Trump Accuses Minneapolis Leaders of ‘Inciting Insurrection’ Over ICE Clash

Paul Riverbank, 1/25/2026 Amid mounting unrest, President Trump and Minnesota officials clash over immigration enforcement and fraud allegations, escalating rhetoric to unprecedented levels. The standoff raises critical questions about law, order, and the limits of federal power in the United States.

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey didn’t mince words at an impromptu press gathering downtown. Halting only briefly between reporters’ questions, Frey turned his attention back to Washington: “End this immigration operation, and safety will be restored in the city.” He looked tired, worn, and frustrated. Not long after, Governor Tim Walz joined the chorus, supporting Frey and denouncing the continuing federal operation. Their statements weren’t subtle—nor were they left unanswered.

President Trump, always eager to jump into the fray, responded swiftly on social media. The message wasn’t merely combative; it was almost visceral: “LET OUR ICE PATRIOTS DO THEIR JOB! 12,000 Illegal Alien Criminals, many of them violent, have been arrested and taken out of Minnesota…” The all-caps message, typical of Trump at his most emphatic, was bristling with unverified numbers and warnings of worse to come if federal agents were undermined.

For observers, it was hard not to notice the president’s sudden pivot. He shifted from defending ICE to lashing out over what he described as a “Somali fraud scheme,” zeroing in on Representative Ilhan Omar in an allegation that she had mysteriously amassed $34 million. “Where are the Tens of Billions of Dollars that have been stolen?” Trump pressed on, painting a picture of a state besieged by criminality, enabled—or so he claimed—by local Democratic leadership.

This allegation crept further than most presidents would dare. In an era where accusations are flung daily across the airwaves, labeling two state leaders as “inciting insurrection” still managed to raise eyebrows. Trump described Frey and Walz as “firing up the anti-ICE rhetoric” to conceal what he termed “a really big Bank Robbery.” He even suggested that much of the unrest boiling over in Minneapolis was a cover-up for extensive theft and fraud.

Law enforcement suddenly found themselves in an uncomfortable spotlight. “Those Fraudsters who stole the money are going to jail, where they belong!” Trump wrote. He doubled down, essentially instructing federal agents to disregard local authorities and continue their work. By mid-evening, multiple police units were on edge—uncertain whether to follow city protocol or defer to federal directives.

If the language felt extreme, so did the implications. Some advisors, speaking off the record, hinted anxieties were growing in both city hall and the governor's office that Trump might invoke the Insurrection Act. The president, when prodded during a network interview, seemed to keep the door open: “I don’t think it is yet. It might be at some point. It is actually very common…with me, they’ll make it like a big deal…”

It’s worth pausing here: The Insurrection Act is not routinely discussed by sitting presidents, much less dangled as a real possibility. The mere mention was enough to send legal analysts scrambling for precedent and lawmakers for statements.

So, where does the situation stand? On one hand, Trump and his supporters frame the federal presence as a necessary bulwark against chaos and criminal financial networks. On the other, Frey and Walz argue federal intervention is fanning unrest, stirring memories of past crackdowns rather than bringing relief or clarity.

Tonight, Minneapolis is tense and uncertain. City blocks that were busy yesterday are now patrolled by both local and federal agents, wary of each other as much as of the crowds. Protesters cluster outside government buildings, demanding answers. The president’s Twitter account is unapologetically resolute: federal agents will stay. For those watching, it's clear the political struggle is about far more than one city—it's a test of where local control ends and federal authority begins, foreshadowing conflicts yet to come.

Tensions in Minneapolis have flared up again—this time, not over local politics alone, but as a collision between the city’s leadership and President Donald Trump. What started as an unsteady day, following the shooting of an armed individual by Border Patrol, erupted into waves of unrest. Sirens and cell phone footage flooded social media before lunchtime, and within only a few hours, city officials were facing down federal rhetoric far more pointed than the commotion on the streets.Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey didn’t mince words at an impromptu press gathering downtown. Halting only briefly between reporters’ questions, Frey turned his attention back to Washington: “End this immigration operation, and safety will be restored in the city.” He looked tired, worn, and frustrated. Not long after, Governor Tim Walz joined the chorus, supporting Frey and denouncing the continuing federal operation. Their statements weren’t subtle—nor were they left unanswered.President Trump, always eager to jump into the fray, responded swiftly on social media. The message wasn’t merely combative; it was almost visceral: “LET OUR ICE PATRIOTS DO THEIR JOB! 12,000 Illegal Alien Criminals, many of them violent, have been arrested and taken out of Minnesota…” The all-caps message, typical of Trump at his most emphatic, was bristling with unverified numbers and warnings of worse to come if federal agents were undermined.For observers, it was hard not to notice the president’s sudden pivot. He shifted from defending ICE to lashing out over what he described as a “Somali fraud scheme,” zeroing in on Representative Ilhan Omar in an allegation that she had mysteriously amassed $34 million. “Where are the Tens of Billions of Dollars that have been stolen?” Trump pressed on, painting a picture of a state besieged by criminality, enabled—or so he claimed—by local Democratic leadership.This allegation crept further than most presidents would dare. In an era where accusations are flung daily across the airwaves, labeling two state leaders as “inciting insurrection” still managed to raise eyebrows. Trump described Frey and Walz as “firing up the anti-ICE rhetoric” to conceal what he termed “a really big Bank Robbery.” He even suggested that much of the unrest boiling over in Minneapolis was a cover-up for extensive theft and fraud.Law enforcement suddenly found themselves in an uncomfortable spotlight. “Those Fraudsters who stole the money are going to jail, where they belong!” Trump wrote. He doubled down, essentially instructing federal agents to disregard local authorities and continue their work. By mid-evening, multiple police units were on edge—uncertain whether to follow city protocol or defer to federal directives.If the language felt extreme, so did the implications. Some advisors, speaking off the record, hinted anxieties were growing in both city hall and the governor's office that Trump might invoke the Insurrection Act. The president, when prodded during a network interview, seemed to keep the door open: “I don’t think it is yet. It might be at some point. It is actually very common…with me, they’ll make it like a big deal…”It’s worth pausing here: The Insurrection Act is not routinely discussed by sitting presidents, much less dangled as a real possibility. The mere mention was enough to send legal analysts scrambling for precedent and lawmakers for statements.So, where does the situation stand? On one hand, Trump and his supporters frame the federal presence as a necessary bulwark against chaos and criminal financial networks. On the other, Frey and Walz argue federal intervention is fanning unrest, stirring memories of past crackdowns rather than bringing relief or clarity.Tonight, Minneapolis is tense and uncertain. City blocks that were busy yesterday are now patrolled by both local and federal agents, wary of each other as much as of the crowds. Protesters cluster outside government buildings, demanding answers. The president’s Twitter account is unapologetically resolute: federal agents will stay. For those watching, it's clear the political struggle is about far more than one city—it's a test of where local control ends and federal authority begins, foreshadowing conflicts yet to come.