DHS restricts congressional visits to ICE facilities in Minneapolis(npr.org)
npr.org
DHS restricts congressional visits to ICE facilities in Minneapolis
https://www.npr.org/2026/01/11/nx-s1-5673949/dhs-restricts-congressional-visits-to-ice-facilities-in-minneapolis-with-new-policy
44 comments
When a future Democrat enters, they'll rally around Democrats being hypocrites if the D's do go that way. Judges could choose that point to say "government overreach has gone too far." You are correct that a precedent is available. I think D's would rather a less totally partisan and authoritative environment so they'll probably steer the other way for the most part but not entirely.
> The sheer brazenness of calling legitimate congressional oversight 'circus-like publicity stunts' is on a whole new level
Is it? I feel like the mud slinging has been in vogue for a few decades.
The willful lawbreaking is new. But the rhetoric feels familiar.
> point do the MAGA folks realize that they are enabling a future Democrat in the White House to do the exact same thing
None of them do. (To be fair, administrations have been expanding the Presidenxy since WWII. We never had a Constitutional discussion of strategic nuclear command or a standing superpower’s army.)
My pet projects are shredding federal student loan records, tearing the turbines out of coal plants and ceasing enforcement on tariffs and duties on all imported food on day one.
Is it? I feel like the mud slinging has been in vogue for a few decades.
The willful lawbreaking is new. But the rhetoric feels familiar.
> point do the MAGA folks realize that they are enabling a future Democrat in the White House to do the exact same thing
None of them do. (To be fair, administrations have been expanding the Presidenxy since WWII. We never had a Constitutional discussion of strategic nuclear command or a standing superpower’s army.)
My pet projects are shredding federal student loan records, tearing the turbines out of coal plants and ceasing enforcement on tariffs and duties on all imported food on day one.
Possibly they don't think there will be any future Democrats in the white house because of the work they are doing now.
> enabling a future Democrat in the White House to do the exact same thing
Assuming there will be a future D in the white house, I don't believe they will do the exact same thing.
I don't think the current administration does either.
Assuming there will be a future D in the white house, I don't believe they will do the exact same thing.
I don't think the current administration does either.
Go look at @DHSgov on Twitter. They’re leaning into the fascist rhetoric. There’s no pretense anymore.
It’s obvious that they don’t plan on a future Democrat ever occupying the White House again.
It’s obvious that they don’t plan on a future Democrat ever occupying the White House again.
It is really crazy the kind of things they are posting openly on social media now. I’ve seen them, several times, repeat lines that are mass posted by supremacist accounts on X. The most flagrant one was the call to deport 100 million Americans - a third of the country - which is another way for saying, “get rid of all non white people”. This is a constitutional crisis, a humanitarian crisis in the making, and also an economic crisis in the making. What is going to happen to HN’s tech ecosystem without all those talented workers coming to America?
HN userbase: doesn’t look like anything to me.
The sad fact is that many of our colleagues, friends, and neighbors have been closeted white supremacists and are actively enjoying this.
The sad fact is that many of our colleagues, friends, and neighbors have been closeted white supremacists and are actively enjoying this.
Democratic Reps. Ilhan Omar, Angie Craig and Kelly Morrison showed up at the Whipple Federal Building and were initially allowed in, but shortly after, asked to leave and blocked from touring the facility.
What pisses me off about this story is, that's the end of the story. We went in, they told us to get out, we told them they're breaking the law, they said "We don't care," and we realized how cogent and amazing that was, and said "Welp, that satisfies me! They sure did win that argument! Let's skedaddle everybody!" The only acceptable end of the story is that you went around and deputized whoever you needed and went back in there and got what you came for.
What pisses me off about this story is, that's the end of the story. We went in, they told us to get out, we told them they're breaking the law, they said "We don't care," and we realized how cogent and amazing that was, and said "Welp, that satisfies me! They sure did win that argument! Let's skedaddle everybody!" The only acceptable end of the story is that you went around and deputized whoever you needed and went back in there and got what you came for.
I don't get it either. If you're a member of congress push your way in there! Let them cause a confrontation so that it can be fought in courts.
