Author: alaskaadmin

Forcibly entering homes without a judicial warrant. Arresting journalists who reported on protests. Defying dozens of federal orders. Killing U.S. citizens for noncompliance. Asking constitutionally protected observers this chilling question: “Have you not learned?”

This is daily life in Minnesota. Operation Metro Surge, ostensibly an immigration enforcement initiative, has become something more consequential: a constitutional stress test. Can constitutional protections withstand the actions of a federal government seemingly intent on aggressively violating the rule of law?

In Minneapolis, a city still reckoning with its own grim history of policing, the federal operation raises fundamental questions about law enforcement and the limits of executive power.

Legal scholars and civil rights advocates are especially worried about ongoing violations of the First, Second, Fourth and 10th amendments, as are other observers, including historians like us.

Catalog of violations

First Amendment concerns stem from reports that agents from ICE – described by some scholars as a paramilitary force – and the Border Patrol have deployed excessive force as well as advanced surveillance methods on suspects, observers and journalists. When enforcement activity impedes the rights to assemble, document and criticize government action, that chills those rights, and the consequences extend beyond any single demonstration. These rights are not peripheral to democracy. They are central to it.

Second Amendment issues erupted following the fatal shooting of a legally armed Alex Pretti in Minneapolis. Highly placed administration officials claimed Americans could not bring firearms to protests, despite a long-standing interpretation that in most states, including Minnesota, a person who was legally permitted to carry a firearm could bring it to such events. The assertion was in fact contrary to the Trump administration’s support for gun rights.

Thanks to the videos flooding social media, Fourth Amendment concerns are the most familiar. Allegations include entering homes without warrants, stopping, intimidating and seizing legal observers, and detaining suspects by virtue of their appearance or accent. Those are clear violations of the Fourth Amendment’s safeguards against unreasonable searches and seizures, which were adopted to prevent the exercise of arbitrary government power.

Finally, the 10th Amendment lies at the heart of Minnesota’s legal cases against the federal government.

One lawsuit contests the federal government’s refusal to allow the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension to investigate the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti. Another challenges efforts to pressure local governments into assisting federal immigration enforcement. These disputes implicate federalism itself – the constitutional division of authority between states and the federal government that is the foundation of the American system.

The massive and rapid accumulation of these alleged constitutional violations – now working their way through the courts – in a single geographic locale is striking. So are the mass resignations from the state’s U.S. attorney’s office, which is responsible for representing the federal government in these cases.

And so is the deeper historical context.

A retreat from federal constitutional oversight

Starting in 1994, federal intervention became a powerful corrective whenever local police violated constitutional rights.

From Newark to New Orleans, federal oversight was not always welcomed, but it was frequently necessary to enforce equal protection and due process.

Federal oversight has been essential in enforcing civil rights when municipalities would not. Active monitoring of policing in those cities kept officers and administrators accountable and encouraged officers to follow constitutional standards. At its core, what experts call “constitutional policing” requires that government’s use of authority to ensure order be justified, limited and subject to oversight.

In that vein, after the 2020 murder of George Floyd by a Minneapolis policeman, the 2023 U.S. Department of Justice report on policing in Minneapolis identified questionable patterns and practices. Those problems included the “unreasonable” use of deadly force, racial profiling and retaliation against journalists. The Department of Justice’s proposed consent decree – grounded in constitutional policing – offered a way forward.

But in May 2025, the Department of Justice, under the leadership of President Donald Trump’s appointee Pam Bondi, withdrew the recommended agreement.

Seven months later, Operation Metro Surge deployed thousands of federal agents to Minnesota with a markedly different enforcement philosophy.

Indeed, the recent expansion of federal enforcement authority in Minnesota followed a retreat from federal constitutional oversight.

Taking the handcuffs off

A presidential executive order, signed by Trump in late April 2025 and titled “Strengthening and Unleashing America’s Law Enforcement to Pursue Criminals and Protect Innocent Citizens,” pledged to remove what were described as “handcuffs” on police.

Soon thereafter, the administration deployed the National Guard to Los Angeles amid immigration protests.

Though a federal judge later rejected the legal rationale for that deployment, in August 2025, the president sent National Guard forces to Washington, D.C., purportedly to reduce crime. In September 2025, Trump described American cities as potential “training grounds” for the military to confront what he called the “enemy from within.”

Each episode reflects an increasingly expansive view of executive branch authority.

Whether Operation Metro Surge ultimately withstands judicial scrutiny remains to be seen. Numerous lawsuits continue to wind their way through the courts.

