  “tease out topics that we should be discussing when we’re talking about what the law is, how the law should operate etc.,” Stevenson said in a Jan. 16 interview with the Wisconsin Examiner. “One person’s perspective is definitely great in doing that, but having multiple perspectives and the potential disagreement, or the clash, if you will, can also give rise to some really rich conversation.”  

Stevenson said students will be graduating and working with clients as attorneys, and understanding the perspectives of people in the criminal justice system is important. 

Lara Hendrix, a third year law student, is planning to be a public defender after graduation. She said she thought the class would be valuable for her future career. 

Hendrix hopes that eventually people who don’t plan to practice criminal law take the class. 

“These are real people with families, and people that love them, and other people that are affected,” Hendrix said, “and that needs so much more attention than it gets.”

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Hundreds gather around a growing memorial site at 26th Street and Nicollet Avenue, where federal agents shot and killed a 37-year-old Alex Pretti Saturday, Jan. 24, 2026 earlier in the day. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer)

The federal killing of a U.S. citizen in Minneapolis this month, captured from multiple angles by witnesses recording on their cell phones, kicked off a dizzying day here and in Washington. Democratic politicians and ordinary Americans reacted with a mix of outrage and incredulousness, backfooting the Trump administration as the federal operation Democratic Gov. Tim Walz has called an “occupation” approached its third month.

By late Saturday, a Trump-appointed Minnesota federal judge had ordered the Department of Homeland Security and other federal agencies to refrain from “destroying or altering evidence.” 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer of New York said his party would block a must-pass government appropriations package — and partially shut down the government next week — if it contained additional funding for the Homeland Security Department. 

As it did earlier this month after a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent shot and killed 37-year-old Minneapolis resident Renee Nicole Good, senior Trump administration officials worked swiftly on Saturday to blame the incident on the victim. 

Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem called Alex Jeffrey Pretti a “domestic terrorist,” echoing language used by Vice President JD Vance to describe Good. Border Patrol Commander Greg Bovino said Pretti appeared eager to inflict “maximum damage” on the federal agents assembled near the intersection of Nicollet Avenue and 26th Street Saturday morning. Stephen Miller, President Donald Trump’s chief domestic policy advisor, called Pretti an “assassin.” 

Videos taken at the scene — as well as what’s known about Pretti’s background — belie the Trump administration’s claims. Pretti was a lawful gun owner with a concealed carry permit and no criminal record, according to Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara. 

Moments before he was shot, Pretti could be seen on video with his phone — not a gun — recording federal officers, as has become standard practice among anti-ICE activists. 

A cell phone video shows a gaggle of Border Patrol agents wrestling him to the ground and beating him; an agent removes Pretti’s holstered gun, and Pretti appears to pose no threat to the officers surrounding him. Moments later, about 10 shots ring out. 

In a sworn affidavit filed Saturday evening, a physician who lives nearby said Pretti had no pulse when they arrived at the scene. The physician, whose name and identity were not made public, said agents did not appear to be rendering lifesaving aid and initially refused the physician’s offer to help. Pretti was pronounced dead at the scene a short time later.

Pretti’s name had emerged in media reports by early afternoon. It’s unclear whether federal, state or local officials attempted to notify his next of kin beforehand. Michael Pretti, his father, said he first learned of the shooting from an Associated Press reporter.

“I can’t get any information from anybody,” Michael Pretti told the AP, detailing a runaround with the Border Patrol, local police and area hospitals. He said the Hennepin County Medical Examiner eventually confirmed they had Alex Pretti’s body.

“We are heartbroken but also very angry,” Pretti’s parents said in a statement released later on Saturday that described Pretti as a “hero” who “wanted to make a difference in this world.”

“The sickening lies told about our son by the administration are reprehensible and disgusting,” they said. “Please get the truth out about our son.”

Meanwhile, the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension said DHS officials blocked their investigators from the crime scene even after they returned with a judicial warrant. The details of the warrant are unclear, as is the BCA’s recourse if Homeland Security continues to stymie its efforts. Federal officials said Saturday that Homeland Security — not the FBI or the Minnesota BCA — would lead the investigation.

The names of the agents involved in the shooting have not been released. Bovino told CNN on Sunday that he did not know whether more than one agent fired shots.

Minnesota officials questioned Homeland Security’s handling of the shooting’s aftermath and indicated they did not trust the department to conduct a fair investigation. 

The Minnesota Department of Corrections unveiled a new website this weekend to combat “ongoing misinformation” from Homeland Security. In a lengthy statement on Saturday, the department called into question Bovino’s initial explanation for the operation that led to Pretti’s death. The statement said the individual named by Bovino as the target of the operation did not have a significant criminal history, as Bovino alleged, and was previously released from immigration custody in 2018 — during the first Trump administration.

A recent article by Stateline, which is a States Newsroom outlet like the Reformer, found that eyewitness testimony and other evidence often contradicts DHS’ initial description of incidents involving its agents.

On Sunday, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison said he expects Homeland Security to heed Saturday’s court order to preserve evidence to support the state’s own investigation.

“We’ve had to threaten them with contempt a few times, but open defiance of court orders is not something that we’ve experienced,” Ellison told the Star Tribune.

Signs had emerged by Sunday that at least some elected Republicans and gun rights groups were uncomfortable with the official line that Pretti posed a clear and present danger before his death. Few elected Republicans wholeheartedly endorsed the administration’s narrative, and even some right-wing influencers who typically hew to the party line recoiled.

Republican Louisiana Sen. Bill Cassidy, who faces a primary challenge from his right this year, called Saturday’s shooting “incredibly disturbing.”

“The credibility of ICE and DHS are at stake,” he said on Sunday. “There must be a full joint federal and state investigation.”

The Minnesota Gun Owners Caucus also issued a statement calling for an independent investigation.

“Every peaceable Minnesotan has the right to keep and bear arms — including while attending protests, acting as observers, or exercising their First Amendment rights. These rights do not disappear when someone is lawfully armed, and they must be respected and protected at all times,” the group said.

Kevin Stitt, the outgoing Republican governor of Oklahoma, hinted in a Sunday interview with CNN that the administration should rethink its immigration enforcement efforts.

“And so what’s the goal right now? Is it to deport every single non-U.S. citizen? I don’t think that’s what Americans want,” he said. “We have to stop politicizing this. We need real solutions on immigration reform.”

Dozens of Minnesota business leaders released an open letter that gently called for a change in approach by the federal government, risking the ire of Trump, who is known for his retribution against those who oppose him. 

“With yesterday’s tragic news, we are calling for an immediate deescalation of tensions and for state, local and federal officials to work together to find real solutions,” the CEOs wrote. 

Among them were top officers of Medtronic, 3M, Target and the sports franchises. This is notable because as the Reformer previously reported, the state’s biggest companies had been publicly silent until now. Business leaders, the chamber letter asserts, have been “working behind the scenes” since the federal siege began. 

Some in the Trump administration may be looking for an escape hatch, even if on their terms.  On Saturday, Attorney General Pam Bondi said Minnesota could end the federal law enforcement surge if it repealed pro-immigrant “sanctuary” policies and turned over its voter rolls to the federal government. (Minnesota is not a “sanctuary state”; an effort to pass a sanctuary law the last time Democrats controlled the Legislature went nowhere.)

That Bondi made such an offer at all is notable. But it’s unlikely to lead to a resolution. On Sunday, Minnesota Secretary of State Steve Simon brushed off the idea of providing state voter information to the federal government in a caustic statement.

“The answer to Attorney General Bondi’s request is no. Her letter is an outrageous attempt to coerce Minnesota into giving the federal government private data on millions of U.S. Citizens in violation of state and federal law,” Simon said.

False claims of voter fraud have become a staple of the Trumpist political movement. A group of right-wing activists led by Mike Lindell — the pillow mogul currently running for governor as a Republican — claimed widespread voter fraud after the 2020 election. But as part of the state’s usual election auditing process, a random group of precincts in every congressional district were chosen for review, totaling roughly 440,000 votes after the 2020 election, spanning more than 200 precincts. The hand tallies were virtually identical to the machine tallies.

A picture sits at a memorial to Alex Pretti on Jan. 25, 2026 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. Pretti, an ICU nurse at a VA medical center, died on Jan. 24 after being shot multiple times during a brief altercation with border patrol agents in Minneapolis. (Photo by Scott Olson/Getty Images)

A partial federal government shutdown appeared Sunday to unexpectedly be on the horizon, after another fatal shooting by federal immigration agents in Minneapolis led key U.S. Senate Democrats to say they will oppose a spending package that includes immigration enforcement funds.

Senators have until a Friday deadline to clear a package of six House-passed funding measures, including the $64.4 billion Homeland Security appropriations bill that includes funding for Immigration and Customs Enforcement and the U.S. Border Patrol.

Republicans hold a majority in the chamber but would need at least seven Democrats to join them in voting for the package in order to clear the chamber’s 60-vote threshold to advance legislation. 

The agreement had appeared to be on track for easy passage by the Senate by Friday, when a stopgap spending law expires. 

But after Saturday’s killing of 37-year-old Alex Jeffrey Pretti, the second by Homeland Security Department officers in Minneapolis this month, key moderate Democrats, appropriators and leaders said they would not support the package if it includes the Homeland Security legislation in its current form. 

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer also said his caucus would not provide the votes needed, citing the killings of Pretti and Renee Good in Minneapolis on Jan. 7, and called for the DHS bill to be split from the five spending bills with broad bipartisan support.

“Senate Democrats will not allow the current DHS funding bill to move forward,” Schumer said in a Sunday statement. “The appalling murders of Renee Good and Alex Pretti on the streets of Minneapolis must lead Republicans to join Democrats in overhauling ICE and CBP to protect the public. People should be safe from abuse by their own government.

“Senate Republicans must work with Democrats to advance the other five funding bills while we work to rewrite the DHS bill,” he added. “This is (the) best course of action, and the American people are on our side.”

A complicating factor is the DHS bill also includes funding for the Federal Emergency Management Agency, even as a major winter storm swept through a large swath of the nation Saturday and Sunday, triggering disaster declarations in multiple states.

President Donald Trump and key administration officials committed to a robust media strategy over the weekend, defending the officers involved and smearing Pretti, despite contradictory evidence in available video.

Some elected Republicans backed the administration’s account, but an unusual number of GOP members of Congress and at least one governor called for accountability.

Latest shooting a turning point

Five of the eight Democrats and independents who voted with Republicans to end a shutdown in November have said they will not support the package if it includes DHS funding.

Maine independent Angus King, who caucuses with Democrats, said on CBS News’ “Face the Nation” that he would vote against the package.

“I hate shutdowns,” King said in a video interview on the Sunday morning show. “I’m one of the people that helped negotiate the solution to the end of the last shutdown, but I can’t vote for a bill that includes ICE funding under these circumstances.”

Nevada Democrat Catherine Cortez Masto, a former federal prosecutor, criticized Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem and called for blocking the funding package.

“The Trump administration and Kristi Noem are putting undertrained, combative federal agents on the streets with no accountability,” she said. “They are oppressing Americans and are at odds with local law enforcement. This is clearly not about keeping Americans safe, it’s brutalizing U.S. citizens and law-abiding immigrants. I will not support the current Homeland Security funding bill.”

Cortez Masto called for the DHS bill to be split off from the rest of the package. 

“We have bipartisan agreement on 96% of the budget. We’ve already passed six funding bills,” she said. “Let’s pass the remaining five bipartisan bills and fund essential agencies while we continue to fight for a Department of Homeland Security that respects Americans’ constitutional rights and preserves federal law enforcement’s essential role to keep us safe.” 

Fellow Nevada Democrat Jacky Rosen, who also voted to end the shutdown in November, said “enough is enough” and that she would oppose a funding package that did not “rein in ICE’s out-of-control conduct.”

“As a member of the U.S. Senate, I have the responsibility to hold the Trump Administration accountable when I see abuses of power — like we are seeing from ICE right now,” she said. “That is why I’ll be voting against any government funding package that contains the bill that funds this agency, until we have guardrails in place to curtail these abuses of power and ensure more accountability and transparency.

“My personal guiding principle has always been ‘agree where you can and fight where you must,’” she added. “And I believe this is a time when we must fight back.”

Virginia’s Tim Kaine said in a Friday statement — before Pretti’s killing — that he would oppose the package for several reasons, including as a check on ICE.

“We are not living in normal times,” he said. “The President is acting chaotically and unlawfully and we shouldn’t give his deranged decisions the imprimatur of congressional approval by passing this legislation without significant amendment.”

