Why is Trump obsessed with Minneapolis? | Today, Explained

Hi and welcome to Today Explained Saturday. I'm Aed H. Hearnden and every week I'll be talking to someone in the news, in the culture, or just exploring an idea I can't get out of my head. This week we're in Minneapolis where thousands of federal immigration agents have descended on the city in recent months. And it's also the site of the fatal killing of Renee Good, the protester who was shot and killed by ICE officers actually not too far from here. By now, we've all seen the video and we've heard the statements from President Trump and his cabinet. But I wanted to dig in deeper into the context behind this fatal encounter. Why is ICE in Minneapolis in the first place? What happens if Donald Trump invokes the Insurrection Act? And what are Democrats going to do to push back against federal officials? So this week I talked to Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison and I put all those questions in front of him. Attorney General Keith Ellison, thank you for joining us particularly um at this difficult time for your state. >> Good to see you instead. >> I wanted to talk to you not only because of the recent news, but also because you have had a history here in Minnesota, but also the political questions I think have come up for Democrats, for you and others in response to um Donald Trump's deployment here in Minnesota. >> Sounds good. >> Obviously, one of the unique things about this incident is how quickly the White House moved to place blame on the victim. Secretary of State Christie Nome said this was an act of domestic terrorism almost immediately. Vice President JD Vance said that Renee Good was a quote deranged leftist. I wanted to know did those statements impact your ability to go about your job and if so how? >> Yeah, I thought they were deeply callous and I thought they showed no compassion for Miss Good or her family or her children or anyone. I I thought to myself there's this can't be how these officials are handling this. Normally officials in in my position and in theirs say, "Wait, let's do an investigation. We're very sorry for all concerned here." >> And that's been Democrats and Republicans. >> Democrats and Republicans. This is the normal way that we do these things, but we're not doing these things the normal way. And they came out swinging, justifying uh the actions of the officer right away. Uh, and my thought is if the officer is as innocent as you claim that he is, why not let's just have a investigation and then say, look, you know, this is a horrible tragedy, but here's the conclusion that we've come to after reviewing the evidence. That is not what they did and that it just really is another reminder of how much we're in new territory right now. You know, I don't want to make a onetoone comparison to what Republicans said and and what Democrats have said, but you know, Mayor Jacob Fry here did famously say, "Get the f out of our city to ice." You did have Governor Walls kind of characterizing this as an occupation. Do those statements from Democrats uh turn the temperature down or were they also, you know, part of a turning up of tension? No, because those statements were made in reaction to the escalation in which there was no Democratic conduct that sort of brought this escalation on. So the dramatic escalation happens regardless of what either one of them say, temperate or inmperate. And I will say this, part of what it means to be an elected official is to channel the emotional vector of your electorate. Of course, the latest escal escalation from the federal government was the announcement that the Justice Department is now investigating Governor Tim Walls and Jacob Jacob Fry and saying they impeded officers from doing their work here. Um, I was going to put that in front of you. How do you see um these criminal subpoenas and has dem have Democrats in Minnesota impeded the federal government uh from what they would say is lawful immigration enforcement? Well, you've just pointed out that the mayor and the governor are under federal investigation. You know who's not under federal investigation? Well, Jonathan Ross. That's who's not under investigation. So, that gives you some window. >> Yeah. >> Into the justice element of this, right? This is clearly a weaponization of the criminal justice system. just like Latic Leticia James, just like James Comey, just like others uh who have been uh unjustly targeted out of revenge, out of u malice, out of retribution. His word, >> right? The president's word. >> Yep. >> Um you know, we've seen reporting that the federal government has shut out state and local agencies from the investigation into Renault Goods killing. Is that true? And what's the status of the federal investigation and its relationship to what you all are doing in the state? >> From the federal government's perspective, what we know is at least three or four things. Thing number one, the United States Department of Justice, Civil Rights Division, whose job it is to investigate use of for death cases, has declined before there's been any investigation. >> Has declined to open an investigation. >> They have said publicly, "We will not even open an investigation." So, there's that. And these are the people whose job it is to do this work. We've seen six assistant US attorneys quit because they were told, "You're going to investigate Renee Good and Becca