But the broader question is already clear: When, in the name of security, the executive branch directly challenges so many Bill of Rights protections at once, how much strain can the American legal system absorb? Will basic constitutional rights survive this moment?

What is unfolding in Minnesota is not simply a local enforcement story. It is a test of whether the Constitution as we know it will survive.

The authors do not work for, consult, own shares in or receive funding from any company or organization that would benefit from this article, and have disclosed no relevant affiliations beyond their academic appointment.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

President Donald Trump and Congress agreed to separate funding for the Department of Homeland Security from a larger spending bill that enables the federal government to continue operations. They now face a self-imposed deadline of Feb. 13, 2026, to negotiate potential changes to immigration enforcement.

The fact that funding for the department – and in particular Immigration and Customs Enforcement, or ICE – has become politically contentious represents a new turn on Capitol Hill.

Funding for ICE has increased substantially over the past year, with the number of its agents more than doubling.

On July 4, 2025, Trump signed a massive tax-and-spending package that increased annual funding for ICE from US$8 billion in 2024 to $28 billion in 2025.

During the first year of Trump’s second term, Republican majorities in the House and Senate have taken a hands-off approach to oversight of what is now the nation’s most highly funded law enforcement agency.

I am a professor of government who studies Congress and its oversight role. Since ICE’s funding increase, the Senate has held just one public hearing on ICE, according to my own unpublished data. Although the House has held a few routine oversight hearings of DHS, none have focused on ICE or Customs and Border Protection.

Traditional role for Congress

Congress holds longtime, well-established constitutional authority to oversee and investigate the executive branch and other political institutions. Having authorized funding for federal programs, it typically – if inconsistently – conducts substantial oversight to ensure its policies are being carried out successfully and as lawmakers originally intended.

Following the January 2026 killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis, Minnesota, members of Congress from both parties have called for investigations.

However, “investigations” is a broad term that encompasses several options. The Justice Department announced on Jan. 30, 2026, that it is pursuing a civil rights investigation into Pretti’s death. That same day, DHS announced that the FBI is leading the federal probe into his death, with assistance from ICE.

But Congress could also establish an independent, bipartisan commission to examine the killings and make recommendations for laws and regulations to prevent future deaths and ensure quick accountability. Some notable examples of congressional commissions include one that investigated the terrorist attacks of Sept. 11, 2001, and a 2010 commission that recommended $4 trillion worth of budget changes to address the national debt.

Or Congress could take the lead itself.

Rand Paul, the Republican chair of the primary oversight panel in the Senate, and New York Republican Rep. Andrew Garbarino, the chair of the House Homeland Security Committee, have asked top immigration officials to testify this month. But other congressional Republicans have remained vague about what shape the investigations should take and which branch of government should lead them.

Who’s in charge of oversight?

The debate over which branch of government should investigate government failures is a long-standing one.

Early in the republic’s history, under President George Washington, a federal militia suffered a massive defeat at the hands of Native American tribes at the Battle of Wabash in 1791. Congress was unsure of its constitutional authority to investigate the disastrous encounter: Did the separation-of-powers system prevent Congress from investigating another, independent branch of government? Or did the Constitution’s system of checks and balances imply that the Washington administration could not credibly investigate itself?

Ultimately, the House opted to establish its own investigative committee, and Washington, setting an important precedent, agreed to turn over requested information.

There are several benefits to Congress leading its own inquiries, whether in lieu of, or in addition to, federal agency investigations. For one, even highly combative committee hearings are valuable arenas for information gathering and processing, helping members of Congress thoroughly understand an issue and thus make informed and effective policy changes.

An in-depth committee investigation of the Minneapolis killings could make it more likely that new restrictions and oversight mechanisms are written into law.

Investigations can be bipartisan

Additionally, Congress’ subpoena power is a legally binding tool that enables committees to draw necessary information from the agencies they are investigating. This information, presented at hearings and in committee reports, becomes part of the historical record and serves as an important resource for future investigations both within and outside Congress, including scholarship.

For instance, the final reports of the House Select Committee to Investigate the January 6th Attack in 2022 and the House Committee on Benghazi in 2016 provide exhaustively detailed timelines of the respective attacks that do not exist anywhere else.

Republican-led investigations into the Minneapolis killings, and continued oversight of ICE and CBP, would also lend credibility to both the party and the independence of the legislative branch.

Political scientists have found that committees are less likely to investigate the executive branch when the president is from their own party. However, significant bipartisan probes do occur even in a highly polarized era. In 2005, for instance, Virginia Republican Rep. Tom Davis launched an inquiry into the George W. Bush administration’s response to Hurricane Katrina, despite facing pushback from the White House.