Democratic Whip Dick Durbin of Illinois also said after Pretti’s killing early Saturday — the third shooting by immigration officers in Minneapolis in three weeks — that he would vote against the package. Durbin is a senior member of the Appropriations Committee.

DHS funding

The House last week passed the DHS funding bill, with seven Democrats voting to approve it, and a separate package of three other appropriations bills that passed with broad bipartisan support. House members passed two other funding bills the week before.

The fiscal 2026 Homeland Security spending bill cuts funding for Customs and Border Protection by $1.3 billion, and maintains flat funding for ICE at $10 billion.

The bill attempts to put guardrails around immigration enforcement by allocating $20 million for body cameras for ICE and CBP officers. 

But even if the funding bill doesn’t pass or gets held up, the immigration enforcement agencies are still flush with cash after the One Big Beautiful Bill Act that Republicans passed last year allocated $190 billion for DHS. ICE is slated to receive about $75 billion over four years, or $18.7 billion a year.

Path forward

Any Senate amendment to the House-passed package would require another House vote. The House is scheduled to be out this week and the chamber, narrowly controlled by Republicans, may be unwilling to cooperate with Senate changes.

Senate Appropriations Chair Susan Collins, a Maine Republican up for reelection this year in one of the nation’s most closely watched races, did not dismiss the possibility of changes in the spending bill package, telling The New York Times on Saturday she was “exploring all options” for passage.

The major winter storm also hit Washington, D.C., and could further complicate the Senate vote or potential House consideration. All flights into Ronald Reagan Washington National Airport were canceled Sunday as snow and sleet covered the region. 

A handful of GOP officials, including Sens. Thom Tillis of North Carolina, Bill Cassidy of Louisiana and Lisa Murkowski of Alaska called for more scrutiny into Pretti’s killing and ICE’s conduct more generally. 

“There must be a thorough and impartial investigation into yesterday’s Minneapolis shooting, which is the basic standard that law enforcement and the American people expect following any officer-involved shooting,” Tillis said on social media.

“For this specific incident, that requires cooperation and transparency between federal, state, and local law enforcement. Any administration official who rushes to judgment and tries to shut down an investigation before it begins are doing an incredible disservice to the nation and to President Trump’s legacy.”

Cassidy posted on social media: “The events in Minneapolis are incredibly disturbing. The credibility of ICE and DHS are at stake. There must be a full joint federal and state investigation. We can trust the American people with the truth.”

Rep. Michael McCaul, a Texas Republican who is a former chairman of the House Homeland Security Committee, said on social media he was “troubled by the events that have unfolded in Minneapolis.”

“As an attorney and former federal prosecutor, I believe a thorough investigation is necessary—both to get to the bottom of these incidents and to maintain Americans’ confidence in our justice system,” he said.

Oklahoma Gov. Kevin Stitt, a Republican, was among those who said he was troubled by the shooting.

“I think the death of Americans, what we’re seeing on TV, it’s causing deep concerns over federal tactics and accountability,” Stitt said on CNN’s “State of the Union.” “Americans don’t like what they’re seeing right now.”

Administration, some allies defend shooting 

Many others, including Republican senators and Trump administration officials speaking on Sunday talk shows — Noem, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, FBI Director Kash Patel and Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche — defended the agents involved and blamed Pretti and state and local Democrats in Minneapolis. 

“Democrats are now backing out of a bipartisan agreement to fund DHS, which makes sure our border is secure and our immigration laws are enforced,” Senate Budget Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., wrote on social media.

“This is reckless and quite frankly, very disappointing. It appears that Democrats are so wedded to supporting people carrying guns trying to interfere with a lawful arrest that they will shut down the government.”

Patel, on “Sunday Morning Futures” on Fox News, said DHS is investigating the shooting but the FBI is processing physical evidence. “No one who wants to be peaceful shows up in a protest with a firearm that is loaded with two full magazines,” Patel said, referring to reports that Pretti was carrying a handgun for which he had a concealed carry license, according to Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara.

Spokespeople for Collins, Schumer and Majority Leader John Thune of South Dakota did not return messages seeking comment Sunday. Senate Democrats were set to meet virtually on Sunday night, according to multiple media reports.

A woman kneels and prays as hundreds gather around a growing memorial site at 26th Street and Nicollet Avenue, where federal agents shot and killed a 37-year-old Alex Pretti Saturday, Jan. 24, 2026 earlier in the day. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer)

More than 1,000 people gathered for a vigil and rally Saturday night at Whittier Park in Minneapolis to mourn Alex Pretti, the man who was shot and killed by Border Patrol agents. After the vigil, demonstrators marched in subzero temperatures to the site where Pretti was killed on Nicollet Avenue, south of 26th Street.

The site of the shooting has been turned into a makeshift memorial of candles and flowers, less than two miles away from the memorial in the Powderhorn neighborhood made for Renee Good on Jan. 7, the day she was shot and killed by ICE agent Jonathan Ross.

Since Pretti’s killing, which drew hundreds of protestors in the immediate aftermath, people have built barricades out of dumpsters, trash cans and picnic tables to block off traffic from the surrounding streets. Before a swell of demonstrators arrived from the Whittier Park vigil, the area was mostly quiet, with hundreds huddled around his memorial.

Isabelle Atem, a nurse who drove in from Woodbury, cried as she said: “I thought it was just a dream, but I’m here now. It feels real. It really happened. You know, in a movie, when you shoot people, I know it’s fake. I never knew it (could be) real.”

Atem said she felt bad when she found out Pretti was also a nurse. In a statement to multiple news outlets, Pretti’s parents said he was an ICU nurse at the Minneapolis VA hospital.

“Nurses are out there to help people. Why are they killing? Why are they shooting?” Atem said.

Atem, an immigrant from Cameroon, said that despite being a U.S. citizen, she has been afraid to go outside amid the surge of over 3,000 federal immigration agents to Minnesota, who have detained residents regardless of their citizenship status.

People were handing out warm drinks and food — fried rice, hummus — from local restaurants at tables at Pretti’s memorial. Glam Doll Donuts, across the street from where the Border Patrol agent shot Pretti, was open after hours and filled with people looking to stay warm.

As demonstrators from the nearby vigil filtered onto Nicollet, chanting, Jake Anderson handed out the last of the three gallons of chicken wild rice soup he had made that day.

Anderson, who lives in the Whittier neighborhood where Pretti was killed, said that he came to support everyone marching “a brutal takeover of our city by totalitarian ICE members and people who don’t actually care about safety in our community.”

“I think there’s a lot of outrage and rage clearly, but there’s also just a sense of community,” he said, as a man complimented his soup.

Some demonstrators banged on dumpsters with hammers and their hands as people chanted: “No Justice, No Peace” and “F*ck ICE.”

The parents of Alex Pretti, Michael and Susan Pretti, released a statement Saturday, castigating the Trump administration for slandering their son with “sickening lies” that they called “reprehensible and disgusting.”

They defended their son’s conduct, saying he was protecting a woman who had been pushed down by federal agents. “Please get the truth out about our son. He was a good man. Thank you.”

Masked federal agents on the scene near where a federal officer shot a Minnesotan for the third time in as many weeks. (Photo by Madison McVan/Minnesota Reformer)

This story has been updated.

A ​​federal agent fatally shot a man in Minneapolis on Saturday amid the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown, escalating tensions after another killing earlier in the month.

It was the third shooting by immigration officers in the city in three weeks – and the second to end in death. Democratic local and state officials immediately condemned Saturday’s shooting as protests ramped up, and Republican President Donald Trump threatened again to send military troops to Minnesota.

Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara said federal agents killed a 37-year-old man whom officials believe is a U.S. citizen who lives in Minneapolis. Video of the shooting was captured by observers and posted to social media.

The man who was killed has been identified as Alex Jeffrey Pretti in a statement from Sen. Zaynab Mohamed, DFL-Minneapolis, and by the Star Tribune and The Associated Press.

Pretti, who grew up in Green Bay, Wisconsin, was an ICU nurse who worked at the Minneapolis Veterans Administration hospital, according to a Wisconsin Public Radio interview with his parents, who still live in Green Bay,

O’Hara said he had no information about what led up to the shooting but said the man, whom he did not name, was a lawful gun owner with a permit to carry. O’Hara says police have not interacted with the deceased other than a few traffic tickets.

Protesters line streets

Hundreds of protesters gathered near where the shooting happened, despite subzero temperatures. Many wore gas masks and eye protection — common in the Twin Cities, where demonstrations started when immigration officers arrived in December.

Federal agents deployed tear gas and flash bangs to push back the crowds, which lined up at several intersections near the site of the shooting shouting, “Shame!” and “ICE out, f*ck ICE!”

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey again urged the federal government to end its two-month immigration siege, which has brought 3,000 federal officers to Minnesota, or nearly five times the number of sworn Minneapolis police officers.

“How many times must local and national leaders plead with you, Donald Trump, to end this operation and recognize that this is not creating safety in our city?” Mayor Jacob Frey said.

Gov. Tim Walz said he’d spoken to the White House after the shooting, but he doesn’t have confidence federal officials will change their actions or leave the state. He said the Department of Homeland Security has rushed to judgement and is already slandering the man who was killed.

“Minnesotans: You know who you are, and you demonstrate it every single day,” Walz said. “And we damn sure know who these people are. The American public knows. This needs to be the event that says, ‘enough.’”

Law enforcement blocked off the streets and deployed tear gas to dissuade angry demonstrators from going near the site of the shooting, which was on Nicollet Avenue just south of 26th Street. Over 100 federal agents were on the scene after the shooting.

O’Hara urged demonstrators to go home. State Patrol and other state law enforcement were there also in an attempt to keep the peace.

Video captures shooting

In a graphic video now circulating on social media, six federal agents appear to wrestle the man to the ground in front of the New American Development Center. One of the agents hits the man three times with what appears to be a firearm. Bystanders are surrounding the group and filming on their cell phones.

Over 10 shots can be heard in the video, but it’s unclear if more than one agent fired a weapon.

The Department of Homeland Security said in a social media post that officers were conducting a targeted operation in Minneapolis against someone illegally in the U.S. “wanted for violent assault,” when another person approached U.S. Border Patrol officers with a 9 mm handgun.

Video shows an agent in a gray jacket approach the man as he’s being held on the ground by multiple other agents and then walk away with what appears to be a gun in his hand, before shots are fired.

“The officers attempted to disarm the suspect but the armed suspect violently resisted. More details on the armed struggle are forthcoming,” Homeland Security said. “Fearing for his life and the lives and safety of fellow officers, an agent fired defensive shots. Medics on scene immediately delivered medical aid to the subject but was pronounced dead at the scene.”

U.S. Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino said in a press conference that the officer who shot the man is “highly trained” and served as a Border Patrol agent for eight years. Bovino said the agent has “extensive training as a Range Safety Officer,” to ensure people on a gun range are using it safely.

The parents of Alex Pretti, Michael and Susan Pretti, released a statement Saturday, castigating the Trump administration for slandering their son with “sickening lies” that they called “reprehensible and disgusting.”

They defended their son’s conduct, saying he was protecting a woman who had been pushed down by federal agents. “Please get the truth out about our son. He was a good man. Thank you.”

Conflict between state and federal law enforcement

The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension, which typically investigates law enforcement shootings, said in a social media post their agents arrived at the scene of Saturday’s killing at the request of the Minneapolis Police Department but were blocked from accessing the location by the Department of Homeland Security.

BCA Superintendent Drew Evans said that after BCA officials were blocked from the scene of the shooting, they obtained a signed judicial warrant to gain access. BCA officials returned to the scene, but DHS agents still denied access.

The BCA began a joint investigation into the ICE officer shooting of Renee Good earlier this month before being abruptly shut out of the investigation by the U.S. Department of Justice, hindering local prosecutors from being able to consider if criminal charges are warranted against the officer.

Walz expressed disbelief that the federal agents were able to leave the scene with little to no investigation.

“You kill a man and then you just leave?” the governor said. “Is there a single case in American history where you just, like, walk away and say, ‘I guess that just happened and we’re not going to clean up our mess.’”

Walz said the federal agents involved in the shooting will be held accountable.

“Minnesota’s justice system will have the last word,” the governor said.

Trump posted a rambling response to the shooting on his social media platform referencing U.S. Rep. Ilhan Omar’s bank account and saying “what you’re witnessing” is part of a cover up for Medicaid fraud.

“The Mayor and the Governor are inciting insurrection, with their pompous, dangerous and arrogant rhetoric,” Trump wrote, reviving a threat to invoke the Insurrection Act and send military troops into the streets of Minnesota. 

