Is Immigration Enforcement Becoming A Political Liability For Trump?

A photograph of 37-year-old Alex Pretti can be seen at a makeshift memorial in the area where he was shot dead by federal immigration agents earlier in the day in Minneapolis, Minnesota, on January 24, 2026. The death came less than three weeks after US citizen Renee Good was shot and killed by an ICE officer. (Photo by ROBERTO SCHMIDT / AFP via Getty Images)

AFP via Getty Images

The fatal shooting of Alex Pretti, an intensive-care nurse shot multiple times by masked ICE agents in Minneapolis, has intensified scrutiny of the Trump administration’s enforcement-first immigration strategy. Video reviewed by The Wall Street Journal appears to contradict official claims that Pretti posed an imminent threat at the moment lethal force was used, raising new questions about federal agents’ conduct and accountability in domestic enforcement operations.

Civil liberties groups responded immediately to news of the shooting. The ACLU of Minnesota condemned the killing and called for a suspension of ICE operations pending an independent investigation. “Yesterday tens of thousands of Minnesotans from all walks of life marched through the streets, and today we wake up to the heartbreaking news that federal officials killed another person,” said Deepinder Mayell, executive director of the ACLU of Minnesota. “This tragedy is further proof that these federal agents are out of control and critically endangering our communities.”

A Turning Point After Renee Good

Public resistance to aggressive immigration enforcement did not begin with Pretti’s death. But the fatal shooting of Renee Good earlier this year marked a turning point in Minnesota. Following that incident, protests in Minneapolis expanded dramatically, with tens of thousands participating despite subzero temperatures, according to Reuters reporting.

Rather than de-escalating, federal authorities increased their armed presence in residential neighborhoods. Civil-rights advocates argue that the response hardened opposition and transformed a local dispute into a broader debate over the limits of federal enforcement power. The ACLU and its partners have since filed multiple lawsuits alleging warrantless arrests, racial profiling, and retaliation against protesters and legal observers.

Polls Signal A Shift

Polling data suggest the political impact is now measurable. Pew Research Center surveys show that majorities of Americans oppose several core ICE tactics, including workplace raids and expanded enforcement authority. Republicans remain more supportive than Democrats or independents, but overall approval has declined. Gallup trend data point in the same direction. Support for reducing immigration—once a near-consensus position among Republican voters—has fallen sharply since mid-2024, indicating waning intensity behind hardline positions.

Corporate America Steps In

The backlash has extended into corporate leadership. Major Twin Cities employers, including Target, 3M, Medtronic, U.S. Bancorp and UnitedHealth, have been forced into internal crisis management as enforcement actions disrupted workplaces and, in some cases, involved U.S. citizens. “Business doesn’t have to weigh in on politics,” said Richard Edelman, chief executive of Edelman, the public-relations firm. “However, when there is an important incident in a city, you need to be involved with your people so they know you’re a community member.”

Global Confidence Erodes

International concern about internal American strife is also a growing concern. Reporting from the Financial Times on discussions at the World Economic Forum in Davos highlights unease among political and business leaders about U.S. institutional stability, adherence to the rule of law, and executive unpredictability.

An Election Year And Dangerous Rhetoric

President Trump has publicly floated the idea of delaying or canceling elections, remarks reported by Time and confirmed by Reuters, before later retreating from them. The timing of such comments adds to the stakes. Legal scholars note that a president lacks constitutional authority to cancel federal elections. Even so, the comments intensified concerns about democratic norms during a period of heightened unrest.

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz issued a direct warning as tensions escalated in this regard. “Do not allow them to invoke the Insurrection Act. Do not allow them to declare martial law. Do not allow them to lie about the security and decency of this state,” Walz said. Meanwhile, the Brennan Center for Justice has similarly warned that the Insurrection Act is dangerously broad and susceptible to abuse, particularly in moments of political instability.

Courts And The Limits Of Executive Power

The Supreme Court is considering challenges to executive authority over tariffs that could clarify how far presidents may go in exercising emergency powers without explicit congressional approval. The impact of the court striking down tariffs imposed by the Trump administration will affect the political trajectory of America and its democracy. That in turn could affect the President’s capacity to implement his immigration enforcement agenda.

From Asset To Liability

Immigration enforcement was once a defining pillar of Trump’s political identity. It mobilized voters, unified donors and projected strength. Today, images from Minneapolis—fatal encounters, mass protests, corporate unease and expanding legal challenges—suggest a reversal. In short, what once powered Trump’s rise to power is increasingly exposing the risks of his governance by escalation. Immigration policy, long treated as a blunt political instrument, is now emerging as a focal point for public resistance, judicial scrutiny and declining trust—raising questions about whether the strategy that once delivered political loyalty to Trump is now accelerating his political vulnerability.