Gov Walz calls out Minnesota National Guard. - will use it to attack ICE agents?

[JoeB131]

No, he specifically said he's calling them out to expel the federal government.

That's insurrection.

No, it's asserting his jurisdiction.

Don't you guys usually support State's Rights?

 

[DonGlock26]

That would be a violation of the Posse Commitus Act.

Here's the problem, people are going to be very angry about this. The smart thing would be to pull ICE the hell out of MN (There was no real reason for them to be there, most of the Somali community were citizens) and let this calm down.

The reality- Trump'll probably escalate it.

If the MN NG interferes with federal law enforcement, then the US Army and USMC will put down the Democrats' second rebellion.

 

[WEATHER53]

No, it's asserting his jurisdiction.

Don't you guys usually support State's Rights?

There are no state rights to combat federal enforcement policy in the streets

 

[DonGlock26]

No, it's asserting his jurisdiction.

Don't you guys usually support State's Rights?

Minnesota doesn't have jurisdiction over federal immigration law.

 

[DonGlock26]

There are no state rights to combat federal enforcement policy in the streets

If the Democrats want to wage a second rebellion then the leaders need to be tried for treason.

 

[Mac-7]

Hard to imagine National Guardsmen taking up arms against Federal ICE agents arresting illegals.

Thus far Walz is choosing his words carefully

I wonder how long that will last

 

[Blaster]

Hard to imagine National Guardsmen taking up arms against Federal ICE agents arresting illegals.

They won't.

 

[jknowgood]

There won't be any conflict.

Remember, ICE agents are the biggest pussies on the planet.

Killed one of you loons today. Please go find out for yourself how much a ***** they are. PLEASE!

 

[jknowgood]

The smart thing to do would be to pull ICE Back, given the history of Minneapolis of rioting over this sort of thing.

Thanks for proving the point that ice needs to be there. Lawlessness is out of control there.

 

[Quasar44]

Walz is trying to create massive riots to hide the 20 billion Democrat - Minneapolis scandal

 

[TemplarKormac]

The smart thing to do would be to pull ICE Back, given the history of Minneapolis of rioting over this sort of thing.

For now, yes. There might be a riot tonight in Downtown.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Thanks for proving the point that ice needs to be there. Lawlessness is out of control there.

For the unrest there tonight, no. The NG and local law enforcement are the primary law enforcement tools here.

 

[dudmuck]

Walz is trying to create massive riots to hide the 20 billion Democrat - Minneapolis scandal

The one that was aggressively approaching, yelling, and pulling on the door handle was not the one who shot the driver. That Texas ICE thug in Minnesota approached from around the front of the vehicle, placing himself there on his own accord after/as the altercation was beginning. Because he moved to stand directly in front of the vehicle, it was impossible not to impact him even lightly when moving, but that doesn't matter because he already had his gun out of the holster before the vehicle started moving forward.

His actions placed him in harms way and his preemptive arming shows that he intended to threaten and/or fire upon the victim regardless of "threat" posed.

 

[22lcidw]

Well, your head is tiny.

He's calling out the National Guard because ICE's action is probably going to start riots.

It is time to charge people with domestic terrorism and putting them in prison. With charging them as insurrectionists if need be. There are groups who know this drill of life. Today a spoiled Extreme feminist shrew was taught a lesson from that. "Welcome to the party, Renee". To you Progs, go riot and destroy.

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

The Insurrection Act of 1807. Furthermore in DC they fall under the direct command of the President.

Trump has already unsuccessfully tried to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 and it didn't fly. Now that his agents have shot someone else, this time killing the person, it makes things a lot more tense. Trump should not be pitting federal agents against Nation Guard members.

In my opinion, he's attempting to instigate a situation which he can use as pretext for invoking the insurrection act. I've said as much when he first began doing this.

And you seemed to miss my point about why he was able to deploy federal agents under the protection of guardsmen to D.C. which doesn't have a governor, but that it's different when it comes to the states which do have a governor.

 

[TemplarKormac]

Trump has already unsuccessful tried to invoke the Insurrection Act of 1807 and it didn't fly. Now that his agents have shot someone else, this time killing the person, it makes things a lot more tense. Trump should not be pitting federal agents against Nation Guard members.

In my opinion, he's attempting to instigate a situation which he can use as pretext for invoking the insurrection act. I've said as much when he first began doing this.

And you seemed to miss my point about why he was able to deploy federal agents under the protection of guardsmen to D.C. which doesn't have a governor, but that it's different when it comes to the states which do have a governor.

Hmm. In LA I'd wager it "flew" pretty well.

 

[BackAgain]

Gov Walz calls out Minnesota National Guard. - will use it to attack ICE agents?​

If he even tries that, he is almost certain to be arrested by the Feds. Plus, the President would then simply nationalize the Guard. As he should under such circumstances.

 

[Zincwarrior]

Getting ready for riots. I give 50% odds Trump declares martial law in Minnesota in the next seven days and sends in regular military units, not Guard.

 

[scruffy]

Getting ready for riots. I give 50% odds Trump declares martial law in Minnesota in the next seven days and sends in regular military units, not Guard.

Polymarket?

 

[NewsVine_Mariyam]

Hmm. In LA I'd wager it "flew" pretty well.

And you'd lose that wager.

You do realize that are laws don't prevent things from happening. They describe what is unlawful and what the penalty is for violating them (except perhaps when it comes to Trump).

Just because Trump claimed to have deployed the guardsmen to various cities throughout the country, doesn't mean that he successfully or properly invoked the law which allows this.

---

What Actually Happened in Los Angeles​

1. Federal Guard Deployments Were Issued​

Yes — federal authorities deployed National Guard troops in and around Los Angeles during the mid‑2025 period.

The administration argued the deployments were necessary due to unrest — but it did not explicitly invoke the Insurrection Act in the formal statutory sense.
Instead:

• They attempted to place the Guard in federal service under other authorities.
• They suggested the Insurrection Act could justify actions, but no formal declaration was issued in a way that would clearly meet the statutory criteria.

---

2. Courts Ruled Against the Government​

Federal judges ruled that the deployments in Los Angeles and other cities exceeded the administration’s authority:

• A federal district court in California determined the deployments violated federal law, including the Posse Comitatus Act, because they were tantamount to using military forces for civilian law enforcement — which is restricted absent a proper Insurrection Act invocation.
• That judge ordered the Guard returned to state control, holding that the administration lacked the necessary legal justification to override the governor’s authority.
• Higher courts may have temporarily stayed some orders during appeal, but there was no final appellate endorsement of the Act as lawfully applied for Los Angeles.

So, while troops were present, the presence was ruled unlawful and subject to reversal — it did not mean the Insurrection Act was upheld or successfully invoked.

---

Difference Between Deployment vs. Valid Legal Basis​

There’s a critical distinction here:

Action	Status
Federal forces being physically deployed	Occurred
Formal invocation of the Insurrection Act	Did not occur in the way needed for legal effect
Court upholding that invocation as lawful	No

Deploying troops and having courts say it was lawful are two very different outcomes.

---

Why Courts Blocked It​

Federal courts — including trial and appellate judges — repeatedly found:

1. The administration did not satisfy the Insurrection Act’s statutory conditions (e.g., a true insurrection or inability of state authorities to enforce law).
2. The use of military/Guard forces in a domestic law enforcement context violated Posse Comitatus absent a valid statutory exception.
   
3. Governors’ authority over the National Guard in non‑federalized status remains protected under law and the Constitution.