Good, her wife, and we're not doing any investigation on Renee Good's death." They quit in in response to that. That's the other thing that happened. Uh, as you've already noted, state and local prosecutors have been informed that uh they're not going to be allowed to have access to the investigative file that the FBI has acquired so far. And what's in that file? Um, you know, things like bullet casings, things like the car, which has the windows, which can help show trajectory. >> So, you don't you all don't have access to the car >> at this point. No. We're hoping that the federal government changes its mind because it's so clearly unjust that for them to deny and in the past these kind of investigations are done jointly. >> I guess one thing I was asking though is because of the degree to which Donald Trump made clear that his plans were to you know ramp up immobilization in cities like Minneapolis and because of the kind of growth we've seen over the last several months. Is there anything that state officials could have done to to prevent what we what has now become a deadly encounter? Like, is there a way that that kind of telegraphing could have been an off-ramp and that off-ramp wasn't taken? >> Well, this is a good question. I'm glad you asked it. And I would have to say not to my knowledge because our lawsuit, we're not saying that ICE doesn't have a right to doesn't have a right to exist in Minnesota. We're not ICE existed before and we didn't sue them. >> ICE, even ICE has an obligation to abide by the law and to obey the constitution, the fourth amendment. they have a obligation to not break uh and violate things like the administrative procedures act and the policy of the government through ICE cannot be arbitrary or capriccious and they can't violate the sovereignity of the state of Minnesota visav the 10th amendment. So, so yeah, if ICE would have come here and even if they'd have had more people and then just operated in the way that ICE historically has operated, which some agree with and some don't. I tend to be not that big of a fan, >> but I'm but I don't question their existence, but I but this lawsuit is about their conduct. Now, >> and one thing I was going to ask, and this is not again, I don't want to be placing blame on individuals. you're asking a good question in this, but I want to put it in front of you like these are peaceful protests. Yes, but they are disruptive ones and there are folks who are coming out with the purposes of uh at minimum annoying ICE but at maximum disrupting some of their activities and we've heard that even from folks who go out on these things. Do those actions are those actions contributing to the environment of fear that we see? Look, in America, you have a right to express your views and and and peacefully assemble. That exercise of your right may be annoying to someone else. There's no guarantee under the First Amendment that you that everyone that speaks will say things that you find pleasing and agreeable. But the problem is exceeding the boundaries of the law. >> But what about things like blocking them on the street? What about things like, you know, some of the whistles that we have seen to >> Well, see, well, see that whistle, let's talk about whistles. How is blowing a whistle impeding the lawful exercise of a warrant for the arrest of an undocument? Now, can you assault an ICE officer? No, you're going to be arrested for that. Can you >> can you impeach them? >> Well, like define that word, though. I mean, because what what they say impeding and what a court might say is impeding is different. So, can you physically block them? No, you can't do that. >> You can't. You cannot physically block them. Can you criticize them as you're not blocking them? Yes, you can. >> You know, there so there's a whole range of conduct that Christy Gnome wants to say is impeding, but there it's not impeding. It's first amendment protected activity. And there are laws that you know uh people you know have to obey like uh obstruction of legal process but that is not just interrupting it's interfering right um I mean uh I mean these things do make a difference right >> I guess I'm saying have democratic officials done enough to tell their own kind of activist community even though I know some of you know have tell their own kind of protest anti-IC community about that distinction have they done enough to to make clear that these folks are doing what you say in terms of peacefully protesting and not obstructing. >> I think the answer is clearly yes because there has not been Look, there are some people who've broken the law and they've been arrested. And by the way, as a person who got arrested protesting in my youth, when you decide to do civil disobedience, you you know what's coming you next. But that's not been what most people are doing. Mhm. >> You know, Trump has also consistently threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act. Yes. And he has said that specifically about Minnesota even recently. I wanted, you know, for maybe for folks who don't know, let's make be clear that the insurrection act would allow Donald Trump to deploy federal forces without congressional authority, what could amount to a seeming federal occupation of Minnesota, right? >> Uh I wanted to know, have you all had as Democratic state officials had conversations about um what to do if Donald Trump does invoke the Insurrection