Perspective & Opinion

Minnesota: Two Deaths, One immigration crisis

Minneapolis has become the latest flashpoint in America’s immigration crisis.

In January 2026, two U.S. citizens were fatally shot during federal immigration enforcement operations in the city.  First, Renée Good; later, Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old ICU nurse for America’s veterans, with no criminal record.

These weren’t isolated tragedies.  They’re part of “Operation Metro Surge,” a massive deployment of ICE, Border Patrol, and Department of Homeland Security agents in Minnesota that has sparked widespread protests and a national outcry.

From the hardline enforcement perspective, the mission is clear: Federal agents are sent to arrest undocumented immigrants, especially those with alleged criminal histories, and to enforce the law when local systems won’t.

Supporters argue agents must act decisively when they believe their lives are threatened and that protestors shouldn’t interfere with enforcement operations.

Critics see something very different.

Footage and multiple reports show Pretti was holding a phone – not a weapon – when he was tackled and shot by federal agents.

Good's death, too, has raised serious questions about the use of force and the official narratives from DHS.

Protests have spread well beyond Minneapolis, with union leaders, civil rights advocates, and local officials demanding that ICE leave Minnesota and provide complete transparency.

Here’s the independent take: This isn’t just about tactics.  It’s about the failure of immigration policy.

When federal law grants enforcement agencies too much discretion, accountability becomes murky.

When Congress fails to update a 20th-century immigration framework, focusing enforcement on dangerous offenders and modern border realities, we get wide-ranging operations with unclear objectives, and tragic results like these.

And when federal agents wear tactical gear and masks reminiscent of Third World paramilitaries, it fuels public distrust and makes peaceful oversight harder, not easier.

The deaths of Good and Pretti aren’t just headlines.  They are symptoms of a system that is outdated, overly broad, and dangerously unaccountable.

If America can’t enforce its laws fairly and transparently, it risks losing both its security and its soul.

ukraine fatigue: when moral clarity meets voter exhaustion

Ukraine hasn’t disappeared.  But American attention has.

This is what Ukraine fatigue looks like.

From the MAGA perspective, the argument is transactional.      

Billions are sent overseas.  Borders are unsecured at home – no clear endgame.

Trump allies argue Ukraine is Europe’s problem and that America can’t fund a forever war without accountability.

They frame disengagement as realism, not isolationism.

Opponents see retreating as dangerous.  They argue Ukraine isn’t just about Kyiv.

It’s about stopping Russian expansion and preserving the post-World War II security order.

Abandoning Ukraine, they warn, signals weakness – to Russia, to China, and to every U.S. ally watching closely.

Here’s the more complicated truth: Ukraine fatigue isn’t a moral failure.  It’s strategic confusion.

Americans will support sacrifice when leaders define success.  They disengage when goals are vague, and timelines are infinite.

Ukraine needs a credible strategy, not slogans.

America needs honesty – not emotional blackmail.

Supporting Ukraine matters, but so does explaining why, how long, and at what cost.

Endless wars erode democracies.  So does abandoning allies.

Leadership is knowing the difference.

Greenland: When power politics meets alliance reality

Greenland just became a geopolitical Rorschach test.

At the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, what should have been a sober discussion about Arctic security instead exposed something deeper: America’s growing tension with its own allies.

From the MAGA perspective, this is simple power politics.       

Greenland matters militarily, economically, and strategically.  Arctic routes.  Missile defense.  Rare earth minerals.  China and Russia are already there.

Trump’s argument? America can’t afford to ask permission while rivals move pieces on the board.

Strength deters weakness.  Full stop.

Public talk of “control,” even hypothetically, over territory linked to Denmark – a NATO ally – set off alarms.

At Davos, diplomats weren’t whispering about China or Russia.       

They were whispering about America.

The concern wasn’t strategy.  It was reliability.

Here’s the part neither side wants to admit: Greenland is strategically critical, but alliances don’t survive the politics of intimidation.

NATO isn’t a real estate deal.  It’s a trust agreement.

When America signals that alliances are conditional, or transactional, it invites fragmentation.

