Trump Reverses Course in Minnesota

TACO Tuesday?

President Donald Trump addresses members of the media in the James S. Brady Press Briefing Room, Tuesday, January 20, 2026.
Official White House Photo by Daniel Torok

WSJ (“The 48 Hours That Convinced Trump to Change Course in Minnesota“):

The videos were splashed across cable news—and President Trump was paying attention.

Working from the Oval Office as a winter storm barreled toward the nation’s capital, Trump watched as footage of a federal immigration agent shooting Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old intensive-care nurse and U.S. citizen, played on repeat from Minneapolis.

Within hours of the shooting, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem alleged Pretti had attacked officers and was brandishing a gun, labeling the actions domestic terrorism. Border Patrol Commander Gregory Bovino said Pretti wanted to massacre law enforcement. And Stephen Miller, the architect of Trump’s aggressive immigration strategy, called Pretti a “would-be assassin.”

It wasn’t long before that narrative started to fall apart—and Trump started to get frustrated, according to administration officials.

Roughly 48 hours after the shooting, Trump decided to change course, moving to pull back one of his administration’s most high-profile and divisive immigration-enforcement campaigns. By the end of the day Monday, Tom Homan, Trump’s border czar who advocated for a more targeted approach to deportations, was en route to Minneapolis to take charge. Bovino, the face of the hard-edge approach employed in Minnesota, was leaving the state.

Trump’s pivot came after Republican lawmakers and other allies raised concerns that he was squandering public support for his signature campaign issue and senior administration officials increasingly saw the chaotic scenes in Minneapolis as a political liability. Gun rights advocates, normally steadfast allies of Trump, publicly criticized administration officials for criticizing Pretti for carrying a gun during protest activity. State officials said Pretti had a permit to carry the weapon.

In the process, Trump appeared to take sides—for now—in a simmering debate that has been playing out quietly in the administration. Over the past year, Trump’s more hard-line aides, including Noem and her top adviser Corey Lewandowski, have pushed for missions that include roving patrols doing street sweeps in large liberal cities. Homan and others have favored a more methodical but slower approach to go after immigrants with criminal histories or final deportation orders, according to people familiar with the matter.

As Washington was being pummeled by snow and sleet on Sunday and many senior staff stayed home, Trump fielded calls from anxious Republicans, including Sen. Lindsey Graham of South Carolina, who delivered a message that Trump was already starting to internalize: The White House needed to find a way to pivot the narrative away from the shootings.

Graham told the president that the grisly visuals on TV needed to be changed, saying that they were overshadowing the success of other aspects of his immigration agenda, according to a person familiar with the call.

In an interview with The Wall Street Journal on Sunday afternoon, Trump declined to say whether the federal agent who fatally shot Pretti had acted appropriately and said the administration was reviewing the incident. He also signaled that he was considering withdrawing some federal immigration officials from Minnesota.

It was the first time that some senior advisers to the president learned that Trump was considering rethinking the administration’s strategy in Minneapolis, according to administration officials.

On Sunday night, Trump made clear that he was looking to make a deal: In a Truth Social post, he called on Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey to cooperate more closely with federal officials, including providing additional assistance in apprehending people living in the country illegally. Unspoken in the social-media post, but later confirmed by administration officials: If Minnesota leaders agreed to his terms, Trump would pull some U.S. Customs and Border Protection agents out of the state.

The next morning, Trump spoke by phone with Homan, according to administration officials, to discuss giving his longtime adviser a more prominent role. He surprised some aides when he posted a message on social media that he would be sending Homan to Minnesota. “Tom is tough but fair, and will report directly to me,” Trump wrote.

Later, the president talked with Walz and laid out conditions to reduce the number of federal agents in the state. Trump, who has repeatedly lashed out at Walz, characterized the call as productive, adding that they were “on a similar wavelength.” Trump also spoke with Frey.

White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt further sought to cool tensions, distancing Trump from some of his adviser’s rhetoric, even as she continued to blame Democratic leaders for fomenting protesters. “Nobody here at the White House, including the president of the United States, wants to see Americans hurt or killed and losing their lives in American streets,” she told reporters Monday. Trump has made clear that he will continue to focus on fraud in Minnesota even as he rethinks his immigration enforcement strategy.

