Listen to the article
Border Patrol Commander Defies Court Order, Vows Continued Tear Gas Use in Minneapolis
Border Patrol commander Gregory Bovino declared Saturday that federal agents will continue using tear gas during Operation Metro Surge in Minneapolis, despite a federal judge’s ruling prohibiting such tactics against peaceful protesters.
“We’re going to continue to use that minimum amount of force necessary to accomplish our mission,” Bovino stated during an appearance on “Fox News Live,” asserting that immigration officers have never deployed tear gas against “peaceful protesters.”
The commander’s statement comes one day after U.S. District Judge Kate Menendez issued a ruling that specifically bars federal officers from using tear gas and other non-lethal munitions against peaceful demonstrators who aren’t obstructing law enforcement activities.
“We always support the First Amendment, but when they cross the line and they’re violent, we will use those less lethal munitions because it keeps them safe, it keeps our officers safe, and it keeps the public safe,” Bovino explained.
The judicial order represents a significant development in the escalating tensions between federal immigration authorities and Minneapolis residents following the fatal shooting of 37-year-old Renee Good by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent earlier this month during a federal immigration enforcement operation.
Judge Menendez’s ruling came in response to a case filed in December by the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota representing six Minnesota activists. The order establishes clear boundaries for federal agents, requiring them to demonstrate probable cause or reasonable suspicion that someone has committed a crime before taking action. It also specifies that peacefully following officers “at an appropriate distance does not, by itself, create reasonable suspicion to justify a vehicle stop.”
In her written opinion, Menendez noted that the Department of Homeland Security’s immigration crackdown in Minnesota appears to be intensifying rather than winding down. “There is no sign that this operation is winding down—indeed, it appears to still be ramping up,” she wrote.
The City of Minneapolis publicly supported the court’s decision while urging community members to remain “peaceful and lawful” around immigration agents. “As this is a federal court order, we expect the federal administration to change course and comply for the safety of all,” the City stated on social media platform X.
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison praised the ruling as “a preliminary win” that “matters for every Minnesotan exercising their constitutional right to peaceful protest and witness.”
The Department of Homeland Security pushed back against the characterization that protests have been peaceful. DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin emphasized that the First Amendment does not protect “rioting” and stated that the department is “taking appropriate and constitutional measures to uphold the rule of law and protect our officers and the public from dangerous rioters.”
McLaughlin detailed specific allegations against protesters, claiming that “rioters and terrorists have assaulted law enforcement, launched fireworks at them, slashed the tires of their vehicles, and vandalized federal property.” She further alleged that some individuals “have attempted to impede law enforcement operations and used their vehicles as weapons against our officers.”
The confrontation highlights the growing tension between federal immigration enforcement priorities under President Donald Trump’s administration and local communities’ concerns about civil liberties. Operation Metro Surge has become a flashpoint in the national debate over immigration enforcement tactics and constitutional protections for protesters.
As federal agents and local authorities continue to navigate this complex situation, the court ruling establishes legal guardrails that could significantly impact how immigration enforcement operations are conducted in Minneapolis and potentially set precedents for similar operations nationwide.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
14 Comments
The border patrol’s defiance of the court order is very worrying. Tear gas is an indiscriminate and harmful tool that should not be used against peaceful protesters exercising their constitutional rights. I hope the authorities will reconsider this stance and find lawful ways to maintain order.
While I understand the desire to maintain order, the use of tear gas against peaceful demonstrators is highly problematic and likely to backfire. The court ruling is clear – federal agents must find alternative approaches that protect both public safety and constitutional rights.
Precisely. Tear gas is an indiscriminate and dangerous tactic that can harm bystanders and undermine legitimate protest. The border patrol should abide by the judge’s order and explore more measured responses.
The border patrol commander’s comments are very concerning. Tear gas is an extremely harmful and indiscriminate weapon that should not be used against peaceful demonstrators. I hope the authorities will respect the court’s order and explore alternative, less escalatory tactics to address any public order issues.
Agreed. The commander’s defiant stance is highly problematic and risks further inflaming the situation. Respect for the rule of law and de-escalation should be the top priorities here.
The border patrol commander’s comments are very worrying. Tear gas is an indiscriminate and dangerous weapon that should not be used against lawful protesters. I hope the authorities will reconsider their stance and find alternative, less escalatory ways to maintain order while respecting civil liberties.
Absolutely. The commander’s dismissive attitude towards the court’s ruling is deeply troubling. Upholding the rule of law and protecting constitutional rights should be the top priority here, not defiant posturing.
This is a concerning power struggle between federal authorities and the court. Upholding civil liberties and due process should be the priority, even in the face of challenging public order situations. I hope cooler heads prevail and a lawful resolution can be found.
I share your concerns. The border patrol commander’s dismissive stance towards the judge’s ruling is deeply troubling. Continued use of tear gas could inflame the situation and erode public trust in law enforcement.
This is a concerning clash between federal authorities and the courts. While public safety is crucial, the use of tear gas against peaceful protesters is highly problematic and likely to backfire. I hope the border patrol will reconsider its stance and find lawful ways to maintain order that don’t infringe on civil liberties.
This is a complex and sensitive situation. While maintaining public safety is crucial, the use of tear gas against lawful protesters sets a dangerous precedent. I hope the border patrol and the courts can find a balanced approach that upholds civil liberties and the rule of law.
This is a troubling clash between federal authorities and the courts. While public safety is paramount, the use of tear gas against peaceful protesters is extremely concerning and likely to backfire. I hope a lawful resolution can be found that upholds civil liberties and the rule of law.
This is a concerning development. Federal agents should respect the court order and find lawful ways to maintain public safety without escalating tensions through the use of tear gas against peaceful protesters.
I agree, the commander’s defiant stance seems counter-productive and risks further inflaming the situation. Deescalation and respect for the rule of law should be the priority.