Trump administration social posts amid Minnesota immigration tensions seen as appealing to far right

As its immigration crackdown in Minneapolis intensifies, the Trump administration has increasingly adopted messaging that echoes phrases, imagery, and music associated with right-wing and nationalist groups, stirring controversy and renewed criticism from opponents.

The Department of Homeland Security recently posted to social media an image of a horseman riding through a snowy landscape with the words “We’ll have our home again” – a line from a song embraced by far-right groups including the Proud Boys. This messaging came just days after tensions in Minneapolis escalated following a shooting involving a U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agent and Renee Good.

In a separate incident, the Department of Labor posted on X: “One Homeland. One People. One Heritage. Remember who you are, American.” The phrasing prompted immediate backlash from critics who noted similarities to the Nazi slogan “Ein Volk, Ein Reich, Ein Führer” (“One People, One Realm, One Leader”).

Further controversy erupted when the White House posted an image regarding Greenland that featured the phrase “Which way, Greenland Man?” – language that references a meme derived from the title of a white supremacist book “Which Way Western Man?” The administration had previously used similar framing in an ICE recruiting post that asked, “Which way, American Man?”

These messages come amid the administration’s broader immigration enforcement campaign, which officials frame as necessary to preserve American identity and values. The administration has vigorously pushed back against criticism of its messaging choices.

“It seems that the mainstream media has become a meme of their own: The deranged leftist who claims everything they dislike must be Nazi propaganda,” said White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson. “This line of attack is boring and tired. Get a grip.”

DHS spokeswoman Tricia McLaughlin described the “We’ll Have Our Home Again” post simply as “a reference to 20-plus million illegal aliens invading the country,” dismissing connections to extremist rhetoric as “absurd.”

However, César Cuauhtémoc García Hernández, a law professor at Ohio State University specializing in immigration law, pointed out that previous administrations managed to implement immigration enforcement without employing such contentious language. “You don’t have to dip into white supremacist sloganeering to promote immigration regulation,” he noted.

García Hernández observed that the administration appears to calibrate its references carefully, creating plausible deniability. “The imagery is not simply a reproduction of common white supremacist imagery or text, but a play on that imagery — and that gives them the breathing room they want,” he said.

Despite winning his second term with increased support from Latino, Black, and Asian voters, Trump has long generated enthusiasm among white nationalist groups who view his anti-immigrant stance as validating their positions. Throughout his political career, Trump has made numerous controversial statements about immigrants, including claiming they are “poisoning the blood of our country” and referring to Somali immigrants as “garbage.”

His administration has also implemented policies that critics say favor white immigrants, such as restricting refugee admissions while creating exceptions for white South Africans, whom Trump claims face discrimination despite limited evidence supporting this assertion.

The administration’s messaging strategy appears designed to resonate with certain segments of its base, particularly those immersed in online right-wing communities. Hannah Gais, a senior researcher with the Southern Poverty Law Center who tracks white supremacist groups, believes these messaging choices are deliberate.

“They know their base is this overly online right-winger who they know will go nuts if they say ‘Which Way, Western Man?'” Gais explained. However, she questioned the sustainability of this approach: “I don’t think it’s a tenable strategy for the long term because the stuff is incomprehensible to most people. And if it is comprehensible, people don’t like it.”

The controversy highlights the ongoing tensions surrounding the administration’s immigration policies and the coded language used to promote them, raising questions about the boundaries of acceptable political rhetoric in a deeply divided nation.