Accounts contradict Homeland Security

Homeland Security statements about the previous shootings have later been found to be false or misleading. After the Jan. 7 killing of Good, the department referred to her as a “domestic terrorist.”

A 911 call after a second shooting, of a Venezuelan man in north Minneapolis, suggests that the agent shot at the man as he was trying to escape into a house, which would contradict the Department of Homeland Security account that the federal immigration agent fired a shot defensively. In a sworn affidavit, an FBI agent confirmed that the agent shot the man when he had begun running toward the house, the Star Tribune reported.

As Reformer sibling publication Stateline recently reported, Homeland Security recently revised its account of a December shooting in Glen Burnie, Maryland, after local police contradicted its initial version. The agency first claimed both men injured in the incident were inside a van that ICE officers fired at in self-defense, but later said that one of the injured men had already been arrested and was in custody inside an ICE vehicle when he was hurt. The other man was shot twice and is facing two federal criminal charges.

In August, federal immigration agents fired at a family’s vehicle three times in San Bernardino, California. Homeland Security maintained the shooting was justified after at least two agents were struck by the vehicle, but available footage shows an agent breaking the driver-side window moments before gunfire erupted. Surveillance footage from the street does not show agents being struck by the vehicle.

The Saturday shooting comes one day after tens of thousands of people protested ICE in downtown Minneapolis in subzero temperatures.

The Minnesota National Guard has been on active duty for over a week, meaning that they are prepared to rapidly respond if they are deployed. Hennepin County Sheriff Dawanna Witt on Saturday requested support from the National Guard to help them provide security at the federal Whipple Building — the site of ongoing protests. It’s unclear how many guard members will be stationed there.

Reformer Deputy Editor Max Nesterak and Reporter Alyssa Chen contributed to this report.

Minnesota Reformer is part of States Newsroom, a nonprofit news network supported by grants and a coalition of donors as a 501c(3) public charity. Minnesota Reformer maintains editorial independence. Contact Editor J. Patrick Coolican for questions: info@minnesotareformer.com.

Tens of thousands of people march in downtown Minneapolis in subzero temperatures to protest the massive presence of ICE agents over the past several weeks Friday, Jan. 23, 2026. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer)

Tens of thousands of Minnesotans marched in downtown Minneapolis Friday in a negative 30 degree windchill to protest the federal government’s continuing surge of immigration enforcement — demanding civil rights and a withdrawal of the 3,000 officers sent here by the administration of President Donald Trump.

The demonstration took place on “ICE Out of Minnesota: Day of Truth & Freedom,” a general strike supported by Minnesota unions, progressive faith leaders and community activists. Proponents encouraged all Minnesotans to stay home from work, school and refrain from shopping — disruptions of normal orders of business to protest the presence of federal immigration agents in Minnesota.

The massive protest began at The Commons Park at 2 p.m. in Minneapolis. The march ended with a rally at Target Center. 

Natasha Dockter, the first vice president of the Minneapolis Federation of Educators’ teachers chapter, handed out hand warmers to demonstrators at The Commons alongside other teachers.

“I’m out here today because what’s going on in our city is completely and totally unacceptable. It’s impacting the lives of our students and their families that we serve,” Dockter said.

Sergey Goro and Ben Daniel were visiting the Twin Cities from San Francisco and Seattle for the U.S. Pond Hockey Championships, which was delayed due to the extreme cold. 

Goro said that he’d been to No Kings protests — demonstrations against the Trump administration’s authoritarian policies — in San Francisco, but that they weren’t as large as the Minneapolis protest. 

Daniel agreed: “We can really feel that everyone’s on board here — that this is ridiculous and it’s gotta stop.” 

Daniela Morales, 16, carrying a Mexican flag, said her parents are both Mexican immigrants and that she attended the protest on behalf of people who can’t speak out. 

“I’m really glad to see everybody come out and support each other and our neighbors and fight against the administration,” Morales said. 

Other protests led to arrests

A morning protest at the Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport led to the arrests of roughly 100 clergy by MSP and Bloomington law enforcement Friday, according to a statement from protest organizers.

Demonstrators at the airport were standing or kneeling on the roadway outside Terminal 1’s departures area and led away by law enforcement.

Jeff Lea, a spokesperson for the Metropolitan Airports Commission, said in an email that the airport “worked in advance with event organizers to best accommodate their right to freedom of expression while also ensuring uninterrupted operations.”

“When the permitted activity went beyond the agreed-upon terms, MSP Airport Police began taking necessary action, including arrests, to protect public safety, airport security and access to Terminal 1,” Lea wrote. Lea confirmed there were around 100 arrests.

At least one demonstrator was also arrested at the nearby Whipple Federal Building, where federal agents deployed chemical irritants into a crowd of protestors, the Star Tribune reported. Around noon, the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office announced that it had given three dispersal orders for protestors to unblock an access road at the building. The Whipple Building, now a base for federal immigration operations, has been an ongoing site of protests.

Life stood still Friday for many Minnesotans. Over 700 businesses closed Friday to support the “ICE Out” day, according to Bring Me The News, which is keeping a running list.

“It is time to suspend the normal order of business to demand immediate cessation of ICE actions in MN, accountability for federal agents who have caused loss of life and abuse to Minnesota residents and call for Congress to immediately intervene,” the demonstration’s website states.

Over a dozen churches across Minnesota announced prayer vigils to “mourn, pray and plant seeds of hope with one another,” according to ISAIAH, the nonprofit coalition of Minnesota faith and community groups.

Dozens of school districts across the state closed Friday because of the dangerously cold temperatures. Minneapolis Public Schools were already planned to be closed Friday for a teacher record-keeping day.

Vice President JD Vance delivers remarks during the annual March for Life rally on the National Mall in Washington, D.C., on Jan. 23, 2026. (Photo by Kevin Dietsch/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration plans to expand a policy that blocks foreign aid dollars from going to organizations that discuss, refer or perform abortions to also include groups that address transgender health care or have policies on diversity, equity and inclusion, Vice President JD Vance said Friday.

“We’re expanding this policy to protect life, to combat DEI and the radical gender ideologies that prey on our children. And with these additions, the rule will now cover every non-military foreign assistance that America sends,” Vance announced at the March for Life anti-abortion rally on the National Mall.  

“All in all, we have expanded the Mexico City Policy about three times as big as it was before,” he added. “And we’re proud of it, because we believe in fighting for life.”

The White House did not immediately respond to a request from States Newsroom for more details on the policy expansion or when it would be implemented. 

Defending administration’s record

Vance said during the rally he needed to “address an elephant in the room” that President Donald Trump and others in the administration have not made enough progress on anti-abortion initiatives during the first year of unified Republican control of the federal government.  

“I want you to know that I hear you and that I understand,” he said. “There will inevitably be debates within this movement. We love each other. But we’re going to have open conversations about how best to use our political system to advance life, how prudential we must be in the cause of advancing human life. I think these are good, natural and honest debates.”

Vance mentioned that Trump nominated some of the Supreme Court justices that overturned Roe v. Wade, the 1973 case that had guaranteed a constitutional right to an abortion for nearly 50 years. 

He also noted that Republicans in Congress included a provision in the “big, beautiful” law that blocks Medicaid funding from going to Planned Parenthood for one year for any type of health care. Federal law had already barred funding from going to abortions, with limited exceptions.

Vance argued that in addition to judicial rulings and federal laws, members of the anti-abortion movement must strive to change hearts and minds as well. 

“We’re not trying to argue to the Supreme Court anymore,” he said. “We’re trying to argue to our fellow citizens that we must build up that culture of life. And as you know, that effort is going to take a lot of time, it’s going to take a lot of energy and it’s going to take a little bit of money.”

Later in his speech, Vance sought to discourage people from concentrating on professional lives and instead called on them to focus more on getting married and having children. 

“You’re never going to find great meaning in a cubicle or in front of a computer screen,” he said. “But you will find great meaning if you dedicate yourself to the creation and sustenance of human life.”

Trump didn’t attend the rally in person but recorded a video message that was played just before Vance spoke, telling attendees he “was proud to be the first president in history to attend this march in person” six years ago. 

“In my first term I was honored to appoint judges and justices who believed in interpreting the Constitution as written. That was a big deal. And because of that, the pro-life movement won the greatest victory in its history,” Trump said. “Now the work to rebuild a culture that supports life continues in every state, every community and every part of our beautiful land.”

Calls for action on medication abortion

Trump and some in his administration have come under scrutiny lately for not moving faster to complete a safety review of mifepristone, one of two pharmaceuticals used in medication abortion, which is approved for up to 10 weeks gestation. 

Marjorie Dannenfelser, president of Susan B. Anthony Pro-Life America, and Lila Rose, founder of the anti-abortion group Live Action, both released statements in December calling on Trump to fire Food and Drug Administration Commissioner Marty Makary over the pace of that review.

Anti-abortion organizations want the administration to end the ability of doctors or other qualified health care providers to prescribe mifepristone and the second pharmaceutical used in medication abortion, misoprostol, via telehealth and have it shipped to patients. 

Several Republicans in Congress have joined their call, with Senate Health, Education, Labor and Pensions Committee Chairman Bill Cassidy, R-La., holding a hearing on mifepristone earlier this month. 

The U.S. Supreme Court rejected efforts from anti-abortion organizations to limit access to mifepristone in a June 2024 ruling, writing they never had standing to bring the lawsuit in the first place. 

Trump told House Republicans during a policy retreat at the Kennedy Center earlier this month they must be “flexible” about the Hyde Amendment, which blocks federal funding for abortion with limited exceptions, in order to broker a health care deal that can reach his desk. 

Dannenfelser rebuked Trump for the comment, writing in a statement that to “suggest Republicans should be ‘flexible’ is an abandonment of this decades-long commitment. If Republicans abandon Hyde, they are sure to lose this November.”

GOP leaders tout major law

U.S. House Speaker Mike Johnson, R-La., also spoke at the March for Life rally, touting the “big, beautiful” law as “the most pro-life and pro-family legislation that has been signed into law in decades.”

“For the first time since Roe v. Wade was reversed, we have the White House, the Senate and the House all working together to deliver meaningful and historic pro-life victories,” he said. 

The law included several policies that Johnson said will aid Americans in having children, including an expansion of the child tax credit and the adoption tax credit as well as the investment accounts for babies. 

Johnson said the provision that blocks Medicaid patients from going to Planned Parenthood for non-abortion health care services, depriving the organization of that income, was a massive policy victory for Republicans. 

“We stand here today with one united voice to affirm the federal government should not be subsidizing any industry that profits from the elimination of human life,” Johnson said. 

New Jersey Republican Rep. Chris Smith, speaking just after Johnson while other GOP lawmakers stood on the stage, said eliminating access to mifepristone must be accomplished. 

“I’ve been here since Ronald Reagan’s first election, 1981,” Smith said. “And I can tell you, this leadership is the most pro-life, so committed. And behind me are just absolute heroes. Men and women who take up the fight every single day.”

Senate Majority Leader John Thune, R-S.D., didn’t attend the rally in person but submitted a video that touted the Planned Parenthood defunding provision. 

“Thanks to that landmark legislation, this year, some of the nation’s largest abortion providers, including Planned Parenthood, are prohibited from receiving Medicaid funding,” Thune said. 

Other Republicans attending the rally included Alabama Rep. Robert Aderholt, Arkansas Rep. French Hill, Florida Rep. Kat Cammack, Georgia Rep. Andrew Clyde, Maryland Rep. Andy Harris, Michigan Reps. Bill Huizenga and Tim Walberg, Minnesota Rep. Michelle Fischbach, Missouri Rep. Bob Onder, Pennsylvania Rep. Dan Meuser, South Carolina Rep. William Timmons, Texas Reps. Michael Cloud and Dan Crenshaw, Utah Rep. Mike Kennedy, Virginia Rep. John McGuire and Wisconsin Rep. Glenn Grothman.

Federal agents spray demonstrators at close range with irritants after the killing of Renee Good by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement officer Jonathan Ross on Jan. 7, 2026, in Minneapolis. Since July 2025, there have been at least 17 open-fire incidents involving federal immigration agents, according to data compiled by The Trace, a nonprofit and nonpartisan news outlet investigating gun violence. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer)

As a growing number of encounters between civilians and Department of Homeland Security agents — including the widely scrutinized fatal shooting of Renee Good in Minneapolis — are scrutinized in court records and on social media, federal officials are returning to a familiar response: self-defense.