Reuters (“Trump’s immigration approval drops to record low, Reuters/Ipsos poll finds“):

American approval of U.S. President Donald Trump’s immigration policy fell to its lowest level since his return to the White House in a new Reuters/Ipsos poll, with a majority of Americans saying his crackdown on immigration has gone too far.

The poll, conducted nationwide Friday through Sunday, gathered responses before and after immigration officers on Saturday killed a second U.S. citizen in Minneapolis during confrontations with protesters over Trump’s deployment of immigration agents to cities across the U.S.

Just 39% of Americans approve of the job Trump is doing on immigration, down from 41% earlier this month, while 53% disapprove, the poll found. Immigration was a brighter spot for Trump’s popularity in the weeks following his January inauguration. In February, 50% approved and 41% disapproved.

[…]

Some 58% of poll respondents said U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents have gone “too far” in their crackdown, while 12% said they had not gone far enough and 26% said the agents’ efforts were “about right.” About nine in 10 Democrats said the agents have gone too far, compared to two in 10 Republicans and six in 10 independents.

Axios (“The dam is breaking on Republicans questioning Trump’s DHS“):

After lockstep unity on immigration for the first year of Trump 2.0, a growing number of Republican lawmakers are calling for investigations and testimony from top Trump officials after the deadly shooting of Alex Pretti.

The dam is breaking, with Republicans more directly questioning the administration — including Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem — for its handling of the tragedy in Minnesota. “I disagree with Noem’s premature DHS response, which came before all the facts were known and weakened confidence,” Sen. John Curtis (R-Utah) posted on X on Monday.

Noem is expected to testify for an oversight hearing in front of the Senate Judiciary Committee on March 3, Chair Chuck Grassley’s (R-Iowa) office confirmed. The GOP chairs of Homeland Security committees in both chambers have also called on top DHS officials to testify in upcoming hearings. “Today, I call on the heads of ICE, CBP, and USCIS to testify before the Homeland Security Committee,” Sen. Rand Paul (R-Ky.) posted Monday afternoon, along with screenshots of his requests.

I am deeply troubled by the shootings in Minneapolis involving federal agents,” Sen. Jerry Moran (R-Kan.) posted on Monday. “Our Constitution provides citizens protection from the government. We have a right to free speech, to peaceably assemble and to bear arms,” Moran continued.

“I would encourage the administration to be more measured, to recognize the tragedy, and to say, we don’t want anyone’s lives to be lost,” Sen. Ted Cruz (R-Texas) told reporters.

“I support a full and transparent investigation into the tragic event in Minneapolis,” Sen. Todd. Young (R-Ind.) said in a statement. “Congress has requested testimony from ICE, CBP, and USCIS leaders in an open hearing, and they should testify soon.”

This builds on other GOP statements from over the weekend — such as from Sens. Dave McCormick (R-Pa.), Thom Tillis (R-N.C.) and Bill Cassidy (R-La.), and Reps. Dusty Johnson (R-S.D.), Michael Baumgartner (R-Wash.), Max Miller (R-Ohio) and Michael McCaul (R-Texas).

I must admit to being pleasantly surprised that at least a handful of Republican officials are responding to the outrage and that President Trump is listening and shifting course. Given that the MAGA base continued to cheer on the brutality of the crackdown—despite or because it was happening in a place with one of the lowest rates of illegal immigration in the country—I was not expecting a pivot anytime soon.

While I get the appeal of the “Trump Always Chickens Out” meme, I actually see his willingness to quickly back off harmful policies when faced with backlash as his greatest asset as a leader. Most of his predecessors would stubbornly cling to their decisions lest they look weak. Trump simply declares victory and moves on.

Of course, I would much prefer that the President were surrounded by competent advisors who could warn of the quite predictable outcome of policies like absurdly high tariffs, threatening allies with invasion, or flooding the streets of peaceful cities with poorly trained wannabe soldiers cosplaying as police. The motto of one of his predecessors,* “Don’t do stupid shit,” is good advice. But, if you’re going to unleash bad policies, moving on from them quickly beats the alternative.

“Stop doing stupid shit” is decidedly better than “Keep doing stupid shit.”


*If you prefer, Google’s motto works just as well.

FILED UNDER: Borders and Immigration, US Politics, , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , , ,
James Joyner
About James Joyner
James Joyner is a Professor of Security Studies. He's a former Army officer and Desert Storm veteran. Views expressed here are his own. Follow James on Twitter @DrJJoyner.

