Category World News

Minnesota and its Twin Cities, Minneapolis and St Paul, have launched legal action against the United States President Donald Trump administration to stop a hardline immigration enforcement crackdown.

Local officials have called the government operation a “federal invasion”, which also led to an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent fatally shooting a Minneapolis mother of three, Renee Nicole Good.

The lawsuit was filed on Monday alongside a request for a temporary restraining order, as reports emerged that an additional 1,000 Border Patrol officers are being dispatched to join the 2,000 immigration agents already operating across the state.

The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has characterised the deployment as its largest enforcement operation in history.

State Attorney General Keith Ellison accused federal authorities of constitutional violations during a news conference announcing the legal challenge.

“This is, in essence, a federal invasion of the Twin Cities and Minnesota, and it must stop,” he said. “These poorly trained, aggressive and armed agents of the federal state have terrorised Minnesota with widespread unlawful conduct.”

The lawsuit alleges that DHS has deployed excessive and lethal force, conducted warrantless arrests, and targeted courts, churches, and schools.

Ellison said local police have been forced to respond to 20 instances of what he described as the apparent abduction of Minneapolis residents by ICE agents.

The enforcement surge has prompted mass protests following the shooting death of Good on January 7.

The 37-year-old mother of three was killed by ICE agent Jonathan Ross during a brief encounter while she sat behind the wheel of her vehicle. The incident has thrust Minneapolis into the international spotlight, with conflicting interpretations of the 40-second confrontation dividing officials and activists.

Trump administration officials have been accused of blatantly lying about the shooting events and appear to be clearly contradicted by video analysis.

Social media has been flooded in recent weeks with dozens of videos showing federal agents interrogating members of the Somali community and demanding proof of citizenship, amplifying fears among residents.

Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey said the operation has been carried out “indiscriminately” and showed a lack of knowledge of the status of the city’s population.

“I think the initial impetus to come to Minnesota, was go to Minnesota, arrest and deport a bunch of Somali people,” Frey said at a news conference last week.

“And then they get here and they realize that the Somali people who would be arrested or deported are all legal. They’re all US citizens.”

Speaking on Monday, Frey outlined the devastating effect on daily life across the Twin Cities.

“The damage that we are suffering right now … it’s schools shutting down, it’s businesses closing, it’s people being afraid to go out and get groceries and therefore are going hungry,” he said. “This is intentionally putting us in a very difficult position that is not pro-business and is not pro-safety.

“If this were about fraud, then you’d see an invasion perhaps of accountants. But that’s not what you see. What you see is people being indiscriminately taken off our streets,” he said.

St Paul Mayor Kaohly Her, a Hmong American immigrant, revealed she now carries her passport and identification documents everywhere. “Because I don’t know when I’m going to be detained,” she said. “We are being attacked as American citizens right now.”

On Monday evening, hundreds assembled at a strip mall parking area in St Cloud, northwest of Minneapolis, after word spread that more than two dozen ICE officers had gathered near Somali-owned businesses.

Minnesota Congresswoman Ilhan Omar described the situation as “a dangerous time” and called the government’s actions “unconscionable”.

Ellison said Minnesota’s non-citizen immigrant population stands at just 1.5 percent, half the national average and lower than Utah, Texas, and Florida, suggesting the state has been targeted for political reasons.

“Donald Trump doesn’t seem to like our state very much,” he said.

The Immigrant Law Center of Minnesota, a legal advocacy organisation for migrants, said the federal operation that began more than a month ago was happening under what it termed “the racist pretense of fraud investigations targeting the Somali community”.

DHS has defended the operation, with Secretary Kristi Noem telling Fox News on Sunday that additional officers would ensure agents “do so safely” amid ongoing protests.

The United States military allegedly disguised one of its aircraft as a civilian plane to attack a suspected drug smuggling boat coming from Venezuela, according to a report in The New York Times.

In an article published late on Monday, the newspaper noted that the incident raises questions about the possible commission of a war crime.

There was no immediate reaction from the White House following the publication of the report.

The article focuses on the first known attack in the boat-bombing campaign President Donald Trump launched on September 2 in the southern Caribbean Sea.

At the time, Trump announced on his platform Truth Social that the initial attack killed 11 people, whom he accused of being “narcoterrorists”.

But the New York Times report suggests the plane used in the military operation was painted to look like a civilian vessel, with its missiles tucked away in the fuselage, instead of instead of being carried visibly under its wings.

Such an act of disguise could be considered a war crime under the laws governing armed conflict, the article said.

The newspaper quoted a retired deputy judge advocate general for the US Air Force, Major General Steven Lepper, as saying the concealment of military insignia and weaponry could constitute an act of “perfidy”, a deceptive tactic forbidden under international law.

“Shielding your identity is an element of perfidy,” Lepper told the Times. “If the aircraft flying above is not identifiable as a combatant aircraft, it should not be engaged in combatant activity.”

The report did not say who ordered the military plane to be disguised.

But three sources told The New York Times that “it was painted in the usual military grey and lacked military markings”. Still, its transponder was transmitting a military tail number.

The report, if true, offers new details that complicate the narrative around the Trump administration’s boat-bombing campaign and the inaugural September 2 strike.

The Trump administration has repeatedly argued that attacking the boats is necessary to prevent illicit drugs from reaching US shores from South America.

In a memo to Congress, Trump also indicated that he considers the US to be in a “non-international armed conflict” with drug cartels, whom he described as unlawful combatants.

However, there is no legal basis for such a determination, and drug trafficking is considered a criminal offence, not equivalent to an armed attack.

Human rights experts, including at the United Nations, have also characterised the attacks as an act of extrajudicial killing and a violation of international law.

In describing the September 2 attack, Trump accused the targets of being members of the Tren de Aragua criminal organisation “operating under the control” of Venezuela’s then-President Nicolas Maduro.

The US military earlier this month abducted Maduro and brought him to New York to face criminal charges related to drug trafficking.

A brief 29-second video accompanied Trump’s announcement of the attack, showing a boat engulfed in a single blast.

But in December, The Washington Post reported that the attack had instead been a “double tap”, with US Navy Admiral Frank Bradley allegedly authorising a second missile blast to kill two previously unreported survivors.

That reporting likewise raised concerns that a war crime had taken place, as it is considered illegal to attack shipwrecked adversaries even in a wartime context.

The new report from The New York Times raises further questions about that “double-tap” strike, including whether the survivors might have saved themselves had the aeroplane’s military markings been visible.

The sources told the Times that the aircraft swooped in low enough for the people on board the boat to see it.

“Two survivors of the initial attack later appeared to wave” at the disguised aircraft while clinging to wreckage, the Times reported. The second strike then killed them.

The newspaper contrasted their reactions to those of survivors in a later attack on October 16.

The initial blast in that October attack likewise left two survivors – but those survivors swam away after the first strike hit. They were later retrieved from the water and repatriated to their home countries, Colombia and Ecuador.

Members of Congress have been shown an extended video of the September 2 attack, and the Times reported that questions about perfidy were privately raised during closed-door briefings with military leaders.

“US military manuals about the law of war discuss perfidy at length, saying it includes when a combatant feigns civilian status so the adversary ‘neglects to take precautions which are otherwise necessary’,” the Times said.

The newspaper, however, pointed out that the US military has switched to clearly marked military aircraft, including MQ-9 Reaper drones, to conduct subsequent boat strikes after the September 2 attack.

It also quoted Trump administration officials as defending the military actions as well within the US government’s legal authority. The Trump administration has denied taking any illegal actions at any point in the boat-bombing campaign.