ICE Cooperation Exposes the Sanctuary State Lie

My friends, if you’ve been paying attention to the headlines and this newsletter, you’ve undoubtedly seen a distorted narrative about ICE and what’s happening in Minnesota.

Media coverage has been filled with claims that ICE “withdrew,” “capitulated,” or “lost.” But that framing misses what’s actually going on. At first, I wasn’t entirely sure what to make of reports that ICE agents were being pulled back. But after reading, thinking, and reflecting, it’s clear that when you peel away the spin, the reality tells a very different story—one of strategic cooperation and law enforcement adapting to continue enforcing immigration law more effectively.

And this is something we should all want.

For more than a month, Minnesota has been engulfed in political intensity and escalating disorder, much of it fueled—and justified—by Radical Left activists. The January 7 shooting of Renee Good and the January 24 shooting of ICU nurse Alex Pretti—both allegedly breaking the law at the time—were seized upon as political flashpoints. Instead of restoring calm, these incidents were used to excuse further violence, destruction, and open defiance of law enforcement.

Against that backdrop, the federal response wasn’t abandoned—it was adjusted.

Rather than continuing high-risk street encounters that endanger officers, residents, and bystanders, ICE shifted tactics. The focus moved toward cooperation with local law enforcement: fewer agents conducting public operations, and more coordination to take custody of criminal illegal aliens after local arrests. That approach is not only safer, it’s more efficient and more effective.

However, Governor Walz, Mayor Frey and other Radical Leftists have obstructed this from happening in Minnesota. Until now.

Agreements were recently reached with Minneapolis and Minnesota officials to manage these encounters in ways that reduce chaos and risk. That’s not surrender—it’s a victory for common sense and the law.

This distinction matters, because sanctuary policies and protest-driven obstruction don’t reduce risk—they increase it dramatically. When local governments refuse to cooperate, routine transfers of custody turn into dangerous confrontations that require more manpower, more exposure, and more danger for everyone involved.

This led us to discuss the broader political fight over Department of Homeland Security funding. ICE and Border Patrol operate under DHS, and the current temporary funding bill is set to expire very soon. Democrats have posted demands to passing a DHS funding bill—some of which would fundamentally alter immigration enforcement and potentially subordinate federal authority to local political standards. And we know that standards in Democratic districts are absolute jokes.

That’s why we’re at a crossroads.

Either we pursue enforcement that respects the rule of law and prioritizes public safety, or we allow loud, misleading narratives to dictate policy—regardless of how detached they are from reality.

I believe in law, order, and common sense. That means smart enforcement, transparency, and accountability—without surrendering to chaos or political theater.

Let’s be clear about what Minnesota has exposed: the sanctuary-state promise is a lie. Local obstruction doesn’t protect people—it puts communities, officers, and even detainees at greater risk while complicating enforcement. And as the DHS funding deadline approaches, we’re watching political tactics that could reshape immigration enforcement nationwide for years to come.

Conservative, not bitter.
Todd

🚔 Strategic cooperation replaces street-level conflict
🤝 Local handovers reduce volatility in enforcement
📉 Sanctuary policies increase risk and chaos
📆 DHS funding fight exposes political agendas
🔥 Democrats’ demands would weaken enforcement
📊 Realignment frees agents for targeted work

The Stack of Stuff honors the memory of Rush Limbaugh by keeping his iconic phrase alive — only this time, it’s digital. These links give you context for today’s Toddcast, including pieces that back me up, push back, or simply lay out the facts so you can decide for yourself.

For more on today’s Toddcast, visit today’s Stack on our website and dig in.

The world feels chaotic, but your news source doesn’t have to.

You can hide under a rock or spiral into the chaos… or you can subscribe to The Pour Over and get the news you need to know and the peace you crave.

Every Monday, Wednesday, and Friday, The Pour Over sends quick news summaries that are actually fun to read. Plus, each newsletter includes short biblical reminders to help you stay focused on Christ and eternity. Instead of fueling outrage or anxiety, the news becomes another prompt to rest in God and respond in faith.

Over 1.5 million Christians have ditched the doomscroll and found a better way to stay informed––Christ-first, anger-free, and (even kinda) funny.

Try it for free and check out their welcome email that’ll make you glad you did!

Sign up for free today!