Comments

  1. Scott says:

    BTW,

    Here is what is happening in Congress, according to Punchbowl News, an insidery, gossipy political newsletter. For what’s it worth.

    Trump in a corner over Minneapolis

    President Donald Trump has his back against a wall amid an unexpected government shutdown fight — and he and his party are acting like it.

    Faced with a set of difficult options to address the national uproar over two deadly shootings by federal agents in Minneapolis, Trump has adopted an unusually conciliatory posture that underscores his political vulnerability.

    Top Senate Republicans followed suit. A chorus of GOP senators began speaking out Monday in ways that validated Democrats’ concerns about ICE and CBP’s hard-edged immigration crackdown under Trump.

    Rather than digging their heels in as the Jan. 30 funding deadline approaches, GOP appropriators are making clear they’re searching for an escape hatch to avert a partial government shutdown.

    Yet no one is certain what kind of compromise can be reached. Unlike the record-setting government shutdown last fall, key Republicans and the White House are saying at the outset that they’re willing to negotiate around Democrats’ demands. Senators have begun initial cross-aisle conversations, with Republicans floating potential offers that wouldn’t require amending the funding package.

    For their part, Democrats believe the political environment is such that they can extract real concessions, citing Trump’s unmistakable shift and Hill Republicans’ uneasiness with the administration’s handling of the fallout from Saturday’s shooting.

    Not so fast. Republicans are dismissing Democrats’ push to renegotiate full-year funding for DHS and ICE by splitting it off from the five other bills in the FY2026 funding package. Such a move would require a new vote in the House, which is on recess this week. There would be a short-term shutdown at a minimum — or maybe worse. We’ll get into that.

    Instead, Senate Appropriations Committee Chair Susan Collins (R-Maine) and Sen. Katie Britt (R-Ala.), who helped end the last shutdown, told us Monday that the initial discussions center around actions by Trump that can be taken “outside of” the legislative process. Democrats have already said this won’t be enough.

    But GOP congressional leaders and the White House are desperate to avoid a scenario in which the funding package has to go back to the House, which explains their opposition to splitting off the DHS bill.

    Here’s the concern gripping the top levels of the Trump administration — the House simply can’t pass another DHS funding bill under any circumstances.

    Even if Trump were to cut a deal with Democrats that can get through the Senate, House Republicans believe they can’t round up 218 votes to pass a rule to get it on the House floor. Or alternatively, find 290 lawmakers willing to pass it under suspension of the rules. Republicans just don’t believe there’s a coalition in the House that can pass another DHS bill.

    That’s why Trump has been focused on “de-escalatory measures,” as one administration official told us, a first step toward placating Democrats.

    The Trump administration has already kneecapped Gregory Bovino, the CBP official in charge of operations in Minneapolis. Trump has tapped Tom Homan, the border czar, to take over in Bovino’s place. Trump spoke by phone with Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey on Monday. Later, DHS Secretary Kristi Noem finally agreed to testify before the Senate Judiciary Committee after months of stonewalling. Noem — who has a real problem on both sides of the aisle on the Hill — and her top aide, Corey Lewandowski, met for two hours with Trump on Monday night.

    Yet Democrats have made clear to us they simply won’t accept — nor do they trust — executive actions alone. There has to be some legislative fix. Some Republicans have floated a separate legislative vehicle to address ICE reforms. But this also would be met with heavy skepticism from Democrats.

    Remember: There’s no deal that will get 47 Democratic votes in the Senate. ICE funding is way too controversial. Plus, even if only a limited number of Senate Democrats favor a DHS deal, it would be difficult for them to vote that way without a signoff from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.

    Inside Dems’ thinking. Senate Democrats want concrete changes to the way the Trump administration conducts immigration enforcement. Some of the options they’ve discussed include forcing ICE and CBP officers to adhere to standard warrant procedures, wear body cameras, lose the face masks and be limited by use-of-force standards.

    While Democrats believe they have the upper hand in this fight, there’s a question of how far they should go with their demands. Specific, targeted policy changes and reforms are likely to be taken seriously by a White House desperate to move past this chapter. Calls to “abolish ICE” won’t be treated with the same level of deference.