Act? >> Of course. is so there what is a plan of push back? I mean how how would the state respond to that level of escalation >> in in court? >> No, this is something that could be tested and challenged in court and we would do so. >> Mhm. >> We've been thinking that this is a possibility and have been hoping that it didn't happen but planning for the eventuality if it did. >> What would a federal what would what would insurrection act mean for motans? Like what what would Minnesota under the insurrection act mean? It would mean that uh we had federal active duty troops patrolling our streets. It would mean that um uh they'd probably be guarding ICE as ICE went about what it does. Um which is concerning because the way ICE does its business is been proven over and over again to be deeply problematic. It would it that's what it would not mean that the elections would be suspended. That's something that people should know. The insurrection act does does not give Trump the right to suspend the election. We will that but but it's so but but like putting troops active duty troops in the streets of Minnesota is extremely problematic. I mean the reason that the framers of the constitution broke with Imperial Britain is over this >> you know and so uh it it it can't it's hard to describe how bad it would be and damaging for our society plus the insurret act requires that the president uh require show that the local authorities have been overwhelmed and can't do the job or won't do the job And neither one of those things are true. >> I think even about the defund the police kind of slogans that came out of some of the George Floyd summer and people now looking at the calls to abolish ICE and wondering if those things are the same thing. I wanted to put that in front of you. Someone who's seen both of those things up close. When you hear calls now to uh abolish ICE, do you do what do you think about that? And is that the solution uh uh for Minnesota? But the but the state the slogan was on the stage but the but what what they were saying was more reformish. So and then next thing you know every Republican in America saying is accusing Democrats of defund the police. So, I believe that was always a political strategy. Uh because Republicans correctly said no that most people do like their police department and and even lowincome black communities tend to say we want good police, but we do want but we don't want to get rid of the police. >> Yeah. Well, let's sit here for a second because I do think that what you're saying is important in that it was not a mass call from the Democratic party or Democratic elected officials to say defund the police. And I think, you know, to the event you're talking about, it was more of an activist push that that was around politicians more so than it was Democrats kind of embracing it themselves. I guess I would say then before we get to the abolish ICE, did Democrats do enough then to make the distinction you're talking about and say, "Hey, yes, the activists are saying this, but we know our communities want some form of reform because I don't think that was that clear at the time." As a politician, I would say, "Look, I work with law enforcement. We we embrace and lift up our members of law enforcement who live up to the high standards we ask of them. and the ones that don't don't deserve to be police officers. And then my Republican opponents would say, "YEAH, FOR DEFUND THE POLICE." It was a political slogan that they were buying ads to try to perpetuate. >> You got to answer my question though. Were Democrats too differential to activist language at that time? >> I would say what I'm trying to say is no. But obviously we should have could have maybe done more because too many people believe that narrative. But I would say that as a per and what I was offering myself as one. So what I mean is if I stop and say and just all I do is just completely devote myself into refuting this false claim, then they've got me still. Even though even if I convince people, half the people that I never said defund the police, the reality is the people who might just vote for me, they want to hear me talk about wages and housing and healthcare. But I'm not talking about that because I'm talking about what they're trying to make me talk about. So that is sort of the catch 22 of the Democratic politician. But one thing I will say is just to just to blab the point. >> Yeah. Yeah. Did Democrats present a affirmative vision of criminal justice reform, of law enforcement reform in that summer that that counterbalance defund the police enough. I will say as a person who likes to be real with myself. I maybe we could have or maybe we should have. I I will tell you that that one group of people would say we talked about it too much and we should have spent more time talking about an affirmative vision. and and and then there's some people who say we didn't refute the negative vision enough. Bottom at the end of the day, uh we had a tough Democrats had a had a tough year and maybe we could have done more, maybe we should have done more. >> Now, in this moment where there is an opportunity for Democrats to make a pitch specific around ICE and immigration, law enforcement, do you see the calls to abolish ICE as the same as some of the progressive pushes from years ago? I just don't see nobody I'm talking to is saying that. >> No one saying apologize. >> I mean, I'm