And fragmentation is exactly what Moscow and Beijing are betting on.

The danger isn’t losing Greenland.  The threat is making America look unpredictable.

Great powers don’t just project force.  They project steadiness.

If the U.S. loses that, no amount of Arctic access will make up the difference.

Fed independence: when power tries to touch the money

Team Thomas Tuesday, January 13, 2026

Every democracy has red lines.           

One of America’s most important institutions is the independence of the Federal Reserve.

And right now, that line is being tested.

From the Trump and MAGA perspective, the argument is populist and politically powerful.

The Federal Reserve raised interest rates.  Inflation hurts working Americans.  Housing became unaffordable.

So, the logic goes: Why shouldn’t an elected president pressure – or replace – Jerome Powell?

If the Fed affects everyday lives, MAGA argues, it shouldn’t be insulated from accountability.

Critics see something far more dangerous.

They argue that pressuring the Fed isn’t accountability.  It’s politicization.

Independent central banks exist to prevent precisely this: leaders manipulating interest rates for short-term political gain.

History shows what happens when the line collapses – currency instability, capital flight, and long-term economic damage.

Here’s the independent truth: The Fed is supposed to be unpopular sometimes.

Its job isn’t elections.  It’s stability.

Once markets believe presidents can bend monetary policy, trust evaporates.  Borrowing costs rise.  The dollar weakens.  Inflation gets worse, not better.

You don’t protect working families by weakening institutions designed to prevent chaos.

You protect them by keeping politics out of the money supply.

A country that politicizes its currency eventually politicizes its future.

the kennedy center culture war

The fight over the Kennedy Center isn’t really about opera, ballet, or symphonies.

It’s about power – who controls national institutions, and why.         

From the Trump and MAGA perspective, this is long overdue.

They argue the Kennedy Center became a cultural echo chamber – elitist, coastal, and hostile to half the country.

So, the takeover is framed as a correction: Drain the cultural swamp.  Rebalance the board.  End what they see as taxpayer-subsidized ideological programming.

From this view, culture is politics, and conservatives are done losing that battlefield.

Critics see something far more troubling.

They argue the Kennedy Center was designed to be above partisan control, a living memorial to John F. Kennedy, not a political instrument.

A presidential takeover, they warn, turns a national cultural institution into a loyalty test and risks chilling artistic freedom through governance pressure rather than outright censorship.

To them, this isn’t reform.  It’s institutional capture.

Here’s what independents see, and neither side likes it: The problem isn’t conservative art or progressive art.

The problem is presidential ownership of civic institutions.

When leaders begin reshaping museums, performing arts centers, universities, or charities to reflect personal political identity, institutions stop belonging to the nation and start belonging to a faction.

That is not cultural renewal. That’s precedent.  And precedents outlast presidencies.

Strong democracies protect institutions from politicians, not politicians from institutions.

The Kennedy Center isn’t a trophy.  It’s a trust.

Release the Entire Epstein Files - NOW

During the 2024 election, Republicans – and Donald Trump himself – promised transparency.  Specifically: the release of the Epstein files.

It hasn’t happened, and that silence matters.

From the Trump and MAGA perspective, the claim is straightforward.

They argue the Epstein cases exposes elite rot – influential people protected by institutions that don’t want sunlight.  The promise was to blow the doors open and end selective justice.

Supporters say delays are bureaucratic, legal, or tied to protecting victims, not protecting elites.

Critics hear something else.

They argue the promise was political – useful during an election, inconvenient afterward.  And they point out an uncomfortable reality: releasing the files could implicate people across parties, industries, and donor classes.

From this view, transparency stalls when it threatens everyone

Here’s the independent position: Release the files.  All of the files.  Not selectively.  Not politically.  Not after redactions that erase accountability.

If names appear, let evidence and due process do the work, regardless of party, wealth, or status.

Secrecy fuels conspiracy.  Transparency restores trust.

The Epstein case isn’t about left versus right.

It’s about whether justice applies up the power ladder, or only down.

Democracies don’t fear the truth.

They fear what happens when citizens stop believing it will ever be told.

To read our archived opinions, click here.