    It’s also worth remembering that it was less than two weeks ago that Schumer met with Trump in the Oval Office — at the president’s request. Is it time for Schumer to try to talk to Trump directly again? It may be too early for that. But it could be a smart tactical move as Friday’s funding deadline gets closer.

    There’s also the obvious risk for Democrats: The political fallout from triggering a partial government shutdown just a couple of months after instigating a record 43-day funding lapse. And for DHS, this would hit FEMA at a time when much of the country is dealing with the aftermath of a severe winter storm. The Coast Guard and TSA are under DHS too. Plus, ICE would be funded anyway because of the cash infusion it got from the GOP’s One Big Beautiful Bill last year.

    Failing to pass the six-bill funds package by Friday means the Pentagon could run out of money, potentially impacting troop pay and other critical operations if the White House doesn’t find a workaround again. A shutdown would also impact the Labor, Transportation and HUD departments, among several other agencies.

    ReplyReply
    1
  2. steve222 says:

    I would modify your point about his backing off to note that he usually doubles down first, once or twice before backing off. With the first killing by ICE in MN Trump supported the wild claims by Noel et al that the driver was trying to kill the agent when she clearly was not. In the more recent case you had, as usual, Noem et al making wild, over the top claims easily disputed by visuals that were so at odds with the claims it was much harder to support. The exception here might be the stock market. That gets a quick response. In short, lose life and you might eventually get a response. Lose some money and that gets a fast response.

    As an aside, I cant help but think these killings still get ignored if the people killed were POC. These were nice, normal very white people. Even GOP politicians seem to recognize that’s not so well tolerated.

    Steve

    ReplyReply
    7
  3. DK says:

    Too much made of this supposed pivot from Epstein’s pedophilic bestie. Unprofessional thugs from ICE and BP are still terrorizing Minnesota children. Immigrants charged with no felonies still held in indefinite detention without due process. Noem and Bovino still receiving salary from US taxpayers.

    Leavitt’s minimally-softened tone (because some NRA types are mad) doesn’t reach the minimum contrition required to be called a course correction. Not yet.

    But this part…

    at least a handful of Republican officials are responding to the outrage

    …is notable, worthy of highlighting. Will we get more, on other fronts? Skeptical.

    I actually see his willingness to quickly back off harmful policies when faced with backlash as his greatest asset as a leader. Most of his predecessors would stubbornly cling to their decisions lest they look weak.

    Trump’s Johnny-come-lately micropivots don’t really merit even this unenthusiastic approval. His belated Greenland retreat is not undoing damage done to NATO, US power, and transatlantic relations — which, if not permanent, will take umpteen years to fix. Sending in Homan, a clown, will not undead Renee Good or untraumatize tear gassed children.

    It’s no vice on their part that Trump’s predecessors maybe wouldn’t retreat from their imaginary fascism. Prior presidents wouldn’t have to retreat from blowing up NATO or attacking American citizens with paratroopers, because they’d never do these awful things. And it’s not virtue when Trump tepidly unfuks his own unprecedented messes.

    A judge just ruled against Trump’s ballroom construction. If Trump were to now abandon the project, we’re still left with a pile of rubble.

    Now if MAGA Republicans stop fellating Putin and instead work with Denmark and the EU to ensure Ukraine can force Putin to quit bombing and freezing Kyiv, that’d be a pivot. If Trump stops cutting Americans’ healthcare, fires Miller, redirects the bloated ICE budget to Medicaid and Medicare expansion, yes, let’s golf clap at him for changing course.

    Sadly, I don’t expect to receive my long-coveted unicorn pony this year tho. *sobs*

    ReplyReply
    7
  4. Modulo Myself says:

    The fact that they did the stupid shit in the first place is eternally damning. They’re going to try to spin this, like how in Iraq they rebranded the same crap over and over. I don’t see it working.

    The real struggle is going to be how to treat reality. ICE is taking people who have been in this country for a long time, they’re taking people who are here legally via asylum and the courts are trying to stop it. It’s not like putting in Tom Homan is going to make reality different, unless you hand him 50K in a bag. ~35% of voters want this to continue, and the fact that a noble person was executed by a bunch of ignoble thugs isn’t going to create a change of heart in these people. It’s going to make them worse.

    ReplyReply
    3
  5. DAllenABQ says:

    @DK: THIS. Well said.