Let me be clear. I'm not saying no one's saying that. Okay. I'm saying that as an elected official who asked people to vote for me. I'm not running into anyone who's saying that. One more question on this before we move uh off. I wanted to ask also about the argument the Trump administration is making that this is in response to Minneapolis being a sanctuary city. Um they have said >> sanctuary city. >> Yeah. And I I I I know that this distinction matters a lot. They have said that in essence that city and state officials are not cooperated with immigration officials, that they cannot go into the jails to round up accused criminals, which is the reason why they are out in communities. I wanted you to respond to that. >> First of all, it's a separation ordinance. >> Yes. >> And and second of all, >> what does that mean? >> Well, what that means is that we're not paid. We're not compensated. And it's not our statutory obligation to be functionaries and deputies of ICE. We have other jobs that need be need to be do done. Our police need to worry about domestic violence, car theft, murder, gun related crimes. We cannot be enforcing the immigration code. There's a whole department devoted to that from the federal government and they need to go do that. And that is what I that's pretty it's pretty simple. It's >> all but there are arguments that you all are blocking them from that >> enforcement. That's a lie. It's not true. >> So the question of them being able to go into jails and find somebody is that true? >> Everyone who has a legal obligal right to enter a jail goes into the jail. I mean that's that's what it is. The fact is is that actually the Department of Corrections alerts people who have immigration status. They they alert ICE and but but to hold them there beyond the amount of time that they would legally and I'm talking about the the the detainees. If a court determines that a detainee should be released based on say a DUI, >> then they're going to be released and it's not the business of state of Minnesota to hold people beyond that charge. If somebody is there to pick them up because they got other legal problems, that's on them to do. >> The state is free to execute its immigration detainers. But what but what Minnesota's not doing because of said separation ordinance is they're not making it their business to hold people longer or do something above and beyond for the purposes of >> we believe it would expose the state of Minnesota to liability >> to hold someone beyond the amount of time that the court has deemed them to be held based on what they're charged with. But if somebody is there to collect them, they can collect them and have been doing so. >> You know, Minnesota's obviously changed a lot. I'm thinking specifically about the changes in demographics. The Somali population has exploded in the Twin Cities in the last 20 years. Almost some estimates say 100,000 Somali Americans in the Twin Cities alone. How did the increase of uh how did the increase in population shift the governmental priorities in a city that has changed over the last 20 years? Well, I mean from my perspective, uh you know, um more workers, uh more consumers, uh more professionals, uh more people to uh be a part of our economy. If you don't have a population growth, you're going to have economic decline. And so I for one think that the Somali community has actually helped us hang on to the number of Congress people we have because we've had not just Somali immigrants but also you know immigrants from all over the world, Europe too. Uh we've had them from Asia, we've had them from Africa, we had them from Latin America and we've had migrants who are from the United States come to Minnesota and that has been to the benefit of Minnesota. Minnesota is a is a is a state where people feel included and welcomed. >> Is there any argument that Democrats were slow to investigate challenges of Somali community, be it immigration enforcement or allegations of social services fraud because of their political importance to the party? >> Uh, no. That Republican talking point is absolutely wrong >> and it's and it's kind of racist and and and bigoted. Let me just say I've prosecuted over 300 cases of Medicaid fraud in the last several years since I've been the AG and it's multicultural in terms of the people we've prosecuted. They've been every color under the rainbow, every culture, plenty of Olsson's, plenty of Johnson's, plenty of Andersons, right? So that that the idea that fraud lives only and exclusively >> only and exclusively >> or even mostly, you know, it's not true. >> And so it's it's it's not true, right? And you know, again, you want to talk about fraud, you know, let's do that. Uh, you know, the bottom line is that uh fraud uh is is something that the Trump administration has certainly not taken seriously. Some of the worst fraudsters in American uh life have have been people who Trump has not only pardoned, but pardoned maybe twice. >> I'm not I'm not even I'm not dis >> I know you're not. But see, but see, that's how it goes, right? But the feeding of our future scandal is a legitimate one in Minnesota. >> It is. But what does it mean? Does it mean Somali are not good people? No, it doesn't mean that. It What does it mean? Does it mean um Minnesota doesn't prosecute fraud? Of course, we prosecute fraud. What it means is that some people who are dishonest stole from a