In more than a handful of recent encounters, the Department of Homeland Security, which oversees Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Customs and Border Protection, has said its agents acted in self-defense during violent encounters, even as eyewitness testimony and video footage raised questions about whether those accounts fully matched what happened.

And in a ruling for a recent civil lawsuit, a U.S. district judge said federal immigration officials were not forthcoming about enforcement efforts, citing discrepancies between official DHS statements and video evidence.

“We’re now in a situation in which official sources in the Trump administration are really tying themselves quite strongly to a particular narrative, regardless of what the widely disseminated videos suggest,” said César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández, a law professor at Ohio State University.

The cases come amid an aggressive expansion of federal immigration enforcement and increasing scenes of violent and intimidating arrest tactics. President Donald Trump’s administration has sharply increased the hiring of immigration agents, broadened enforcement operations and accelerated deportations, as protests have spread across major cities.

The use of force, paired with conflicting official statements and evidence, has raised questions about whether federal immigration officials can be held accountable and highlighted the steep hurdles victims of excessive force might face in seeking legal recourse.

The Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement did not respond to multiple requests from Stateline for comment on discrepancies between official accounts and publicly available evidence.

Since last July, there have been at least 17 open-fire incidents involving federal immigration agents — including fatal shootings, shootings with injuries and cases in which shots were fired — according to data compiled by The Trace, a nonprofit and nonpartisan news outlet investigating gun violence. A recent Wall Street Journal investigation also found 13 incidents since July in which immigration agents fired at or into civilian vehicles.

One of the most prominent examples unfolded in Minneapolis this month: Good’s fatal shooting by a masked ICE agent. The Department of Homeland Security initially said the agent, Jonathan Ross, fired in self-defense after Good, 37, allegedly tried to run over officers. Videos taken by bystanders show Good’s vehicle reversed, shifted and began to turn away from officers after one yelled and pulled on her car handle. Ross positioned himself near the hood of her car, and he began firing.

Minnesota officials later stated the footage did not support DHS’ description of an imminent threat, prompting renewed scrutiny of how the Trump administration is characterizing use-of-force encounters.

Similar discrepancies have surfaced in other cases. The Department of Homeland Security recently revised its account of a December shooting in Glen Burnie, Maryland, after local police contradicted its initial version. DHS first claimed both men injured in the incident were inside a van that ICE officers fired at in self-defense, but later said that one of the injured men had already been arrested and was in custody inside an ICE vehicle when he was hurt. The other man was shot twice and is facing two federal criminal charges.

In August, federal immigration agents fired at a family’s vehicle three times in San Bernardino, California. DHS maintained the shooting was justified after at least two agents were struck by the vehicle, but available footage shows an agent breaking the driver-side window moments before gunfire erupted. Surveillance footage from the street does not show agents being struck by the vehicle.

“I can’t think of another time in my lifetime — I’m 50 years old — where we’ve seen this sort of force in the streets in the United States,” said Mark Fleming, the associate director of federal litigation at the National Immigrant Justice Center. Fleming has been an immigration and civil rights attorney for the past 20 years.

García Hernández, the law professor at Ohio State University, echoed Fleming’s point, saying that what also stands out is how often agents are deploying less‑lethal weapons in ways that would generally be prohibited — including firing rubber pellets and similar projectiles at people’s faces or heads.

In its use-of-force policy, DHS agents may use force only when no “reasonably effective, safe, and feasible” alternative exists and only at a level that is “objectively reasonable.” DHS policy emphasizes “respect for human life” and directs officers to be proficient in de-escalation tactics — using communication or other techniques to stabilize or reduce the intensity of a potentially violent situation without, or with reduced, physical force. The policy also states that deadly force should not be used solely to prevent the escape of a fleeing suspect.

ICE, as an agency under DHS, is bound by this guidance, but the policy on shooting at moving vehicles differs from what many law enforcement agencies nationwide now consider best practices. While DHS prohibits officers from firing at the operator of a moving vehicle unless it is necessary to stop a serious threat, its rules do not explicitly instruct officers to get out of the way of moving vehicles when possible.

Use of force

A growing pattern of aggressive tactics and conflicting evidence has raised serious questions about how federal immigration agents use lethal and less-lethal force, and how DHS officials describe the incidents to the public.

In September, 38-year-old Silverio Villegas González was fatally shot during a traffic stop in Franklin Park, a suburb near Chicago. DHS claimed that one agent was “seriously injured” after being dragged by González’s car as he tried to flee. But body-camera footage shows the agent telling a Franklin Park police officer that his injury was “nothing major.”

In a statement, DHS said the agent responded with lethal force because he was “fearing for his own life” — a narrative very similar to the department’s description of the fatal shooting of Good in Minneapolis.

In recent months, DHS officials have claimed that immigration agents have been repeatedly attacked with vehicles.

“We’ve seen vehicles weaponized over 100 times in the last several months against our law enforcement officers,” Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem said during an interview with CNN this month.

In court filings related to a civil lawsuit about Operation Midway Blitz in Chicago, the department provided body-camera footage and other internal records to bolster their claims of self-defense.

But U.S. District Judge Sara Ellis found the evidence “difficult, if not impossible to believe.” In her lengthy opinion issued in late November, Ellis acknowledged that agents sometimes encountered aggressive drivers but also found that agents treated cars that were merely following them as potential threats.

In October, an ICE agent shot a community observer, Marimar Martinez, five times during a confrontation in Chicago. DHS claimed that she rammed the ICE vehicle with her car and boxed it in, but surveillance footage does not show the agents were trapped.

Martinez survived, but the Trump administration quickly labeled her a “domestic terrorist” — the same label used to describe Good. Martinez’s criminal charges were dropped in November after the federal Department of Justice abruptly moved to dismiss the case.

In Ellis’ ruling on the civil lawsuit, she wrote that federal officials “cannot simply create their own narrative of what happened, misrepresenting the evidence to justify their actions,” and that the violence used by federal agents “shocks the conscience,” a legal standard meaning a situation that seems grossly unjust to an observer.

Ellis also explicitly questioned the conduct and leadership of Greg Bovino of U.S. Border Patrol during the Chicago immigration operation. Bovino, who has led the administration’s big-city campaign, was deposed under oath, and in her November ruling, Ellis described him as “not credible,” writing that he “appeared evasive over the three days of his deposition, either providing ‘cute’ responses … or outright lying.”

In a footnote, Ellis also noted an instance in which an agent asked ChatGPT to draft a use-of-force report from a single sentence and a few images — further undermining the credibility of official DHS accounts.

A narrow path to accountability

Holding federal immigration agents accountable for misconduct is difficult, even as video evidence and police or court records increasingly contradict official government accounts.

With more evidence surfacing and legal claims already underway, some experts say it’s likely that even more lawsuits will emerge this year.

“We should expect to see more examples, more instances in which cellphone video is used to bolster legal claims against DHS, ICE, Border Patrol and specific officers as well,” said García Hernández, of Ohio State University.

Federal officers are shielded by legal doctrines such as qualified immunity and U.S. Supreme Court rulings that restrict when people can sue federal officials for constitutional violations. In recent years, the courts have narrowed the circumstances under which individuals can bring claims for excessive force or wrongful death.

Suing individual federal immigration agents is nearly impossible.

People can, however, pursue claims against the federal government under the Federal Tort Claims Act if a government employee causes financial or bodily harm. These cases, which can include claims for wrongful death, face significant hurdles: no punitive damages, no jury trials, state-specific caps on compensation and protections for discretionary government decisions.

Internal DHS investigations can lead to discipline or policy changes, but their findings may not be made public.

Several state lawmakers in California, Colorado, Georgia, New York and Oregon are pursuing measures that would allow residents to sue federal immigration agents for constitutional violations. Illinois has a similar law already in place, but this pathway remains largely untested, and experts say it faces significant legal and logistical hurdles.

Stateline reporter Amanda Watford can be reached at ahernandez@stateline.org.

U.S. Sen. Mark Kelly, an Arizona Democrat, speaks with attendees of Kamala Harris for President campaign event in Phoenix in November 2024. (Photo by Gage Skidmore | Flickr/CC BY-SA 2.0)

WASHINGTON — The Trump administration on Thursday asked a federal judge to deny Arizona Democratic Sen. Mark Kelly’s request to halt efforts within the Defense Department to punish him for appearing in a video where he urged members of the military not to follow illegal orders.

Attorneys for the Department of Justice asserted in a 52-page brief that the administration doesn’t believe federal courts hold jurisdiction over the matter, writing “the Judiciary does not superintend military personnel decisions.”

Kelly, a retired U.S. Navy captain, “is not a private citizen and does not enjoy the First Amendment freedom of speech as if he were one when being assessed by the military in military proceedings to determine whether his conduct comports with his obligations as a retired servicemember,” the brief states. 

Kelly’s lawsuit asked a federal judge for an emergency ruling declaring the Defense Department’s attempts to demote him and reduce his military retirement pay are “unlawful and unconstitutional.”

The lawsuit alleges the Pentagon’s actions against Kelly “trample on protections the Constitution singles out as essential to legislative independence.” 

“It appears that never in our nation’s history has the Executive Branch imposed military sanctions on a Member of Congress for engaging in disfavored political speech,” the lawsuit states. ”Allowing that unprecedented step here would invert the constitutional structure by subordinating the Legislative Branch to executive discipline and chilling congressional oversight of the armed forces.”

Video rankled Pentagon

Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth announced earlier this month that he had started the process to downgrade Kelly’s retirement rank and pay, writing in a social media post that his “status as a sitting United States Senator does not exempt him from accountability, and further violations could result in further action.”

The Defense Department letter of censure to Kelly alleged that his participation in the video undermined the military chain of command, counseled disobedience, created confusion about duty, brought discredit upon the Armed Forces and included conduct unbecoming of an officer. 

The video at the center of the debate featured Kelly, Michigan Sen. Elissa Slotkin, Colorado Rep. Jason Crow, Pennsylvania Reps. Chris Deluzio and Chrissy Houlahan, and New Hampshire Rep. Maggie Goodlander, all Democrats with backgrounds in the military or intelligence community.

They said that Americans in those institutions “can” and “must refuse illegal orders.”

“No one has to carry out orders that violate the law or our Constitution. We know this is hard and that it’s a difficult time to be a public servant,” they said. “But whether you’re serving in the CIA, in the Army, or Navy, or the Air Force, your vigilance is critical.”

First Amendment doesn’t apply, DOJ says

Attorneys at the Justice Department, representing DOD in the case, argued in the brief they filed Thursday that no emergency relief is warranted, in part, because they believe Kelly’s First Amendment rights have not been violated. 

“Plaintiff is unlikely to succeed on his First Amendment claim because, as a retired servicemember, he has no First Amendment right to encourage other servicemembers to question the legitimacy of their military orders or to impugn their superior officers when such conduct violates his ongoing duties and obligations to the military,” the DOJ brief states. “The First Amendment is not a shield against the consequences of such violations in military personnel matters.”

Kelly’s constitutional protections as a member of the U.S. Senate under the Speech and Debate Clause of the Constitution also don’t apply in this instance, the DOJ legal team wrote. 

“A legislator’s public statements in interviews and on social media are not legislative acts protected by the Speech or Debate Clause,” DOJ wrote. 

The judge doesn’t need to issue emergency relief, the DOJ brief states, because there isn’t a separation-of-powers issue between the Executive Branch, where the Defense Department exists, and Kelly’s role as a senator in the Legislative Branch, which are considered separate but equal under the Constitution. 

Senior Judge Richard J. Leon, who was nominated to the bench by President George W. Bush, has scheduled a hearing on the issue for Wednesday. 

Leon could rule from the bench during those proceedings or issue a written order anytime afterward. 

During debate on the floor, Rep. Dean Kaufert (R-Neenah) said that the GOP Knowles-Nelson bill isn’t perfect but is a compromise that will allow the program to continue into the future. (Photo by Baylor Spears/Wisconsin Examiner).

A pared-back proposal that will continue the Knowles-Nelson Stewardship program, but without allowing for new land acquisition, passed the Assembly on Thursday, eliciting critical reactions from Democrats who said it won’t uphold the legacy of the program.

The Warren Knowles-Gaylord Nelson Stewardship Program was initially created during the 1989-1990 legislative session and signed into law by former Gov. Tommy Thompson. With the goal of preserving wildlife habitat and expanding outdoor recreation opportunities throughout the state, the program has authorized state borrowing and spending for state land acquisition and for grants to local governments and nonprofit conservation organizations. It has traditionally received bipartisan support in Wisconsin as it has been reauthorized several times over the years.

