Minneapolis Mayor Defies Rule of Law

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey has once again taken to the podium to announce—proudly, defiantly, and with the kind of moral certainty usually reserved for popes, princes and prophets—that his city will not cooperate with federal immigration authorities. According to him, this is a principled stand. Others may see it as a political performance with tragic real‑world consequences.

Frey’s tantrums are less about public safety and more about Trump hatred. He is part of the radical left that suffers from Trump Derangement Syndrome – a social malady that produces irrational universal criticism of all things Trump,

Frey’s latest declaration to ICE and U.S. Border Patrol fits neatly into a long pattern of rhetorical chest‑thumping. This is the same mayor who previously told federal immigration agents to take their business elsewhere in language that would make a longshoreman blush. The message was unmistakable. Minneapolis is a sanctuary city, and the mayor intends to prove it. The problem, of course, is that governing is not performance art. Cities are not stages. And the people who live in them are not props.

Sanctuary for Criminals

Supporters of sanctuary policies often frame them as noble acts of protection for vulnerable residents. Unfortunately, sanctuary policies also shield hardened criminals—people who, under federal law, should be transferred to immigration authorities but instead are released back into the community.

When local police and courts refuse to cooperate with federal agencies, the result is not a utopian community of love and harmony. It’s a jurisdictional tug‑of‑war where the fundamental issue is public safety. One can only wonder why city officials like Frey seem more interested in symbolic defiance than in practical cooperation that could prevent repeat offenses by individuals already in custody – or who should be in custody.

To make sanctuary policies work, crimes are not treated as crimes. Criminals are viewed simply as “hard working family men” or “good mothers” – officially ignoring the criminality,

Adios to the Rule of Law

Frey’s stance is often framed as resistance to federal overreach. But resistance is not the same as governance. Cities do not get to pick and choose which federal laws they feel like acknowledging. If every mayor in America adopted that approach, the country would resemble a patchwork of personal fiefdoms rather than a functioning republic. (Hmmm. How about a governor announcing that the folks in his state will not cooperate with federal tax laws. But I digress.)

Frey’s open defiance sends a message—intended or not—that laws are negotiable, compliance is optional, and political posturing outranks civic responsibility. There is no such thing as a rule of law in Frey’s Minneapolis. That is not bold leadership. That is civic capitulation, and a lot of citizens will pay the price – some with their lives.

A Community in Crisis

Minneapolis has endured more than its share of turmoil in recent years. Protests, riots, property destruction, and strained police‑community relations have left deep scars. In that environment, the last thing the city needs is leadership that treats law enforcement agencies—local or federal—as ideological adversaries.

When elected officials publicly vilify federal officers, refuse cooperation, or decline to deploy available law enforcement resources during periods of unrest, it creates a vacuum. And vacuums get filled—often by chaos. Residents who simply want safe streets and functional institutions are left watching their leaders engage in political theater while the city absorbs the consequences.

Frey’s posture plays well with certain national audiences. It earns applause from the left-wing establishment on social media, from portions of the Fourth Estate and from partisan politicians.. It generates headlines and reinforces his image as a progressive warrior standing bravely against the forces evil – as he defines them. But applause does not keep neighbors safe. Headlines do not reduce crime. And political branding does not substitute for responsible governance.

The irony is that the people most affected by these policies are not the left-wing politicians and pundits cheering from afar. They are the residents of Minneapolis—families, workers, business owners—who rely on their leaders to prioritize safety over symbolism.

A Better Path Forward

Frey’s approach abandons compassion and safety in the name of compassion and safety. Cities cannot function when their leaders treat federal partners as enemies. Nor can they thrive when political gestures take precedence over practical applications.

Minneapolis deserves leadership that focuses on outcomes, not optics. Policies should be measured by their effectiveness, not their ideological purity. And mayors should remember that their first duty is to the wellbeing of the people who live in their city—not to national political narratives.

Mayor Frey’s defiance may earn him praise in certain circles, but it comes at a cost. When leaders elevate political symbolism above the rule of law, people will suffer. When they frame cooperation as capitulation, they undermine the very institutions that keep cities functioning. And when they treat federal law enforcement as villains, they create unnecessary conflict that ultimately harms the people they claim to protect.

Frey is less of a mayor and more of a hot dogging radical who plays with a political deck of cards – and it is not a full deck. Minneapolis has weathered enough storms. It does not need another one created by its own leadership. But that is what the good folks of Minneapolis have. Criminality protected – and street violence incited — by the local political leadership. The only thing Minneapolis does not have is a rule of law.

So, there ‘tis.