program to help feed kids and we investigated them and we are prosecuting them and many of them are in jail at this very moment. And you know, but but here's the thing. There there there's people in every and and there are people in every single state in this country who who've committed fraud. Why is Minnesota the special selection for this sort of attention? And in fact, Trump says that we that all this ICE is ICE uh surge is about fraud, but he's sending armed men with guns wearing masks. He's not sending accountants. He's not sending forensic financial investigators. He's sending guns and men with aggressive men with guns. So you got to you get to the impression that we're not really talking about fraud. We're talking about Somali. And is and and and is that right? >> It's undeniably been fueled by Republicans who have in bad faith in several instances misrepresent the facts. I will say that absolute fact. >> Thank you for saying that because it is true. But look, as a per I have a Medicaid fraud program that I supervise as attorney general. It has about 30 people in it. It's pretty busy all the time. And guess what else? Every other attorney general also has a Medicaid fraud unit and is prosecuting people all the time. This thing is political to and and let me just tell you any good any politician who is sincerely trying to elect the people, always laments when something doesn't go right, and always ask themselves, "What could I have done to make it go better?" And so you're going to and so sure, let's figure out what we could do better. Well, one reality of the impact of at least the uh of discussion around the allegations of fraud has been the Governor Walls stepping down from his campaign for reelection. I know that you have been rumored as a potential Democratic candidate for governor. I wanted to know what you thought of Walls's decision and if you're planning to enter the race. Walls is a dear friend of mine and I'm so grateful for the time we spent in office. whatever decision he wants to make for himself and his family, I support it. What am I going to do? Let me tell you, um I love the job that I have and I feel a tremendous urgency to keep doing it. At the same time, what could what could a person do who wants to help people afford their lives if they were governor? But I'm unfortunately, I'll not here to make any announcements. >> Looking ahead. Yeah. Um, how do you take how do you push back against a Trump administration that is continuing to target Minnesota and shows no signs of stopping? >> Telling the public the truth about what's going on. That's >> part of the push back. >> Supporting the county of Henipin and their investigation regarding uh the death of Renee Good, that's push back. Uh, and putting forth a positive vision and encouraging people to protest in a disciplined manner, that's push back. and and then encouraging people to vote like their lives depended upon it because I think that they really really do. Certainly our democracy depends upon it. >> Yeah. I mean I asked because I was at you know the the side of the deaf today and you could feel someone even say there like how powerless they feel how they feel as if this kind of invading force has shown up and has imposed on them something that feels inextractable. I'm saying as someone who doesn't see it like that, you know, I was I was just really asking to say >> No, I appreciate that and I thank you. I thank you for for bringing that out because look, what I'm saying to people is you what my mother used to say to me, do not be overcome by evil, but overcome evil with >> good. >> Yeah. And so that's what I'm saying. you know this what we're we're in a situation where where where where the basically the the president is persecuting our state. Stay firm, stay strong, stay stay faithful, and we're going to get through this. We are going to get through this. I promise we will get through this. And we're going to get through it better than ever. We need a leader to bring us together, not one to separate us like him. We need somebody who's going to prioritize affording your life and make a a a prosperity a real possibility. So that is right within our grasp, but we just got to last a little longer through this. >> Attorney General, thank you for your time. I really appreciate it. >> Thank you. Thank you. >> So just days after I spoke with the attorney general, the Justice Department subpoenaed him and other Minnesota Democrats, alleging that they had impeded federal immigration proceedings. Vice President J. D. Vance also visited Minneapolis this week, showing his support to law enforcement, but also sending a clear political message that this White House is doubling down on its war against blue cities and Minneapolis specifically. This all speaks to the reasons of why I wanted to go there in the first place. Because while Minnesota may not be that important when it comes to who controls the House or the Senate or for things like the midterms, it's vitally important to understand what might become the most important political question of this year. Just how far is Donald Trump willing to go? Every Saturday, we'll be in your audio and video feeds with more interesting interviews in politics or in culture. Plus, you can check out Today Explained wherever you podcast, your favorite listening app or on Apple Podcast or Spotify. Thank you all for joining us and make sure you tune in next week.