Crisis at the crossroads: Immigration policy, federal force, and erosion of public trust

Editor's note: Jessica Durdu, a special commentator for CGTN, is a foreign affairs specialist and PhD candidate in international relations at China Foreign Affairs University. The article reflects the author's opinions and not necessarily the views of CGTN.

On January 24, federal immigration agents shot and killed 37-year-old ICU nurse Alex Pretti during an immigration enforcement operation in Minneapolis, Minnesota. The incident, the second fatal shooting of a U.S. citizen by federal agents in the city this month, has intensified debates over immigration policy, federal law enforcement authority, and civil liberties in the United States.

The fallout has included mass protests in Minneapolis and other cities, administrative leave for the agents involved, and public reassessments of enforcement tactics by federal officials.

Pretti's killing occurred during Operation Metro Surge, a broad immigration enforcement initiative launched last year under President Donald Trump's second administration. This campaign has deployed thousands of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) personnel to Minnesota to arrest and deport undocumented immigrants.

Critics argue the operation has devolved into a militarized show of force that undermines civil liberties and strains federal‐local relations.

The Trump administration's commitment to stringent immigration enforcement, particularly in domestic urban settings far from the U.S.-Mexico border, cannot be understood solely as an operational necessity. It is embedded in broader political signaling and electoral strategy. Immigration has long been a galvanizing issue within American politics, serving both as a cultural touchstone and a proxy for debates over security, identity, and national sovereignty.

Operation Metro Surge represents an escalation of a hardline posture that prioritizes visibility and perceived toughness. By deploying large numbers of agents and conducting high-profile arrests, the administration reinforces its commitment to law and order.

This pattern echoes earlier immigration policy battles, notably the push for a border wall, interior enforcement raids, and restrictive asylum rules, where symbolic action often outweighs empirical evidence about effectiveness.

Yet there is a clear tension in focusing enforcement on interior cities like Minneapolis. Unlike border zones, where geographic control is conceptually straightforward, urban enforcement intersects with entrenched communities and constitutional protections. Employing federal agents on city streets signals a willingness to blur lines between immigration control and domestic policing, a shift that inherently carries risks of confrontation and public distrust.

In the immediate aftermath of the shooting, senior administration officials offered a narrative framing Pretti as a violent threat. Earlier public messaging described Pretti as engaging in hostile conduct. President Trump himself commented that Pretti “should not have carried a gun,” despite Pretti holding a legal concealed-carry permit, a stance that drew criticism from gun rights advocates.

Subsequent internal reviews by the CBP, however, cast doubt on initial claims that Pretti brandished a firearm or acted aggressively. A preliminary report shared with Congress acknowledged that the weapon remained holstered and did not confirm he reached for it before agents opened fire. White House deputy chief Stephen Miller admitted "the CBP team may not have been following that protocol."

This divergence between official lines and subsequent findings reflects a broader pattern in highly charged law-enforcement episodes: Competing narratives are often mobilized rapidly to shape public perception. Such contestation erodes trust in institutions, particularly when initial government claims are contradicted by independent footage or later reports.

In Pretti's case, video evidence circulated widely, showing him holding only a phone moments before he was tackled and shot, undermined the defensive justifications initially offered.

The intensified enforcement measures in Minnesota must also be viewed through the lens of domestic electoral politics. Immigration has historically been a wedge issue in U.S. elections, with hardline rhetoric appealing to segments of the Republican base that prioritize national security and border control. By maintaining a visible enforcement posture, the administration reinforces political commitments to these constituencies.

However, the polarization of immigration enforcement, especially when it involves armed federal agents within U.S. cities, exacerbates divisions across the American political spectrum.

Democratic leaders and immigrant rights advocates have condemned the use of force and called for accountability and policy reform. Even as some Republicans defend the stringent tactics as necessary for deterring illegal migration and upholding the rule of law, others are distancing themselves from specific outcomes like Pretti's death.

The resulting political calculus is a delicate balancing act: asserting a tough stance to satisfy core supporters while navigating the electoral risks associated with images of civilian deaths and protests. This tension mirrors other contemporary political dilemmas, such as responses to domestic terrorism or law enforcement conduct in minority communities.

The shooting ignited widespread public outrage, triggering protests not only in Minneapolis but in cities across the United States, from Boston to Los Angeles and San Francisco. What began as localized dissent has grown into a broader movement demanding accountability for federal action and, in some cases, systemic reform of immigration enforcement structures.

The social backlash is not solely about immigration per se; it reflects deeper anxieties about state authority, racial justice, and civil liberties. The presence of federal agents on city streets, often operating with broad latitude and limited transparency, raises challenging questions about federalism and the proper scope of law enforcement in democratic societies.