Two GOP bills, coauthored by Rep. Tony Kurtz (R-Wonewoc) and Sen. Patrick Testin (R-Stevens Point), passed the Assembly in a 53-44 vote along party lines. The bills would extend the program for an additional two years, but in a limited form.

Under the amended proposal, the Knowles-Nelson program would be reauthorized until 2028, but the money set aside would mostly be for maintaining land that has already been purchased under the program.

The program’s land acquisition provisions have been essentially stripped in the legislation. 

A previous version of the GOP bill would have authorized the program until fiscal year 2029–30. Gov. Tony Evers in his 2025-27 state budget proposal had called for investing over $1 billion and reauthorizing the program for another 10 years. Republicans rejected the proposal. 

Rep. Shae Sortwell (R-Two Rivers) blamed the Wisconsin Supreme Court for the state of the proposal.

Wisconsin lawmakers for years exercised control over what Knowles-Nelson projects received funding through the state’s powerful Joint Finance Committee. Members of the committee could anonymously object to a project and have it upheld for an indeterminate amount of time.

The program and the power of the committee became the focus of a fight over the balance of power between the governor and lawmakers, with the state Supreme Court ruling in 2025 that the Joint Finance Committee did not have the authority to hold up spending through anonymous objections. 

Sortwell said that the DNR should not be able to buy land without oversight from lawmakers.

“I don’t support their ideas to turn our authority of the Legislature over to unelected people,” Sortwell said. “We can build this up and do more things with it but let’s make sure we don’t lose what we have today. We can maintain the program. We can go ahead and make sure that we can keep the lands that we already have in good condition and continue moving forward.” 

Under the amended version of AB 315, the Department of Natural Resources (DNR) would only be able to obligate $1 million for land acquisition — a cut from $16 million. The $1 million could only be used for the Ice Age Trail. The bill would also allow for DNR to obligate $9.25 million for property development and local assistance — a cut from $14.25 million. The program would also limit the amount that could be obligated for recreational boating aids to $3 million. 

The amended version of AB 612 reduces the amount that can be obligated each year to $13.25 million. It also includes $7.75 million for DNR property development and grants, $4 million for local assistance grants and $3 million for grants for wildlife habitat restoration. There would also be $250,000 set aside each year to be used for DNR land acquisitions, but acquisitions would be limited to parcels land that are 5 acres or less and meant to improve access to hunting, fishing, or trapping opportunities or is contiguous to state-owned land.

The bill would also require that large projects get approval from the full Legislature and limit grant or in-kind contributions for a project to 30%.

The DNR, under the bill, would also need to conduct a survey study of all of the land that has been acquired under the stewardship program including an inventory of all land acquired with money, proposed project boundaries and land acquisition priorities for the next two to five years, and proposed changes. The survey would need to be submitted to the Legislature in two years.

Recipients of a grant would also need to submit a report to the DNR on how the money was spent, and it would need to be publicly published. 

The program is set to expire on June 30, 2026, without a reauthorization from the Legislature and Gov. Tony Evers.

Ahead of the vote on Thursday, Team Knowles-Nelson, a coalition of Wisconsin environmental conservation organizations, fishing and hunting advocates, trail builders, bicycle enthusiasts and others, said in a letter urging lawmakers to vote against the bills on the Assembly floor that they don’t propose a “workable path forward.” 

“These bills include virtually no funding for land acquisition. Land trusts and local governments would have no dedicated ability to acquire land for either purpose — a fundamental departure from the program’s core mission,” Charles Carlin, the director of strategic initiatives at the nonprofit land trust organization Gathering Waters, said on behalf of the coalition. “While the bills provide habitat management grants to nonprofit conservation organizations, they impose an impractical framework. The grants are limited to habitat work on lands already owned by the state or local governments, excluding nonprofit-owned lands. This restriction undermines the collaborative conservation model that has made Knowles-Nelson successful for over three decades.” 

During debate on the two bills, Democratic lawmakers said the bills were inadequate and would not preserve the intent of the program. 

Rep. Vinnie Miresse (D-Stevens Point) declared that “every time Republicans amend the Knowles-Nelson proposal, it seems to get worse.” 

“Without land acquisition, Republicans have neutered this program and rendered it Knowles-Nelson in name only,” Miresse said. He added that lawmakers’ attitude of treating people with different opinions as a “threat” is how legislation that “ignores history, disregards broad public support and turns a shared legacy into just another talking point” gets a vote.

“They chose the extremes, and that choice will cost the state a program that Wisconsinites overwhelmingly support,” Miresse said. 

Rep. Angelito Tenorio (D-West Allis) said the bill is not a compromise, but is instead “table scraps.”

Rep. Supreme Moore Omokunde (D-Milwaukee) talked about being a “birder” — someone who watches and observes birds as a hobby.

“We had the option to do a cost to continue… and it was rejected, and that disheartens me because when I go to places like Horicon Marsh when the birds are coming in, are migrating in, and I get to see goldfinches — there’s nothing like watching a chimney swift swoop down and try to get some food, or when you’re out and just walking around and navigating a red-winged blackbird swoops down tries to peck you in the head because it thinks that you are a crane trying to steal its eggs,” Moore Omokunde said. “We need to provide these opportunities for so many people in the state of Wisconsin to enjoy this.”

Republican lawmakers argued that the proposal was better than the Knowles-Nelson program ceasing to exist.

Rep. Dean Kaufert (R-Neenah) said that the bill isn’t perfect but is a compromise that will allow the program to continue into the future. He added that it would “help preserve some of our beautiful natural areas” for future generations to enjoy.

“Sometimes we get caught up in partisan politics, but let’s not make this about partisan politics. This bill deserves strong, bipartisan support,” Kaufert said. 

“I would rather take half a cookie today, rather than no cookie today to make sure that we can continue the program,” Sortwell said. “You gotta vote yes today because if you vote no, you’re saying, you know, what? I’m not willing to compromise. It’s not good enough for me, and I’m going to vote no, because I’m going to be like a little kid and take my ball and go home.”

Evers told lawmakers in a letter earlier this month that he was “hopeful” they would be able to move forward on a reauthorization proposal for the Knowles-Nelson program.

“I would be glad to sign any reauthorization proposal that appropriately supports both land acquisition and property management of Wisconsin’s valuable natural resources and public lands to secure the future of this program that is so fundamental to Wisconsin’s proud and cherished tradition of conservation,” Evers said.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Correction: This story has been updated to correctly state the amount of money the amended bills would dedicate to the program.

A gray wolf. (Wisconsin DNR photo)

Wisconsin Republicans on Thursday continued their yearslong effort to reverse the Wisconsin Department of Natural Resource’s decision not to quantify a specific statewide goal for the state’s gray wolf population with a public hearing on a bill that would require the agency to set one. 

The bill, authored by Sen. Rob Stafsholt (R-New Richmond) and Rep. Chanz Green (R-Grand View), is unlikely to be signed into law by Gov. Tony Evers if it’s passed, but shows how the contentious politics around wolves continue to play a major role in the state’s natural resource policy debates — especially in an election year. U.S. Rep. Tom Tiffany, seen as the frontrunner in the Republican primary for governor, was the author of a bill recently passed in the House that would remove the gray wolf from the federal endangered species list. 

State law in Wisconsin requires that whenever the wolf isn’t listed as endangered, the state must hold an annual wolf hunt. 

The state’s wolf management plan was updated for the first time in decades in 2023. The plan was established after a two and a half year process involving an advisory committee made up of 28 member organizations and thousands of public comments. 

Prior to the current plan’s adoption, Wisconsin was operating under a plan that was first approved in 1999 and then updated in 2007. That plan went into effect as the state was working to responsibly handle the animal’s return to the state after its extirpation in the 1960s. 

Initially, the state set a  population goal of 350 wolves. 

More than a quarter century after the 1999 plan’s adoption, the state’s wolf population is estimated to be about 1,200 wolves. The 350 number that was initially set as an aspiration for a healthy wolf population has come to be seen by some hunters and farmers as a wolf population ceiling. 

But under the current wolf management plan, the DNR opted to use an “adaptive management” system which forgoes setting a specific population number. Instead, the state gets divided into zones and in each zone the DNR annually assesses the local wolf population to decide if it needs to be kept stable, allowed to grow or reduced through a hunt. 

Adaptive management is the method used by the state for most other game species, including black bear, bobcat, coyote, white-tailed deer and wild turkey. But since the plan’s adoption, Republicans have been opposed to using the method for wolves. 

Rep. Green, the bill’s co-author, said that the growth of the wolf population in northern Wisconsin is causing a number of problems, including in the area’s deer population. 

“We’d like to see a wolf management goal in place where — most of these wolves are concentrated in northern Wisconsin and we’d like to see that reduced,” Green said. “It’s been heavily impacted on our deer populations and things like that.”

Research has shown that Wisconsin’s wolves have helped cause a noticeable decline in the number of vehicle-deer collisions that occur in the state. 

At the hearing, Chris Vaughan, Wisconsin director of the pro-hunting organization Hunter Nation, complained that the wolf management plan focuses too much on the social effects of the wolf population, putting too much weight on people’s personal views about wolves. Vaughan lamented how frequently Wisconsin’s plan uses the word “social” compared to other states

But representatives of the DNR said social carrying capacity is an important consideration for biologists when managing any species. 

“Dare I say the biological part of wolf management is the easy part,” Randy Johnson, the DNR’s large carnivore species specialist, said. ”We know how to have a pretty good system of monitoring the population. The science is pretty clear about how we can move the population up and down through harvest. It is the social side of this that continues to be the difficult part of it. Everybody knows it’s a contentious issue. Some people see it different ways, some people want more, some people want less and it’s our job to try to balance that.” 

Proponents of a hard limit on the wolf population also cast their argument in social terms.

Brad Olson, president of the Wisconsin Farm Bureau, said the state should have a specific population number to assuage the feelings of farmers who are traumatized by losing livestock to wolves. 

“For those of us who live in wolf country and deal with wolves on a day in, day out basis, at times, I think the number is very important to those of us in wolf country who have these issues,” Olson said. “You haven’t been on the farms like I have where, where the mule has been killed by a pack of wolves … and I think in all of this, what we’re really missing from the legislative side, from the DNR side, is we’re missing the impact of the mental health on rural ag and those in rural Wisconsin.” 

“When compared to other species where adaptive management works, wolves sit at a completely different intersection of biology, social politics and law, where this vague management tool is impossible to apply,” Vaughan said.

Democrats on the committee questioned the prudence of changing the DNR’s management plan before the wolf has been delisted and the plan has a chance to be put to the test when a hunt must be held. 

“So if we actually could accomplish [a healthy wolf population] utilizing the tools and the science that the DNR has provided, would that or would that not actually accomplish the goal?” Sen. Kristin Dassler-Alfheim (D-Appleton) asked.

Data centers are mushrooming all over the country, with many planned projects on deck in Wisconsin. We need to get ahead of them by putting in place protections for the state's energy and water resources. (Photo by Dana DiFilippo/New Jersey Monitor)

Wisconsin stands at a pivotal moment.

Artificial intelligence, cloud computing, and hyperscale data centers are arriving quickly, bringing enormous demand for electricity and water. The real question is not whether these investments will come, but how we manage them and who pays the costs if we get it wrong.

Families want affordable bills. Businesses want reliable power. Communities want clean water and economic opportunity. We need a  common-sense approach to guide how we respond to rapid data center growth.

An unprecedented load and a real affordability risk

The scale of proposed data centers is unlike anything Wisconsin has seen.

Just two projects, one in Port Washington and another in Mount Pleasant, have requested nearly four gigawatts of electricity combined. That is more power than all Wisconsin households use today.

Meeting this demand will require massive investments in power plants, transmission lines, substations, pipelines and water infrastructure. But under Wisconsin’s current utility model, these costs are not paid only by the companies driving demand. They are instead spread across all of us who pay electric bills, including families, farms, and small businesses that won’t benefit from data center power.

For small businesses operating on thin margins, even modest increases in electric or water rates affect hiring, pricing and long-term viability. In rural communities with fewer customers sharing infrastructure costs, the impact can be even more severe.

This concern is already becoming real. Utilities are citing data center demand to justify new methane gas plants and delaying coal plant retirements. Utilities doubling down on fossil fuels should give every one of us pause.

Why costly gas is the wrong answer

Building new methane gas plants for data centers would lock customers into decades of fuel price volatility, even though cleaner options have become cheaper and faster to deploy.

Wind, solar and battery storage can come online far more quickly than fossil fuel plants and without exposing families and businesses to unpredictable fuel costs. Battery storage costs alone have fallen nearly 90% over the past decade. 