My friends, let me simplify this for the socialists among us. We are all created equally in the eyes of God, but we are not all equal in talents or abilities. Everyone is good at something—probably many things, in fact. But we are not all good at the same things, and some skills simply have more value in the marketplace.

New York City Mayor Zoran Mamdani is ending the gifted and talented program for kindergartners, and it perfectly captures the confusion on the Left. In education, there is nothing wrong with challenging students who excel in certain areas. What’s the alternative—holding them back so no one feels uncomfortable?

That’s not compassion; that’s confusion. This is life. Let kids discover their strengths and pursue them with confidence. Excellence isn’t cruelty. It’s opportunity.

As promised on today’s Toddcast, I want to take a deeper dive into the 10 demands Democrats are attaching to funding for the Department of Homeland Security (DHS).

Democrats are attempting to hold DHS hostage until these conditions are met, under the claim that they are necessary for “oversight” and “accountability.” In reality, this is a quiet attempt to re-engineer immigration enforcement through the appropriations process, rather than through open debate — all while placing American public safety at risk. Sounds like a perfect solution for the Radical Left, doesn’t it?

Here’s what each demand means, and why it matters.

What it means: Every field interaction would be recorded.

My take: I don’t have a problem with body cameras. Transparency itself isn’t the issue. My only concern would be if this becomes an excuse to divert funding away from staffing or operational capacity.

What it means: Agents would be required to expose their identities during enforcement actions.

My take: I’m not generally a fan of masks, but I also understand that these coverings protect agents and their families in an era of doxxing and threats. As long as agents can be properly identified through official credentials, that should be sufficient.

What it means: Immigration enforcement would be forced into criminal-law standards, slowing the process and changing the burden of proof.

My take: Congress intentionally created two enforcement paths for illegal immigration — criminal and civil. ICE is operating under the civil path. The Left’s demand is designed to move ICE operations under criminal enforcement in order to slow deportations. In fact, most of what is in their list of hostage demands is designed to obstruct the process of enforcing the law. This should be outright rejected.

What it means: Federal agents would be required to follow local political standards.

My take: On the surface, this may sound reasonable. But in practice, it forces federal agents to conform to pacifist, left-wing policing rules — often written by the same people who wanted to defund the police. This puts agents at a huge risk — and it’s a no-go.

What it means: External review bodies would gain automatic jurisdiction.

My take: There is no such thing as a truly “independent” investigation — especially in deep-blue cities. This would be endlessly weaponized against ICE agents. If a crime is committed, prosecute it. Otherwise, stop politicizing accusations.

What it means: Increased documentation, data releases, and compliance obligations.

My take: I support transparency in principle. My concern is that this becomes an administrative burden designed to inhibit enforcement. The devil is always in the details. And the details teach us that these demands have one purpose: obstructing lawful deportations.

What it means: ICE would be limited to enforcement only under tightly controlled conditions.

My take: ICE should be able to enforce the law as written. Limiting enforcement because Democrats claim “too many arrests” is nonsensical in a nation governed by law. If there are “too many arrests,” it simply means there are “too many violations of immigration law.”

What it means: Allegations would trigger mandatory punishment structures.

My take: This incentivizes officer hesitation — and hesitation in law enforcement costs lives. Agents should not be presumed guilty by political actors writing strict punishment language into law. There are already mechanisms for all of this. This is just another example of Dramacrats being Dramacrats.

What it means: Additional compliance requirements tied directly to funding.

My take: ICE is already trained, credentialed, and operating under established procedures. This is more administrative red tape designed to slow enforcement — not improve it. The real problem isn’t ICE; it’s organized obstruction.

What it means: Congress could directly interfere in enforcement operations.

My take: No one celebrates loss of life, including the tragic shootings in Minnesota. But pretending ICE is abusing its authority ignores context and reality. Oversight cannot become obstruction. And that’s the goal here for the Left. It almost always is.

Taken together, these demands do not improve enforcement — they paralyze it, and that is precisely the point.

State and local cooperation with federal law enforcement reduces chaos and risk. Democrats now want to make that model impossible nationwide by imposing politically driven rules through funding leverage.

This is not oversight. It’s obstruction — dressed up in bureaucratic language.

And the vast majority of these demands should be rejected outright.