Pretti's status as a U.S. citizen and healthcare worker, with his family and peers describing him as compassionate and community-oriented, has intensified the emotional resonance of the incident. For many, this is not merely a policy dispute; it is a human story that underscores how the consequences of enforcement decisions reverberate through families, neighborhoods, and the national conscience.

Perhaps the most profound implication of the Pretti incident lies in its impact on institutional credibility. When federal officials offer conflicting accounts of an event, and when internal reviews diverge from initial statements, public confidence in government transparency and accountability suffers.

This pattern is not unique to immigration enforcement. Similar dynamics played out in other domains, such as police shootings of civilians etc. In each case, the gap between official narratives and independent evidence contributes to skepticism and polarization.

One of the structural failures highlighted by the Minnesota incident is what can be described as runaway enforcement, a condition in which bureaucratic institutions prioritize operational expansion and visible activity over proportionality, accountability, and policy coherence.

Over the past decade, U.S. immigration agencies have undergone a steady process of securitization, increasingly framed not as administrative bodies managing migration flows but as frontline security institutions.

This shift has produced internal incentives that reward arrests, raids, and enforcement statistics rather than long-term policy outcomes such as community stability or legal regularization.

In such an environment, federal agents are encouraged to act preemptively and assertively, often in legally ambiguous situations. The Pretti case exemplifies how enforcement logic can override contextual judgment, especially in urban settings where the boundaries between immigration control, criminal law, and civilian life blur.

Comparable dynamics have been observed in earlier enforcement campaigns, such as large-scale workplace raids during the late 2000s or the expansion of expedited removal procedures in the late 2010s. In each instance, the institutional emphasis on speed and volume reduced space for discretion, increasing the likelihood of confrontations and rights violations.

The Minnesota shooting thus reflects not an anomaly, but the predictable outcome of an enforcement system driven more by internal momentum than policy calibration.

When looked from an international perspective, the U.S. experience with immigration enforcement and social backlash has parallels in other advanced democracies grappling with irregular migration, border control, and integration.

In Europe, for instance, episodes of police violence during migrant protests have triggered legal challenges, public inquiry commissions, and policy recalibrations. The challenge for democratic states is to balance sovereign prerogatives with respect for human rights and procedural fairness.

Countries like Canada and Germany have sought to implement immigration enforcement within more robust oversight frameworks, emphasizing judicial review and community engagement. These comparative models suggest that enforcement strategies divorced from accountability mechanisms are more likely to generate social strife and legitimacy deficits.

The Minneapolis incident also underscores growing strains between federal enforcement agencies and local governance structures. Cities with strong traditions of community policing and civic oversight often find themselves at odds with federal agencies operating under national mandates but with local consequences.

Local authorities in Minnesota were not only excluded from operational decision-making but also left to manage the social fallout, protests, public anger, and demands for accountability after the incident. This asymmetry in authority and responsibility exacerbates governance fragmentation and weakens cooperative security frameworks.

Similar tensions have emerged in other federated systems. In Australia and the European Union, centralized migration enforcement has repeatedly clashed with local authorities' priorities regarding social cohesion and public order. The U.S. case reflects a broader governance dilemma: When enforcement authority is centralized but accountability remains diffused, political legitimacy becomes increasingly fragile.

Trump's subsequent remark that ICE might withdraw from Minneapolis "at some point" can be interpreted less as policy reversal and more as tactical de-escalation, an implicit acknowledgment that federal presence had become politically unsustainable. Such reversals, however, further reinforce perceptions of inconsistency and improvisation in immigration governance.

From an international lens, the U.S. immigration debate unfolds within a global context marked by rising nationalism, geopolitical uncertainty, and migration pressures driven by conflict, climate change, and economic inequality. Many states face similar dilemmas: how to assert control over borders while maintaining democratic legitimacy.

What distinguishes the U.S. case is the scale of enforcement militarization combined with intense domestic polarization. Unlike some European states that have pursued restrictive migration policies through legislative and administrative channels, the U.S. increasingly relies on law enforcement-centered solutions, magnifying the risk of violent encounters.

This approach contrasts with emerging international norms emphasizing managed migration, multilateral burden-sharing, and humanitarian governance. As a global agenda-setter, the U.S. response to incidents like the Minnesota shooting carries symbolic weight, influencing debates far beyond its borders.

As the United States confronts demographic, economic, and political shifts, immigration policy will remain a central fault line. The challenge for policymakers is to craft responses that uphold security while preserving public trust and institutional legitimacy, a balance that has thus far proven elusive.

(If you want to contribute and have specific expertise, please contact us at opinions@cgtn.com. Follow @thouse_opinions on X, formerly Twitter, to discover the latest commentaries in the CGTN Opinion Section.)