Across the country, these tools are replacing methane gas plants in states as different as Texas and California.

There is also a serious risk that we will pay higher bills for decades, even when data centers stop using those methane gas plants. In Nevada, a major utility has acknowledged that only about 15% of proposed data centers are likely to be built. When speculative projects fall through, all of us are left to pay for infrastructure we actually never needed.

This is not ideology. It is basic financial risk management, and basic fairness.

Clean energy is the lowest-cost path

Wisconsin policymakers and elected officials need to put guardrails in place to protect everyday residents from the AI bubble that’s threatening the state. The core principle should be that data centers operate on 100% clean energy, not as a slogan, but because it is the lowest-cost and lowest-risk option over time.

A smart framework would require developers to:

• Supply at least 30% of their power from on-site and Wisconsin-based renewable energy
• Offset additional demand through energy efficiency, demand response – at least 25% of peak capacity and smart grid flexibility
• Participate fully in utility efficiency and renewable energy programs rather than opting out
• Each data center project should require a legally binding Community Benefit Agreement that clearly defines community protections and benefits, negotiated among developers, local governments, neighborhood-based organizations and underserved communities

This approach reduces peak demand, lowers infrastructure costs and protects existing customers while allowing data centers to advance.

Major companies like Microsoft, Google and Meta have already publicly committed to operating on carbon-free energy. We need to hold them to that. Wisconsin risks losing our competitive advantage if we default to gas-heavy solutions instead of offering clean, flexible grids.

Water is a non-negotiable constraint

Energy is not the only concern. Water matters just as much.

A single hyperscale data center can use millions of gallons of water per day, either directly for cooling or indirectly through power generation. In communities with limited water systems, that can crowd out agricultural use and raise residents’ water bills.

Wisconsin should require closed-loop cooling systems, full accounting of direct and indirect water use, and ongoing public reporting to ensure local water supplies are protected.

A practical path forward

Wisconsin does not have to choose between economic growth and affordability. We can do both if we insist on clear guardrails.

That means requiring data centers to pay the full cost of service, powering growth with clean energy first, and protecting water resources and ratepayers from unnecessary risk.

Data centers are coming. The question is whether Wisconsin families and small businesses will be partners in that growth or be left paying higher bills for decades to come.

If we choose smart clean power over costly gas, Wisconsin can lead.

GET THE MORNING HEADLINES.

SUBSCRIBE

Former special counsel Jack Smith arrives to testify during a hearing before the House Judiciary Committee in the Rayburn House Office Building on Capitol Hill on Jan. 22, 2026 in Washington, DC.  (Photo by Alex Wong/Getty Images)

Republicans on the U.S. House Judiciary Committee sought to poke holes Thursday in former Justice Department special counsel Jack Smith’s investigations into President Donald Trump, while Democrats on the panel commended him and Smith restated his finding that Trump sought to overturn the 2020 election results.

Republicans on the panel accused Smith, a longtime prosecutor who has led investigations of public officials of both major U.S. parties and international figures, of undertaking a partisan probe targeting Trump ahead of the 2024 election. 

“It was always about politics,” Chairman Jim Jordan, an Ohio Republican, said to open the hearing.

During the hearing, Trump posted on social media a suggestion that he would seek to prosecute Smith. 

But Smith, and the many Democrats on the committee who defended him Thursday, repeatedly asserted that his investigation was by the book, guided by Justice Department policies, legal requirements, “the facts and the law.”

“I made my decisions without regard to President Trump’s political association, activities, beliefs or candidacy in the 2024 election,” Smith said in an opening statement. “President Trump was charged because the evidence established that he willfully broke the law — the very laws he swore an oath to defend.”

Smith led two prosecutions of Trump during the years between his presidential terms. 

One, in District of Columbia federal court, accused Trump of conspiring to overturn the 2020 election results. The other, in Florida federal court, accused Trump of mishandling classified documents. 

Grand juries indicted Trump in both cases but the Justice Department dropped both cases after Trump’s 2024 election victory, consistent with department policy that forbids prosecution of a sitting president.

Trump attempting ‘intimidation’

Midway through the five-hour hearing, Trump posted to Truth Social his analysis of the meeting and a veiled threat against Smith.

“Deranged Jack Smith is being DECIMATED before Congress,” he wrote. “If he were a Republican, his license would be taken away from him, and far worse! Hopefully the Attorney General is looking at what he’s done, including some of the crooked and corrupt witnesses that he was attempting to use in his case against me. The whole thing was a Democrat SCAM — A big price should be paid by them for what they have put our Country through!”

In the hearing room, Smith directly rejected charges he was motivated by partisanship, and said he would not give in to intimidation attempts by Trump.

“If asked whether to prosecute a former president based on the same facts today, I would do so regardless of whether that president was a Democrat or a Republican,” he said. “No one — no one — should be above the law in this country.”

Vermont Democrat Becca Balint noted Trump had used the term “Deranged Jack Smith” 185 times on Truth Social. 

“I think … the statements are meant to intimidate me. I will not be intimidated. I think these statements are also made as a warning to others what will happen if they stand up,” Smith responded. 

“We did our work pursuant to department policy,” he continued. “We followed the facts, we followed the law, and that process resulted in proof, beyond a reasonable doubt, that he committed serious crimes. I’m not going to pretend that didn’t happen because he’s threatening me.”

Phone records

Several committee Republicans challenged Smith’s pursuit of phone records from members of Congress related to the election interference case.

The case included an examination of Trump’s attempt to block Congress’ certification of the 2020 presidential election, which he lost to Democrat Joe Biden, on Jan. 6, 2021. Smith and other prosecutors sought phone logs leading up to the eventual attack on the Capitol that day.

Republicans on the panel accused Smith of violating Congress’ rights as a co-equal branch of government and took further umbrage at efforts by Smith and his colleagues to keep the records requests secret, and noted that only Republicans’ records had been sought.

Jordan said his phone records were among those obtained, and described the entire investigation as a partisan attack on Trump.

“Even the Democrats said this was wrong,” he said. “We shouldn’t be surprised. Democrats have been going after President Trump for 10 years, for a decade, and the country should never, ever forget what they did.”

Smith said the investigation had to do with Trump’s pressure campaign on members of Congress to object to the election results, including appeals to Republicans’ partisan loyalties. If the president had been a Democrat, he’d have sought Democrats’ records, he said.

He and Democrats on the panel also noted that the phone records only included data like the length, time and date of phone calls, without disclosing anything about their content. Such records are typical pieces of conspiracy investigations, they said.

Complimentary Dems

Democrats complimented and defended Smith throughout the hearing. 

“Special Counsel Smith, you pursued the facts,” ranking Democrat Jamie Raskin of Maryland said. “You followed every applicable law, ethics rule and DOJ regulation. Your decisions were reviewed by the Public Integrity Section. You acted based solely on the facts.”

Raskin contrasted Smith’s approach with that of Trump, who he said sought unprecedented control over the Justice Department to pursue “political vendetta and motives of personal revenge.”

Several other Democratic members held Smith up as an exemplary public servant.

“I want to thank you for your service,” Tennessee Democrat Steve Cohen said. 

“I think you’re a great American, and you came out of this as being somebody who people can respect and look up to,” he said. “We should be instilling people’s desire to go into justice, to go into law, to go into government. You’re an example of the type of person they should follow.”

Ensign Lake in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. (Photo by Zach Spindler-Krage)

A proposal to repeal a ban on mining in northeastern Minnesota’s Superior National Forest is headed to the U.S. Senate following approval in the House, reigniting a long-simmering fight between environmentalists and pro-mining interests.

The reaction of outdoors and environmental groups was swift Wednesday.

“Congress just tossed aside years of scientific study and local input about how to conserve the headwaters of this wilderness for future generations, allowing the threat of toxic mining to return,” Jordan Schreiber, director of government relations at The Wilderness Society, said in a statement. He called on the Senate to “reject this attack and the precedent it sets to arbitrarily strike down” public land protections.

House Republicans voted Wednesday to undo former President Joe Biden’s 20-year moratorium on the extraction of copper, nickel and other minerals across more than 225,000 acres near the popular Boundary Waters Canoe Area Wilderness. If approved by the Republican-controlled Senate, the resolution would next go to President Donald Trump, who has indicated he would sign it into law. 

The resolution requires only a simple majority vote to pass the Senate, rather than a filibuster-proof majority.

Republican Congressman Pete Stauber, whose Duluth-based district covers the area, introduced the resolution last year. It uses an obscure but increasingly popular procedural tool that allows Congress to void certain Executive Branch actions.

In a statement Wednesday, Stauber hailed the resolution’s passage as a win for the regional economy, national security and congressional prerogatives. The resolution would prevent future administrations from imposing similar bans in the future.

“Reversing Biden’s mining ban will protect Northern Minnesota jobs, strengthen national security through domestic production, and prevent future overreaches from happening again,” Stauber said.

Organized labor cheered the move, too, albeit in terms more palatable to the Democratic base.

“One of the most important contributions Minnesota can make to the fight against climate change is leading the world in setting the highest bar for labor and environmental protections in the responsible production of copper, nickel and other critical minerals,” Joel Smith, president and business manager of LIUNA Minnesota and North Dakota, said in a statement, also mentioning the promise of “family-supporting careers” for union members and “community-supporting jobs at schools, hospitals, public and private sector employers.”

Environmental and outdoor recreation groups have long opposed mining near the Boundary Waters, a remote section of Superior National Forest along the border with Canada. The groups say it would disturb critical habitats and pollute a pristine watershed enjoyed by hundreds of thousands of visitors each year. 

In a statement describing the resolution as an unprecedented use of congressional power over public land use, Save the Boundary Waters urged voters to contact their senators and push for a “no” vote on the resolution. Save the Boundary Waters is pushing for a permanent ban on copper-ore sulfide mining in the boundary watershed. Citing peer-reviewed scientific research, the group says mining for copper and other heavy metals inevitably leaches sulfuric acid, toxic metals and other pollutants into surrounding water systems, harming the natural environment and imperiling tourism.

Northeast Minnesota sits atop the Duluth Complex, one of the world’s richest deposits of copper and nickel. Twin Metals, a subsidiary of the Chilean mining conglomerate Antofagasta, wants to extract both minerals — along with cobalt and other precious metals — from underground veins near Ely and Babbitt, about a dozen miles from the wilderness area.

It would be the first copper-nickel mine in Minnesota, which produces most of the United States’ domestic iron but few other metals. Regional and state officials have sought for years to reduce northeastern Minnesota’s economic dependence on volatile global markets for iron and steel. Its rich deposits of higher-value metals, along with elusive gases like helium and possibly hydrogen, could offer a lifeline.

The Twin Metals project has been in development for more than 15 years amid an arduous state and federal permitting process. It suffered a severe setback in early 2023 when the Biden administration announced a 20-year moratorium on mining across 350 square miles of the Superior National Forest, though Minnesota has issued new mineral exploration permits in the years since.  

Copper, nickel, cobalt and some precious metals are key inputs for a bevy of medical, automotive and industrial products. They’re also needed to produce wind turbines, solar panels, rechargeable batteries and other electrical technologies that scientists say are crucial for mitigating local air pollution and greenhouse gas emissions. Environmentalists say the the demand can be met with more robust recycling. 

Mining companies and their allies say it’s better for everyone’s sake to extract them in the United States rather than countries with lax environmental and human health protections, such as China or the Democratic Republic of the Congo.

Removing the 20-year moratorium allows “proposed developments to proceed through the world’s strictest state and federal regulatory and permitting processes,” Stauber said on Wednesday.

U.S. Vice President JD Vance gives remarks following a roundtable discussion with local leaders and community members amid a surge of federal immigration authorities in the area, at Royalston Square on January 22, 2026 in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The Trump administration has sent a reported 3,000-plus federal agents into the area, with more on the way, as they make a push to arrest undocumented immigrants in the region. (Photo by Brandon Bell/Getty Images)

Vice President JD Vance on Thursday blamed Minnesota elected officials for the clashes between federal agents and protesters, arguing that their refusal to facilitate the federal government’s immigration enforcement is the cause of the chaos across the Twin Cities.

Vance held a closed-door roundtable with federal agents, law enforcement and businesses. The Minnesota Chamber of Commerce and Republican House Speaker Lisa Demuth, R-Cold Spring, confirmed after the fact that they were in the room with Vance, though other participants are unknown.

Democrats who said they were not invited included Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey.

Vance took questions from reporters, defending the actions of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents and downplaying recent, high-profile instances of alleged civil rights violations committed by federal agents.