More recently, in 2018, the Republican-controlled House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform investigated Republican Gov. Rick Snyder’s handling of the Flint water crisis in Michigan, earning praise from Democrats on the panel.

Risks of grandstanding

However, while Congress has investigative powers, it does not have any enforcement authority. Congress can recommend criminal charges after an investigation, but only the Justice Department can bring indictments.

There are also significant political risks to committee-led inquiries, particularly public hearings. Political scientists have found that investigations of the executive branch diminish the president’s approval rating.

Additionally, members of Congress often engage in performative outrage and grandstanding during public hearings, which tends to help individual members’ electoral prospects but does little to enhance collective public faith in Congress’ legitimacy or its ability to conduct independent and fact-based inquiries.

Given the continuing partisan divide over ICE and the agency’s increased presence in Minneapolis and other cities, it’s possible that congressional hearings could devolve into rancor and name-calling. However, public opinion polling has found that ICE has become a liability for Trump and the Republican Party.

With the 2026 midterm elections coming up, Republicans in Congress may not be able to afford to stay silent.

Claire Leavitt has received funding from the Project on Government Oversight (POGO) and the Levin Center for Oversight and Democracy.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation

Informing people about political deepfakes through text-based information and interactive games both improve people’s ability to spot AI-generated video and audio that falsely depict politicians, according to a study my colleagues and I conducted.

Although researchers have focused primarily on advancing technologies for detecting deepfakes, there is also a need for approaches that address the potential audiences for political deepfakes. Deepfakes are becoming increasingly difficult to identify, verify and combat as artificial intelligence technology improves.

Is it possible to inoculate the public to detect deepfakes, thereby increasing their awareness before exposure? My recent research with fellow media studies researchers Sang Jung Kim and Alex Scott at the Visual Media Lab at the University of Iowa has found that inoculation messages can help people recognize deepfakes and even make people more willing to debunk them.

Inoculation theory proposes that psychological inoculation – analogous to getting a medical vaccination – can immunize people against persuasive attacks. The idea is that by explaining to people how deepfakes work, they become primed to recognize them when they encounter them.

In our experiment, we exposed one-third of participants to passive inoculation: traditional text-based warning messages about the threat and the characteristics of deepfakes. We exposed another third to active inoculation: an interactive game that challenged participants to identify deepfakes. The remaining third were given no inoculation.

Participants were then randomly shown either a deepfake video featuring Joe Biden making pro-abortion rights statements or a deepfake video featuring Donald Trump making anti-abortion rights statements. We found that both types of inoculation were effective in reducing the credibility participants gave to the deepfakes, while also increasing people’s awareness and intention to learn more about them.

Why it matters

Deepfakes are a serious threat to democracy because they use AI to create very realistic fake audio and video. These deepfakes can make politicians appear to say things they never actually said, which can damage public trust and cause people to believe false information. For example, some voters in New Hampshire received a phone call that sounded like Joe Biden, telling them not to vote in the state’s primary election.

Because AI technology is becoming more common, it is especially important to find ways to reduce the harmful effects of deepfakes. Recent research shows that labeling deepfakes with fact-checking statements is often not very effective, especially in political contexts. People tend to accept or reject fact-checks based on their existing political beliefs. In addition, false information often spreads faster than accurate information, making fact-checking too slow to fully stop the impact of false information.

As a result, researchers are increasingly calling for new ways to prepare people to resist misinformation in advance. Our research contributes to developing more effective strategies to help people resist AI-generated misinformation.

What other research is being done

Most research on inoculation against misinformation relies on passive media literacy approaches that mainly provide text-based messages. However, more recent studies show that active inoculation can be more effective. For example, online games that involve active participation have been shown to help people resist violent extremist messages.

In addition, most previous research has focused on protecting people from text-based misinformation. Our study instead examines inoculation against multimodal misinformation, such as deepfakes that combine video, audio and images. Although we expected active inoculation to work better for this type of misinformation, our findings show that both passive and active inoculation can help people cope with the threat of deepfakes.

What’s next

Our research shows that inoculation messages can help people recognize and resist deepfakes, but it is still unclear whether these effects last over time. In future studies, we plan to examine the long-term effect of inoculation messages.

We also aim to explore whether inoculation works in other areas beyond politics, including health. For example, how would people respond if a deepfake showed a fake doctor spreading health misinformation? Would earlier inoculation messages help people question and resist such content?

The Research Brief is a short take on interesting academic work.

Bingbing Zhang receives funding from the School of Journalism and Mass Communication at the University of Iowa.

​Politics + Society – The Conversation