Exactly. Let it become a spectacle.
Let them cross red lines. Don’t let them regroup and come up with some falsified justification like Noem is doing repeatedly (with this policy, with Renee Good’s murder, etc).
Whatever these people do sets precedent due to the public exposure they get. If they start more (physical) confrontations, the more extreme among their supporters may see that as an invitation to become less peaceful. The administration would see that as a justification for cracking down harder. Protesters that are breaking the law would be the icing on top.
Tim Waltz's decision to increasing the readiness of Minnesotas National guard shows that the situation is extremely tense and the opposition to the administration is forced to walk on eggshells.
It's a near perfect catch: do too little and they won't care and continue implementing their playbook. Do too much and they can and will move faster.
Tim Waltz's decision to increasing the readiness of Minnesotas National guard shows that the situation is extremely tense and the opposition to the administration is forced to walk on eggshells.
It's a near perfect catch: do too little and they won't care and continue implementing their playbook. Do too much and they can and will move faster.
"Doing too much" such that they move faster is called opposing them and losing, and really still consists of not doing enough. Doing enough to stop them (i.e. opposing them and winning) is doing enough.
In a way, you're not wrong... but I think actually doing enough requires ordinary citizens to rise up en masse, and I think they realize that's not going to happen, so unfortunately the safer option seems to be walking on eggshells.
This is submission to tyranny, and it’s not safer in the long run.
The only institution that matters once a regime rejects law and order, is we the people. If the people roll over, then they are submitting to their dominators, and no one is free.
The only institution that matters once a regime rejects law and order, is we the people. If the people roll over, then they are submitting to their dominators, and no one is free.
You're not wrong. People are too comfortable to do anything though, so failure is likely inevitable.
Same thing has been happening at least since the Mayans... they refused to give up their lifestyles even in the face of their own surrounding natural resources being eaten up from their fast expansion, and they eventually died off.
Same thing has been happening at least since the Mayans... they refused to give up their lifestyles even in the face of their own surrounding natural resources being eaten up from their fast expansion, and they eventually died off.
Peace at any price?
Unfortunately history has taught us that tyranny can only be defeated with force.
Unfortunately history has taught us that tyranny can only be defeated with force.
It is nearly impossible to argue for use of force and defend the current constitution at the same time. Those politicians would act against the one construct that gives them the legitimate power to act in the first place.
On that path, the current order would have to be broken down completely before a new one can be fully established. That would mean at least a new constitutional order and the US isn't ready for that. The reverence for the current constitution is has very strong roots in US society.
On that path, the current order would have to be broken down completely before a new one can be fully established. That would mean at least a new constitutional order and the US isn't ready for that. The reverence for the current constitution is has very strong roots in US society.
You're saying anyone using force to enforce the Constitution (yes, the current one, thanks for specifying) is automatically acting illegitimately. The Constitution isn't a nonviolence treatise; nowhere in it does it forbid the use of force to enforce itself. Also, I notice you appear to apply no such restriction upon the treasonous and the lawless, who are already working to undermine and oppose the Constitution and are apparently free to use violence to do that. This is literally the opposite of the truth and not how laws work. Unless you're saying all police enforcing laws are illegitimate? But then that means ICE is also illegitimate. It's a perfect catch.
I was looking at the roles of elected politicians in this, not the general public or the police force. I think I wasn't clear about this.
A constitution should have peace and prosperity for the country as one of its goals. This means that force against the people should be the monopoly of an institution that is governed by laws in order to uphold at least a minimum amount of order in pursuit of the other goals. That legitimizes police.
Now we get to the matter of how a certain constitutional order is allowed to defend itself against domestic threats within its own legal framework. The US constitution relies a lot on balance of power and does not regulate much else in case that this fails. I do not know of any constitutional right for a congressman to lead violent actions against other parts of the government. And that leads to the situation where the most effective actions to restore order are more detrimental to that order in the short term.
And the Democratic party is refusing to go there. Think of that what you will, but that's why their actions amd responses are so tame.
