Fix Immigration Enforcement Before Trust Collapses
The worst outcomes of tough enforcement don’t discredit enforcement itself – they expose incoherence.
Federal immigration operations in Minneapolis this January left two U.S. citizens dead. On Jan. 7, Renée Good, 37, was shot in her car by an ICE officer. Officials say she tried to run him over; video appears to show her steering away. On Jan. 24, Alex Pretti, 37 – an ICU nurse and Army veteran – was killed during a chaotic street arrest by federal agents. Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz condemned the raids as federal overreach; the White House defended them as a restoration of order.
A week later, in response to the backlash, Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, announced that the administration would withdraw about 700 federal immigration officers – roughly a quarter of the surge force – from Minnesota, leaving around 2,000 agents in the state.
Shortly afterward, the Trump administration announced it would cease the enforcement surge in Minnesota.
Washington’s response can’t just be moving agents around or ceasing operations – it has to be changing the rules of the game. The answer is not to abandon the rule of law, but to raise standards. The preventable deaths of Good and Pretti are examples to sharpen the case for a return to priority-based enforcement: focus on dangerous offenders, repeat immigration violators, traffickers, and fugitives, not broad dragnets that waste manpower and invite confrontation with the general public.
Federal failures in Minnesota are not a case against immigration enforcement. They are a case against incoherent enforcement – federal power exercised on local streets without shared priorities, shared operating rules, or a functioning partnership with state and local authorities. Every unnecessary death or injury of a citizen, a bystander, or even an undocumented person erodes the public trust enforcement depends on.
Credible enforcement rests on two pillars: clear priorities and professional execution. In a federal system, it also requires a workable division of labor between Washington and the states. When that division breaks down, enforcement stops looking like a lawful administrative process and starts looking like street confrontation.
That’s what Minneapolis revealed. When state and local jurisdictions refuse routine forms of assistance – information sharing, custody transfers, orderly handoffs – federal authorities compensate with high-visibility “surge” activity in dense urban environments.
When Washington responds to political resistance with maximalist theater rather than tight targeting and disciplined operations, escalation becomes predictable: more chaos, more backlash, and more preventable harm.
Every hour spent chasing a non-criminal laborer is an hour not spent arresting a violent fugitive or dismantling a trafficking network.
But priorities alone won’t prevent another Minneapolis. President Trump, working through border czar Tom Homan, must direct DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and ICE leadership to pair a narrower target list with binding operating standards for how federal teams work in a city where local police and county jails control most street contact and custody logistics.
Washington should instead sharpen the case for higher standards – clear priorities focused on criminals, lawful cooperation with state and local agencies, and training and accountability strong enough to prevent preventable tragedy. This was the original mandate of ICE’s Secure Communities and Priority Enforcement programs, and it’s where bipartisan consensus is strongest.
Secure Communities was an effort pioneered in 2008 under George W. Bush and launched in 2009 under Barack Obama. Trump ratified this into an executive order in January 2017. However, on Jan. 20, 2021, President Joe Biden revoked EO 13768 allowing ICE to continue its data-sharing programs with states.
Washington should treat cooperation as a design problem, not a messaging war. Where jurisdictions are willing, DHS should expand formal partnerships – including 287(g) models where local law enforcement is deputized for immigration activities – with clear scope, training requirements, supervision, and auditability. Where jurisdictions are not willing to deputize local officers, basic protocols should still be negotiated: standardized data definitions, detainer procedures that respect due process, and custody-transfer playbooks that keep high-risk releases orderly.
When DHS does run surge operations in dense urban areas, it should operate under a uniform doctrine that looks like serious law enforcement, not ad hoc confrontation.
That means incident-command structure; clear role delineation across components; explicit use-of-force and de-escalation expectations; medical-response requirements; mandatory body-worn camera policies where feasible; and structured after-action reviews with consequences for violations. If an arrest is high-risk, trained teams should handle it under clear command authority, with a medical plan on scene.
Professionalization must keep pace with any hiring surge. If the administration wants more agents on the street, it must invest accordingly: rigorous training on legal authorities and limits; scenario-based de-escalation; safe vehicle-interdiction standards; command-and-control discipline; and supervision that rewards restraint as much as aggression. The goal is not to make agents timid. It is to make them competent – and to ensure that “enforcement” means lawful, measured action rather than avoidable tragedy.
There is also a political lesson. If Republicans want to own the immigration issue, they should pair tougher enforcement against illegal entry with an equally serious defense of legal immigration.
A high-deportation posture will be more sustainable – and more just – if matched by practical legislation that expands and modernizes lawful pathways, especially for high-skilled workers and critical industries. Otherwise, the public will see only churn and conflict, not a system designed to serve national interests.
In fact, polls show approval of the president’s handling of immigration has tumbled in the wake of these incidents, with disapproval rising to 61% in January.
The path ahead is straightforward: Target the worst offenders, rebuild state and local partnerships, professionalize operations and training, and be transparent with the public about standards and intent.
These steps are not concessions to “open borders” ideology. They are the minimum requirements for law and order – without which enforcement will keep generating tragedy, and political support for any serious immigration policy will continue to collapse.