From 9/11 to Minneapolis: How ICE Became a Paramilitary Force

Summary of From 9/11 to Minneapolis: How ICE Became a Paramilitary Force

by The New Yorker

49m•January 30, 2026
Listen to Episode

Overview of From 9/11 to Minneapolis: How ICE Became a Paramilitary Force

This episode of The Political Scene (The New Yorker) — hosted by Jane Mayer with Susan Glasser and Evan Osnos, and featuring Garrett Graff — traces how U.S. immigration agencies were transformed after 9/11 into large, militarized forces (CBP/Border Patrol and ICE), and explains why recent federal deployments to Minneapolis mark a dangerous new use of those forces against American citizens. The conversation combines historical context, on‑the‑ground reporting about protests and killings in Minneapolis, and analysis of the political and legal limits on resisting this deployment.

Key takeaways

  • The Minneapolis deployments represent a historic inversion: federal forces that once protected civil rights are now being used, in places, to carry out violence against protesters and residents.
  • The militarization of immigration enforcement is a post‑9/11 phenomenon driven by structural choices: moving immigration into DHS, huge hiring surges, lower vetting/training, and political quotas.
  • Recent policy changes (notably a quota-driven shift away from prosecutorial discretion) and large funding proposals (massive expansion of personnel and detention beds) risk deepening abuses.
  • Resistance — street protests, citizen documentation/video, lawsuits, and local political pushback — is reducing the effectiveness of these deployments, but tools for accountability remain imperfect.

Background: how CBP and ICE transformed after 9/11

  • After 9/11 immigration enforcement was shifted from the Justice Department (INS) into the newly formed Department of Homeland Security (DHS), and Border Patrol/CBP were massively expanded.
  • Hiring surge consequences: rapid recruiting “by the pound” led to cut training standards, weaker background checks (e.g., less use of polygraphs), and supervisory problems. This produced high rates of misconduct and corruption that persist.
  • Organizational shift: ICE and CBP moved from a model of prosecutorial discretion (targeting “worst of the worst”) to quota‑driven enforcement. Garrett Graff attributes a pivotal change to an administration push for very high deportation targets (e.g., a cited 1 million‑deportation target → ~3,000 arrests/day), which incentivized mass, low‑value arrests.

What’s happening in Minneapolis (and why it matters)

  • Federal agents from CBP/ICE/Border Patrol — often masked, in tactical gear, operating from unmarked vans, and sometimes labeled as “police” despite not being municipal police — have been deployed in large numbers to Minneapolis. The deployment followed clashes over other protests and incidents.
  • Two deaths (transcript references: Alex — also referred to in the episode as “Freddie” — and Renee Good) are cited as examples of lethal force occurring during these deployments.
  • The agents’ tactics (aggressive crowd interactions, use of force against protesters, poor de‑escalation training) are rooted in Border Patrol culture, which typically operates in remote, hostile environments and is not designed for urban crowd policing or First Amendment contexts.

Why this is different from past federal deployments

  • Historically, federal deployments (e.g., National Guard or federal marshals during civil‑rights battles) were used to protect civil liberties when local authorities failed to do so.
  • Graff and the hosts argue Minneapolis is a “black‑mirror” reversal: federal agents arriving to exert violence and suppress citizens, not to protect them.
  • The Border Patrol and ICE were never structured as urban police forces; their presence on city streets is a fundamental mismatch and a source of abuses.

Legal, political, and civic constraints on federal action

  • Federalism limits what states/localities can do; governors cannot simply remove federal agents.
  • Courts and lawsuits have sometimes constrained deployments (e.g., injunctions or orders that forced withdrawals elsewhere). However, the episode notes ICE has defied many court orders recently, raising concerns about impunity.
  • Political levers: Senate Democrats considering using funding votes to push for reforms (body cams, visible IDs, limits on funds). Yet structural limitations (authorizing funds, DHS priorities) make meaningful, immediate reform difficult.
  • Media and video evidence have been crucial in exposing administration falsehoods and contradictions about incidents on the ground.

Risks ahead

  • Legislative proposals (referred to as the “one big, beautiful bill”) would significantly expand ICE and CBP personnel and detention capacity: estimates in the episode include doubling ICE and boosting detention beds from roughly 45,000 to 110,000 — with $45 billion cited for detention infrastructure.
  • Poor hiring and expansion without training or due‑process reforms risk creating a larger force prone to misconduct and capable of detaining many more people.
  • There is a danger that, if public scrutiny fades or tactics become more targeted and covert, abuses could persist or spread.

Notable quotes and insights

  • Garrett Graff: “This is the first time in modern American history where we are seeing federal force being deployed to abuse the civil rights and civil liberties of American citizens and not to protect them.”
  • Judge William Young (cited): “Freedom is a fragile thing and it’s never more than one generation away from extinction… It must be fought for and defended in every generation.”
  • Hosts’ framing: the transition from democracy to authoritarianism is a spectrum, not a flip‑switch — small institutional choices accumulate.

Actionable points / what to watch

  • Monitor legislation and DHS funding: watch for provisions that increase personnel or detention capacity and whether they include accountability, training, and due‑process protections.
  • Support transparent oversight: insist on IDs, body cameras, clear rules of engagement, independent investigations, and prosecutions where warranted.
  • Keep documenting abuses: videos, reporting, and rapid public dissemination remain key checks on impunity.
  • Legal avenues: civil‑rights lawsuits and court orders can limit deployments, though enforcement may be uneven.
  • Civic engagement: local organizing, protest, and political pressure remain effective in limiting the scale and impact of such federal incursions.

Final assessment

The episode argues that the rise of a militarized border‑enforcement apparatus was avoidable but resulted from deliberate institutional choices after 9/11 and subsequent politicization (quotas, funding). Minneapolis has made the consequences visible — lethal force against protesters and residents — and shown both the limits of a federal paramilitary approach and the power of civic resistance, media documentation, and legal pushback to check abuses. The larger danger is legislative and budgetary expansion without accompanying oversight, training, or respect for civil liberties.