In at least one instance, Vance misled the public when he said the Trump administration is focused on Minneapolis because “that’s where we have the highest concentration of people who have violated our immigration laws.” This is false.

Pew Research estimates that 130,000 undocumented immigrants lived in Minnesota as of 2023.

States that are the most populous — California, Texas, Florida and New York — had the highest concentration of unauthorized immigrations, a combined 8 million in 2023.

A reporter asked the vice president about agents detaining a 5-year-old boy, whom the Columbia Heights Public School district says agents used as “bait” to draw family members away from their homes.

Vance said the incident is an example of the media failing to provide context about ICE’s arrests. Vance said the boy was not arrested, but the boy’s father was in the country illegally. When ICE approached the father, he ran and left his child, Vance said.

“Are they supposed to let a five-year-old child freeze to death? Are they not supposed to arrest an illegal alien in the United States of America?” Vance asked sarcastically. “… If we had a little cooperation from local … and state officials, I think the chaos would go way down in this community.”

At a Thursday press conference, a lawyer for the boy’s family disputed that the father was in the country illegally, stating he came into the country a few years ago seeking asylum.

Vance said the administration wants Minnesota law enforcement to work with the federal government and honor ICE “detainers.” Detainers are written requests from ICE that a local jail or other law enforcement detain an individual for an additional 48 hours to give ICE time to decide to take the person into federal custody to begin removal proceedings.

Minnesota officials say that they honor ICE detainers. In addition, some of the arrests that ICE claims to have made in recent weeks were people already in prison that Minnesota handed over.

Vance downplays arrests of U.S. citizens

The American Civil Liberties Union filed a lawsuit last week alleging that immigration authorities are racially profiling Minnesota residents and detaining people with legal status, even U.S. citizens. Numerous U.S. citizens have said they’ve been arrested by ICE.

When asked about alleged instances of racial profiling and arrests of U.S. citizens, Vance said citizens are arrested because they’ve assaulted immigration agents, and agents are not looking for people based on skin color.

“When there are American citizens who have been caught up in some of these enforcement operations, very often it is people who have assaulted a law enforcement officer,” Vance said. “They’re not being arrested because they violated the immigration laws. They’re being arrested because they punched a federal law enforcement officer. That is a totally reasonable thing.”

He again blamed Minnesota officials.

“So long as we had more cooperation, I think they can do these things in a much more targeted way. They would actually know where some of the bad guys are,” Vance said.

Vance said that based on what he heard in his roundtable Thursday, he doesn’t believe the Insurrection Act needs to be invoked at this time, like President Donald Trump threatened last week. The Insurrection Act is a rarely-invoked 19th century law that would allow Trump to send the military to Minnesota.

“What I do worry about again is that the chaos gets worse. If more and more ICE agents are getting assaulted, if other law enforcement officers start getting assaulted, that would be a real problem,” Vance said. 

After Vance’s visit, Walz said the estimated 3,000 federal agents patrolling Minnesota shouldn’t be there.

“I’m glad the Vice President agrees the temperature needs to be turned down, but actions speak louder than words,” Walz said on X. “Take the show of force off the streets and partner with the state on targeted enforcement of violent offenders instead of random, aggressive confrontation.”

The E. Barrett Prettyman U.S. Courthouse in Washington, D.C., home of the U.S. District Court for the District of Columbia, on July 14, 2025. (Photo by Jacob Fischler/States Newsroom)

WASHINGTON — President Donald Trump’s ban on transgender troops came under scrutiny again in federal court Thursday — this time before a three-judge appeals panel considering the merits of the president’s executive order.

The policy has been challenged in two major federal cases, one of which the administration appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court’s emergency docket. In May, the justices allowed the ban to go into effect while the lawsuits continue in the lower courts.

For just over three hours at the U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, judges pressed the Trump administration and the lawyer for the plaintiffs in Talbott v. Trump for clarity on the ban instituted just under one year ago.

The panel was made up of Judges Judith W. Rogers, appointed by President Bill Clinton in 1994; Robert L. Wilkins, appointed by President Barack Obama in 2014; and Justin R. Walker, a 2019 Trump appointee.

U.S. Deputy Associate Attorney General Abhishek Kambli, arguing for the administration, told the judges the ban in question rests on the findings and policy of former Secretary of Defense James Mattis. 

“The Mattis report does provide the rationale,” Kambli said, when pressed by Wilkins on why “people who’ve been in (service) for years, with Bronze Stars and commendations” are swept up in the policy.

“What we have here is an area of medicine, which we can all agree there’s uncertainty over,” Kambli argued.

Mattis, who served during Trump’s first term, disqualified transgender service members from the military, except in very narrow circumstances. 

A February 2022 Defense Department report concluded that transgender service members, even members who are not suffering a gender dysphoria diagnosis, “could undermine readiness, disrupt unit cohesion, and impose an unreasonable burden on the military.”

Kambli, moments later, added the courts are “ill equipped” to decide the issue and should show deference to the military.

But Shannon Minter, legal director for the National Center for LGBTQ Rights, said Kambli and the Trump administration ignored new information revealed after President Joe Biden reversed the Mattis ban and allowed transgender troops to serve openly.

Minter, who argued in court for the plaintiffs, said there was “zero evidence of any problems. … That is part of the record now.”

“So for someone to come in and just go back to keeping people out … this is based on animus,” Minter said.

The government “has to show there is a legitimate purpose,” Minter said.

Process for discharging trans troops debated

Kambli told the judges that “so far no one has been discharged” and the policy is still “in progress.”

The transgender service members would be informed via letter of an honorable discharge, and would have the opportunity to go before a three-officer administrative discharge panel, he said. 

The special panel process is usually reserved for members who’ve served six or more years, but the military will make an exception for trans members with less than six years of service, Kambli added.  

In an animated exchange, Rogers pressed back: “The end result is predetermined. It’s a meaningless process. It’s just moving paper around.”

Jennifer Levi, senior director for GLAD Law, one of the organizations representing the roughly 30 plaintiffs, told States Newsroom after the arguments that trans members have already been “forced out” through a voluntary process.

“This was an important hearing, and the plaintiffs in this case are all meeting military standards and reflect some of the highest ideals of this country. They’ve committed their lives to service, and the military has conceded that they have been able to contribute and meet all of the rigorous standards for service,” Levi said.

“This hearing brought out just how devastating and harmful it is to purge a group of people who have been contributing and putting their lives on the line in service of the country.”

The Pentagon declined to comment, citing ongoing litigation.

Trump order

Trump signed the order on Jan. 27, 2025, asserting the “adoption of a gender identity inconsistent with an individual’s sex conflicts with a soldier’s commitment to an honorable, truthful, and disciplined lifestyle, even in one’s personal life.” 

Further, the order said that being transgender is “not consistent with the humility and selflessness required of a service member.”

Eight active-duty service members and transgender individuals who are actively pursuing enlistment in the armed forces initially brought the case against Trump and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, among other officials and three branches of the U.S. military. The number of plaintiffs has since grown.

U.S. District Judge for the District of Columbia Ana Reyes granted the plaintiffs a preliminary injunction in mid-March, criticizing the administration in her 79-page opinion for a lack of data proving the claims in Trump’s order.

“Transgender persons have served openly since 2021, but Defendants have not analyzed their service. That is unfortunate. Plaintiffs’ service records alone are Exhibit A for the proposition that transgender persons can have the warrior ethos, physical and mental health, selflessness, honor, integrity, and discipline to ensure military excellence,” Reyes wrote.

Administration officials swiftly appealed the case to the Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit. Oral arguments were heard April 22 before Judges  Cornelia Pillard, appointed during Obama’s second term, and Neomi Rao and Gregory Katsas, both appointed during Trump’s first term.

On Dec. 9, the three judges issued a 2-1 decision staying the lower court’s preliminary injunction, with Katsas and Rao writing the Hegseth policy “likely does not violate equal protection.” 

Pillard issued a blistering dissent, asserting the ban “brands all transgender people, without regard to individual merit, as unworthy to serve in our armed forces solely because they are transgender.”

In a separate case, Shilling, et al v. Trump, the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals on April 18 upheld a lower court’s ruling that allowed transgender troops to continue serving, denying the government’s appeal. 

In May, the U.S. Supreme Court allowed Trump to ban transgender people from the military.

Smoke is seen over buildings after explosions and low-flying aircraft were heard on Jan. 3, 2026 in Caracas, Venezuela. (Photo by Jesus Vargas/Getty Images)

WASHINGTON — The U.S. House failed Thursday to back a resolution curbing President Donald Trump’s military operations abroad, following U.S. intervention to remove Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro.

Thursday’s resolution tied at 215-215. If passed, it would have directed “the President to remove United States Armed Forces from Venezuela, unless explicitly authorized by a declaration of war or specific statutory authorization for use of military force.”

Republicans Thomas Massie of Kentucky and Don Bacon of Nebraska voted in favor, along with all Democrats present. The vote was held open for about an hour to allow Texas Republican Wesley Hunt to arrive and cast a vote against the resolution.

Maduro and his wife, Cilia Flores, earlier this month were taken by the U.S. military to face an indictment in New York City on narco-terrorism and conspiracy charges originally levied in 2020. The couple has pleaded not guilty. 

The Jan. 3 military operation in Venezuela was conducted without approval of or notification to Congress.

Prior to the military operation in Venezuela, the Trump administration had conducted a monthslong bombing campaign of small boats in the Caribbean Sea and eastern Pacific Ocean. The U.S. strikes have killed more than 115 people whom Trump officials have alleged, without proof, were smuggling drugs to the U.S.

Both chambers have now tried to curb Trump’s military actions in Latin America through a war powers resolution, but have not been able to gain enough votes. 

The Senate earlier this month was initially successful in a procedural vote on a war powers resolution, but the measure eventually failed after two Republicans who had backed the measure voted against it.

Congress passed a war powers resolution in 1973 to limit the president’s authority to wage war overseas after the Nixon administration secretly bombed Vietnam and Cambodia, killing hundreds of thousands of people. Then-President Richard Nixon vetoed the resolution, but Congress overrode the veto. 

Federal agents block in and stop a woman to ask her for another person’s whereabouts Monday, Jan. 19, 2026 in south Minneapolis. (Photo by Nicole Neri/Minnesota Reformer)

WASHINGTON — The House Thursday passed four appropriations bills to fund the government and avert a partial shutdown, but Democrats largely objected to spending on the Department of Homeland Security amid aggressive immigration enforcement in communities across the country. 

Democrats have pushed for tougher oversight of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement agency. In addition, members of the progressive wing of the caucus vowed to not approve any funding for DHS after federal immigration agent Jonathan Ross shot and killed Renee Nicole Good in Minneapolis earlier this month. 

The 37-year-old mother’s death led to massive community protests and  thousands of ICE agents have aggressively descended into Minnesota.

“(Homeland Security Secretary) Kristi Noem and ICE are out of control,” House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries said in a statement. “Taxpayer dollars are being misused to brutalize U.S. citizens, including the tragic killing of Renee Nicole Good. This extremism must end.” 

The four bills — Defense; Homeland Security; Labor, Health and Human Services and Education; and Transportation, Housing and Urban Development — are the last remaining appropriations bills needed to avoid a partial government shutdown by Jan. 30. 

The Homeland Security funding bill passed 220-207. The remaining bills passed 341-88.

Democrats who joined Republicans in voting for the Homeland Security bill included Reps. Jared Golden of Maine, Henry Cuellar of Texas, Marie Gluesenkamp Perez of Washington state, Tom Suozzi of New York, Don Davis of North Carolina, Laura Gillen of New York and Vicente Gonzalez of Texas.

Republican Thomas Massie of Kentucky voted against the DHS funding bill.

Separately, GOP Rep. Virginia Foxx, chairwoman of the Rules Committee, added a provision to repeal a law that allows members of the U.S. Senate to sue for up to half a million dollars if their phone records were obtained by special counsel Jack Smith during his investigation into President Donald Trump’s efforts to subvert the 2020 presidential election. In a rare move, the provision passed unanimously. 

Smith was also on Capitol Hill Thursday to testify about his investigation before lawmakers on the House Oversight and Government Reform Committee. 

The Senate will take up the appropriations bills when senators return from recess next week.

What does the Homeland Security bill include?

The Homeland Security bill provides $64.4 billion in funding for fiscal year 2026. It cuts funding for Customs and Border Protection by $1.3 billion, and maintains flat funding for ICE at $10 billion.