    ReplyReply
  6. charontwo says:

    Greg Sargent at The New Republic interviews Senator Chris Murphy:

    TNR transcript

    Sargent: Well, so let’s look ahead. Do you expect the entire Democratic caucus to hold the line here? It’s sort of easy to see a handful of Democrats breaking away and supporting continued funding to DHS. How do you see that unfolding?

    And would you urge Senator Schumer to make sure that doesn’t happen? Would you urge Senator Schumer to keep the caucus united behind no funding unless you do this package of restrictions?

    Murphy: Well, I would be a fool to make a prediction. Obviously, we have a really diverse caucus. I think we held together very well when we were demanding an end to the plan to increase people’s health care premiums. But then in the end, we had a handful of Democrats that crossed over and ultimately agreed to something that was not sufficient to protect our citizens.

    I don’t know what’s going to happen this time around. I think right now my sense is that we are pretty united around, A., demanding that there be a separate standalone vote on the Department of Homeland Security budget and B., that there will be a conversation around significant restraints. Beyond that, I can’t predict the future.

    Sargent: Right. Just to clarify for people, what you’re referring to there is that Democrats want to advance other appropriations bills separate from DHS funding before the deadline. Do you expect Trump and Republicans to agree to that? I guess indications are that they won’t. If not, what happens then? You really need Democrats to hold the damn line here and refuse to budge until they get what they want in terms of DHS restrictions.

    Murphy: Well, I mean, that’s not an unreasonable request at all—especially after Alex Pretti’s murder—to simply say, Let’s isolate the budget that we have disagreements on and then we can pass those other budgets. Now, disclosure: I’m not a big fan of those other budgets.

    Murphy: And listen, this is a moral moment. I know that sometimes Democrats are afraid or reluctant to engage in a fight on the issue of immigration or border security because I think we believe that we too consistently in the past have lost those fights.

    A., this president has lost any political advantage he has on the issue of immigration and border security, because people don’t believe anything that’s happening in Minneapolis has to do with border security. But, B., it’s not really an issue about immigration or border security any longer. It’s an issue of abuse of power. It’s an issue of humanity and morality.

    And that’s a fight that we can win, again, because we aren’t demanding broad immigration reform. We are simply saying: Stop murdering U.S. citizens. Stop purposefully evading the law. We want ICE to behave lawfully. And if they do that, they will likely get enough Democratic votes to pass this budget. That is absolutely a fight that we can win.

    Murphy: I do think that we’ve reached another one of these breaking points where the public is looking at a runaway democracy and they feel like maybe no one can save it. Well, Senate Democrats are in a position to save it, because they do need our votes to fund this illegality.

    And I think if people don’t see us fighting on something as existential as whether we condone the federal government murdering our own citizens, then there will be a mass withdrawal from politics altogether.

    I do think this is a critical moment. The whole country is seized by what they have seen—the statistics suggest that 80 to 90 percent of Americans have seen these videos—and they desperately want somebody to stand up for the rule of law. So yes, if we do not make a fight right now, I think it could result in just a massive withdrawal of participation in our civic life.

    And that is how democracies die. Democracies die not often simply by force—it would be totalitarian—but by citizens deciding that there’s no one that is willing to stand up and save them. And we have to show as the primary opposition party, Senate Democrats, that we are willing to stand up and fight for the ideals of this country. This is a pivotal, pivotal moment in the fight to save our democracy.

    Sargent: Right. And to be clear, you’re also talking here about the Democratic base. The Democratic base would just withdraw if they actually see their leaders in this situation not standing up.

    Murphy: Yeah. And again, this isn’t a hard moment for us to stand up because the people are with us. 60 to 70 percent of Americans don’t support what ICE is doing. People want to see us fight for our values right now. And yes, the result will be a lot of voters who tend to turn out in midterm elections just won’t.

    And a lot of Democratic activists who we rely on to protect our democracy—they’re the ones that show up at these national and local protests. I think many of them will also start to scratch their heads and say: Wait a second, if I’m alone out here and my national leaders aren’t willing to fight, then it’s not worth it.

    But let’s not be pessimistic about this. We’re talking today because Senate Democrats this weekend stood together and said: We are not going to fund the Department of Homeland Security without reforms. And so I am very hopeful. I am planning for my colleagues sticking together to demand those reforms.

    Italics from the original.

    ReplyReply

Speak Your Mind

*