A constitution should have peace and prosperity for the country as one of its goals. This means that force against the people should be the monopoly of an institution that is governed by laws in order to uphold at least a minimum amount of order in pursuit of the other goals. That legitimizes police.
Now we get to the matter of how a certain constitutional order is allowed to defend itself against domestic threats within its own legal framework. The US constitution relies a lot on balance of power and does not regulate much else in case that this fails. I do not know of any constitutional right for a congressman to lead violent actions against other parts of the government. And that leads to the situation where the most effective actions to restore order are more detrimental to that order in the short term.
And the Democratic party is refusing to go there. Think of that what you will, but that's why their actions amd responses are so tame.
Senator Tillis today: the independence and credibility of DOJ is what are in question, not the Fed or Fed chairman. And he says he will block Fed nominees until the legal matter is resolved.
Republicans are the majority party. The opposition party constituents need to persuade only a handful of Republicans in each house, get them to caucus with Democrats, and you have an entirely lawful, civil, non-violent way of opposing a president.
This has a greater chance of enduring success than expecting an increasing body count of people getting shot in the face to persuade more people to participate.
I am aware most Republicans in Congress were elected expressly to enable Trump. But accepting that as the intractable part of the problem? No, the intractable part is extracting more votes out of the party in the minority.
Republicans are the majority party. The opposition party constituents need to persuade only a handful of Republicans in each house, get them to caucus with Democrats, and you have an entirely lawful, civil, non-violent way of opposing a president.
This has a greater chance of enduring success than expecting an increasing body count of people getting shot in the face to persuade more people to participate.
I am aware most Republicans in Congress were elected expressly to enable Trump. But accepting that as the intractable part of the problem? No, the intractable part is extracting more votes out of the party in the minority.
I personally don't trust Republican members of congress to stand up against their administration in any meaningful and coordinated way. But I would love to see that happen as the start of a restoration of a functional balance of power. This could set the US on a nonviolent path to reduced tension and hopefully towards a normalcy in politics with the possibility of more honesty and fairness from th administration, open civil discourse around contentious topics and non-erratic decision making (I am still allowed to dream, right?)
I don’t trust them either, mainly because the Republicans in Congress were not elected for their trustworthiness to honor their oath to the Constitution, but to let Trump do as he wishes.
Almost all Republicans in Congress who challenged Trump have quit or lost their elections. The survivors do his bidding.
Hopefully they still have some limits we’re as yet unaware.
That is the appeal I’m making, is for these elected officials who ostensibly represent everyone in their district or state, not only the people who voted for them. They really do still old school tally up letters and phone calls.
I’m saying before the next election, that’s what we have. And peaceful assembly.
Almost all Republicans in Congress who challenged Trump have quit or lost their elections. The survivors do his bidding.
Hopefully they still have some limits we’re as yet unaware.
That is the appeal I’m making, is for these elected officials who ostensibly represent everyone in their district or state, not only the people who voted for them. They really do still old school tally up letters and phone calls.
I’m saying before the next election, that’s what we have. And peaceful assembly.
> Unfortunately history has taught us that tyranny can only be defeated with force.
Ok then. What's your plan to defeat them with force? Literally: Where's your army? Where are your guns?
Ok then. What's your plan to defeat them with force? Literally: Where's your army? Where are your guns?
We're expected to comply with the 'law' and not do anything to impede investigations or ICE activity such as living on the same block as an ICE raid. But they're not expected to comply with the law and actively impede investigations into their activity.
And for reference, ICE as we speak is doing door to door raids in Minneapolis targeting everyone, including American citizens.
And for reference, ICE as we speak is doing door to door raids in Minneapolis targeting everyone, including American citizens.
This is how tyranny works. 'for my friends everything, for my enemies the law' is the basic premise.
The day before these people said a woman deserved to be shot in the face 3 times for bumping into a federal officer they said that January 6th was peaceful and celebrated a president pardoning... people that attacked federal officers.
The day before these people said a woman deserved to be shot in the face 3 times for bumping into a federal officer they said that January 6th was peaceful and celebrated a president pardoning... people that attacked federal officers.