The bill attempts to put guardrails around immigration enforcement by allocating $20 million for body cameras for ICE and CBP officers. 

It also requires DHS to provide monthly updates on how the agency is spending the $190 billion it received from the “One Big Beautiful Bill Act,” the president’s signature tax and spending cuts package signed into law last summer.  

The bill also restricts ICE to spending only $3.8 billion of its fiscal budget on detention. However, the agency will still be able to pull $75 billion from OBBBA, including for detention.

Most Dems say they can’t back any ICE funding

During Thursday’s debate of the bill, Republicans supported the Homeland Security bill, and argued that it contains other agencies beside immigration enforcement. 

But a majority of Democrats said they could not vote to approve the agency’s funding because of ICE’s actions.

“I think we should look at the bill in its totality,” GOP Appropriations Chair Tom Cole of Oklahoma said. “Encouraging people to believe we have massive bad actors in a particular agency… comparing law enforcement officers to the Gestapo or Nazis, that’s not true. The right thing to do is to fund the people who protect America.”

Foxx criticized Democrats for their concerns over ICE enforcement tactics. On the House floor, she defended the agency, arguing that “ICE agents are arresting some of the worst criminals imaginable.”

“The issue is that ICE is terrorizing communities and attacking people, including U.S. citizens,” countered the top Democrat on the Rules Committee, Jim McGovern of Massachusetts. “This is an out-of-control agency at war with communities across the country and they don’t give a damn that you are a U.S. citizen.”

The top Democrat on the Homeland Security Committee, Bennie Thompson of Mississippi, said he could not support voting for the bill because the Trump administration has weaponized the agency and “DHS has strayed from its core mission.”

“Republicans in control of Congress, however, are conducting zero oversight and do nothing but send blank check after blank check to DHS,” he said in a statement. “I have consistently supported the DHS workforce over the past two decades and continue to do so, but I cannot – in good conscience – vote to send another dime to CBP and ICE as they terrorize our communities and sully the constitution.”

Connecticut Rep. Rosa DeLauro, the top Democrat on the Appropriations Committee, said she will vote against the bill, even though she is proud of several provisions, such as the increase to Federal Emergency Management Agency funding and a pay raise for air traffic controllers. 

But, she said, “It is impossible to ignore the impact ICE has had.”

“ICE is an agency that has shown itself to be lawless,” she said.

Republicans tout body camera provision

GOP Rep. Mark Amodei of Nevada, the chair of the panel that deals with funding for Homeland Security, defended the funding bill, and noted that it provides immigration officers with body cameras. He said funds are also provided in the measure for the Coast Guard and agencies dealing with cybersecurity. 

Cuellar of Texas, the top Democrat on that same panel, acknowledged that “this bill is not perfect.” 

“It’s better than the alternative, leaving the department with a blank check,” he said. “This bill flat funds ICE but at the same time, we strengthen oversight of ICE.”

Minnesota Democratic Rep. Betty McCollum said the ICE enforcement in Minnesota and across the country is one of the “worst cases of civil rights violations by the federal government in recent history.”   

“Minnesotans are being racially profiled on a mass scale, assaulted on our streets, kidnapped from our communities,” she said. 

At least 40 immigrants ICE arrested in Minneapolis in recent weeks are being detained at the Torrance County Detention Facility in Estancia, three detainees told Source New Mexico. (Patrick Lohmann/Source NM)

Dozens of immigrants currently housed at a New Mexico detention facility arrived there recently from the Minneapolis area, the site of a massive federal immigration operation and intensifying protests.

Three detainees at the Torrance County Detention Facility in Estancia told Source New Mexico in phone interviews Wednesday evening that Immigration and Customs Enforcement officers arrested them separately in Minnesota on or around Jan. 5 before quickly flying them to a detention facility in El Paso, which was rapidly filling with new arrestees as they stayed there for several days. 

On Jan. 11, officers woke them up around 4 a.m. and bussed about 40 of them to Estancia, a journey that required detainees to be awake for 24 hours, detainee Jorge Cordoba told Source. Everyone on the bus to Estancia was arrested in Minneapolis or nearby, he said. 

Cordoba, 33, said he has lived in Minneapolis for more than 20 years and lives in the United States legally under protected Deferred Action for Childhood Arrival status granted to immigrants who arrived here as children. His parents brought him here from Mexico when he was 10, he said. 

“My wife is a U.S. citizen. I have four kids,” he said. “I’ve been a pretty good citizen. It’s been more than 10 years since I got a speeding ticket.”

Cordoba’s protected status didn’t stop an ICE agent from arresting him around 4:30 a.m. Jan. 5 on his way to work at a humidity control company, he said. ICE agents took him to a temporary detention facility in the city and, by 10 p.m. that night, Cordoba was already in El Paso, he said. 

While Source could not independently corroborate his account, Innovation Law Lab, an immigrant legal advocacy group, provided details of its own interviews with recent jail arrivals, including one account that matches Cordoba’s. 

Now Cordoba remains in New Mexico awaiting a hearing before a judge to demonstrate that he still has DACA status.

“I’m stuck here,” he said. 

Irina Vaynerman, a Minnesota-based lawyer with the organization Groundwork Legal, told Source on Thursday that ICE is deliberately shipping detainees to far-away facilities to deprive them of legal access and family support. 

Her organization is seeking a federal judge’s order to return one of her clients from New Mexico. In a legal filing Wednesday, she argued that “Oscar O.T.”, a Guatemalan man seeking asylum, is being denied constitutional due process and that his transfer to New Mexico violates a judicial order that he be able to face a judge in Minnesota. 

“This is just part of a much bigger story about not just the unlawful detentions that are happening, but on top of that, the intentional evading of the court’s orders and court’s jurisdiction,” she said.

She said ICE shipping detainees out-of-state prevents “individuals who have been unlawfully detained from being able to connect with local counsel and file the legal actions they need to be able to get free.”

In Oscar’s case, she said, ICE’s system for lawyers to track their clients was not working, so they had no clue where he was until she got an email from ICE saying he was being held in “Albuquerque.” 

No ICE detention facility exists in Albuquerque, so Vayneman said it’s possible he is actually in Estancia, an hour or so away from Albuquerque, and was bussed there along with fellow Minneapolis residents from El Paso. 

“That is the type of insanity that is going on, the intentional disappearing of Minnesotans who have been unlawfully detained,” she said. “It is genuinely the government’s effort to try to erase entire swaths of the U.S. population in an unlawful way.”

An ICE spokesperson did not respond to Source’s request for comment about why the agency would hold Minneapolis arrestees in Estancia. A spokesperson for CoreCivic, which owns and operates the facility, referred Source’s request for comment to ICE.

It’s not clear exactly how many Minneapolis arrestees are held in Estancia. Tiffany Wang, a lawyer with Innovation Law Lab, told Source on Wednesday that a “decent number” of roughly 100 detainees the group spoke with last week were from Minnesota. The Portland-based immigrant legal advocacy group does weekly jail visits. 

Wang said her best guess as to why ICE would select Estancia is that the jail has space, following a reduction in detainees that coincided with a two-month-long contract expiration between ICE and CoreCivic late last year. She noted that many detainees previously arrived there from a makeshift ICE facility in the Florida Everglades known as “Alligator Alcatraz.”

“TCDF just has served as this holding place for people caught in other states, and sent here with really no regard to the family that they have in other places or with the attorneys that they may have in their home states, or anything,” she said.

The Legislature is currently considering a ban on public entities like Torrance County from contracting with ICE and CoreCivic for the purpose of immigrant detention. One reason lawmakers cite is to prevent public bodies from being complicit in President Donald Trump’s mass deportation push in New Mexico and across the country. 

A New Mexico House committee is scheduled to take up the bill Thursday afternoon.

Cordoba, along with fellow Estancia detainees Cirilo Figueroa and Felix Garcia, all told Source they worry most about their families more than 1,200 miles away in Minnesota amid protests and an immigration crackdown that have seized the city. Like Cordoba, Garcia and Figueroa said they’ve lived in the city more than 20 years. Garcia, 59, has 12 grandchildren, as well as a nephew whom ICE briefly detained despite him being a US citizen, he said. 

All have watched local news reports from inside the jail showing the chaos in their hometown, they said, and described feeling powerless to help their families from so far away. 

“It’s not fair,” Cordoba said, his voice cracking, “what’s happening.”

Colleagues of Juan Sebastian Carvajal-Munoz, a civil engineer with a work visa detained by agents Thursday morning, discuss where to move his car. Colleagues Amanda Barnett, left, and Ali Brady, right, talk to Top of the Old Port parking lot attendant, Greg Seligman. (Photo by Rose Lundy/ The Maine Monitor)

Masked agents in police vests detained Juan Sebastian Carvajal-Munoz, a civil engineer from Colombia employed by an engineering consulting company, in Portland on Thursday morning. Carvajal-Munoz earned a master’s degree from the University of Maine, and colleagues said he was in the country on a work visa.

Agents left the car he was in, a grey Hyundai Tucson, running — with a smashed window — at the scene on Pearl Street in downtown Portland after taking Carvajal-Munoz just after 9 a.m., according to video from bystanders and an interview with a nearby parking attendant. A passerby then drove the vehicle into the parking lot, the attendant said.

The detention happened as U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement is conducting what it is calling “Operation Catch of the Day,” an immigration enforcement effort across Maine, “targeting the worst of the worst criminal illegal aliens who have terrorized communities,” according to an ICE press release.

But Carvajal-Munoz has no criminal record, according to TLOxp, a background check system from TransUnion.

He is at least the third person detained in Maine whom news outlets have found does not have a criminal record. ICE did not immediately respond to a request for comment and has not publicized a complete list of people it has detained. The agency said on Tuesday it had arrested 50 people in Maine, but the “Worst of the Worst” list it published contained only 13 names as of 12 p.m. on Thursday.

“In America, we don’t believe in secret arrests or secret police,” said Gov. Janet Mills during a Thursday press conference on ICE enforcement in Maine.

Agents pulled Carvajal-Munoz over by the Top of the Old Port parking lot between Cumberland and Congress streets, according to Greg Seligman, the parking lot attendant working at the time. Seligman said he didn’t see the interaction but saw the aftermath: Agents had smashed a car window and left the car running, he said.

Seligman said someone who witnessed the incident asked him if they could move the car into the parking lot. The car was still there around 10 a.m., and there was still glass on the road from where Carvajal-Munoz had been pulled over.

Seligman said Portland police responded to 911 calls after the detention but told him there was nothing local police could do as it was a federal operation. The Portland Police Department confirmed it received a report of a disturbance at 8:48 a.m. and that officers responded to check out the area.

Amanda Barnett, Carvajal-Munoz’s coworker at GEI Consultants in Portland, said Carvajal-Munoz is in Maine legally on a work visa. He has worked at the company for two-and-a-half years, according to another colleague, Ali Brady, who said they started on the same day in June 2023.

“I’m really scared for him,” Barnett said.

GEI Consultants is an engineering and environmental consulting firm with 62 locations across the U.S. and Canada, according to its website. Reached by phone, a company representative confirmed Carvajal-Munoz worked there but declined to comment on the detention while the company was gathering information.

An observer posted a video online of agents in police vests leading Carvajal-Munoz with his hands behind his back to a dark-colored car with flashing lights above the windshield. A second video showed the agents’ car driving away, leaving the car Carvajal-Munoz had been driving in the street.

Barnett said she heard from Carvajal-Munoz’s girlfriend that she received an emergency alert from Carvajal-Munoz’s phone. The girlfriend asked Barnett if he had made it to work. When Barnett and Brady learned he hadn’t, and saw the videos of him online, they both went to Pearl Street.

Carvajal-Munoz received a master’s degree in civil engineering from the University of Maine in Orono in May 2023, the school confirmed Thursday.

Aaron Gallant, associate professor of civil and environmental engineering at UMaine, said Carvajal-Munoz was one of the hardest-working students he has had.

“I know that the entire department and faculty look very highly on Juan Sebastian,” Gallant told The Maine Monitor. “I’m shocked to hear this. I know his employers have been extremely happy with his performance as they’ve communicated to me regularly.”

Carvajal-Munoz has three years of experience in geotechnical engineering, geotechnical instrumentation, and construction observation, according to his LinkedIn profile.

“I have overseen and conducted geotechnical investigations for communities, cities, and agencies using a wide range of drilling, sampling, and in-situ testing methods,” he wrote on the platform. “My technical expertise includes shallow and deep foundation analysis, soil and rock slope stability analysis, and instrumented pile load testing.”

Deputy Editor Erin Rhoda contributed reporting.