They’re literally Trump’s private gestapo army. Their actions are what gestapo did historically. And they’re only accountable to Trump, with no mechanism to hold anyone accountable.
A new police force is needed to arrest the president and others in the executive branch who break the law. Otherwise the political system of America is broken.
A new police force is needed to arrest the president and others in the executive branch who break the law. Otherwise the political system of America is broken.
[deleted]
They aren't though. Their actions are more like the Sturmabteilung AKA the SA AKA brownshirts. Dipshit hillbillies let loose with "absolute immunity."
Of course, for Noem / DHS, its about buying time., she bets by the time anyone goes to the court and gets a temporary restraining order, that they'll rob Omar etc of the optics of visiting. While throwing up the confusion of the other funding source as a legal hail mary
Hopefully Omar are going to get a restraining order...
Hopefully Omar are going to get a restraining order...
This is blatantly illegal since a judge recently ruled they MUST allow congressional visits:
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/17/us/politics/ice-inspectio...
The DHS (Kristi Noem) now claims their repeat of the same illegal policy is now legal because it is using a different funding source, which is obviously false. It’s all the same pool of money.
https://www.nytimes.com/2025/12/17/us/politics/ice-inspectio...
The DHS (Kristi Noem) now claims their repeat of the same illegal policy is now legal because it is using a different funding source, which is obviously false. It’s all the same pool of money.
The "pool of money" idea itself has got to go. Government spending and revenues operate much more like sources and sinks than a purse.
Spending injects money into the economy and revenues extract it. The two roughly balance each other but only because overspending/undertaxing increases the money supply in negative ways and under pending/overtaxing decreased the money supply in other negative ways. Besides these, interest rates are the third lever of the economic engine.
The constraint is inflation rather than solvency for states who have monetary sovereignty.
I get the appeal and the logical, rational appeal of the purse model, but it leads to a warped idea of how the government and economy interact.
Spending injects money into the economy and revenues extract it. The two roughly balance each other but only because overspending/undertaxing increases the money supply in negative ways and under pending/overtaxing decreased the money supply in other negative ways. Besides these, interest rates are the third lever of the economic engine.
The constraint is inflation rather than solvency for states who have monetary sovereignty.
I get the appeal and the logical, rational appeal of the purse model, but it leads to a warped idea of how the government and economy interact.
What color are your tax dollars?
So? Since when does legal matter?
MIGHT MAKES RIGHT. HEIL.
MIGHT MAKES RIGHT. HEIL.
Their bet is that they will not follow the law, nothing will be done about it, and Americans will be ok with it.
So far, that has been the case. The constitution has become meaningless thanks to maga, and you're better off recognizing that America no longer exists the way you thought about the country.
So far, that has been the case. The constitution has become meaningless thanks to maga, and you're better off recognizing that America no longer exists the way you thought about the country.
It’s absurd that there is no actual way to hold the presidency accountable. No way to arrest them for violating the law? No way to arrest them for ignoring court orders? No way to arrest them for detaining people for months and then letting them go and dropping all charges? What’s the point of such a childishly designed political system?
> nothing will be done about it
> thanks to maga
I'd say a failure to do something about it is everyone's fault.
> thanks to maga
I'd say a failure to do something about it is everyone's fault.
Link for when it's flagged: https://www.npr.org/2026/01/11/nx-s1-5673949/dhs-restricts-c...
what happened to her dog?
black dog, sitting in the right rear seat, window all the way down, did the happy dance as the executioner got close.
> Noem also said "there is an increasing trend of replacing legitimate oversight activities with circus-like publicity stunts, all of which creates a chaotic environment with heightened emotions."
Wow, just wow! The sheer brazenness of calling legitimate congressional oversight 'circus-like publicity stunts' is on a whole new level. Apparently, the administration at it's sole discretion can decide that congressional oversight is a 'publicity stunt' and disallow it.
Forget doing what is right for the country. At point do the MAGA folks realize that they are enabling a future Democrat in the White House to do the exact same thing, except for causes they don't agree with when they cheer on such blatant authoritarian behaviour.