minneapolis 2026

The social movement theorist, Erica Chenoweth, has analyzed what progressive activists need to do in order to successfully achieve their goals. For Chenoweth, what is determinant is “how does the movement build a capacity for broadening its base…[and] how it builds a capacity for engaging in a wide variety of methods like non-cooperation, strikes, boycotts and the like.”

She then lists an additional determinant of progressive movement success – the ability “to withstand the almost inevitable violent attack against it and make that violence backfire.”

Chenoweth emphasizes that the movement must resist contributing to an environment that fosters violence. She maintains that it is important “to have non-escalatory impacts with police or with bystanders….” She goes on, “the needle that civil resistance campaigns [have to] thread…[is] to convey a political threat without threatening people and property around them….”  Concluding with a warning, she writes “it takes a lot of preparation to make sure that a community can turn out in huge numbers with confidence that they’re not going to be the ones escalating the situation.”

Though her admonishment that activists avoid provoking a violent reaction is reasonable and has merit, in today’s United States it focuses on the wrong issue. The violence unleashed in Minneapolis was unprovoked. The murderous use of force and guns by the agents of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) against demonstrators in Minneapolis was unilaterally initiated by the Trump Administration.

ICE’s behavior in Minneapolis, sanctioned by the federal government, is political. Its intended result is to install a political system of coercion – a system that intimidates citizens, represses their rights to speech and assembly, and crowds out political discourse. In short, ICE’s deployment places this country’s entire political process at risk.

America’s road to tyranny is not self-correcting. Though Trump might ultimately be forced to retreat in Minneapolis, his continued use of force against his opponents is all but certain.

 ICE needs to be disarmed and defunded, but that can only be done through the political process. Politicians who condone Trump’s violence must be defeated at the polls.

Congressional legislation is the vehicle to disarm ICE. But at the moment, Republican dominance in the House of Representatives prevents that. Recently, the House voted 220-207 in favor on a funding bill that included $10 billion for ICE.  Defeat of that legislation would have brought on yet another unpopular government shutdown. Even so, however, 206 Democrats and 1 Republican were willing to risk supporting a shutdown in order to deny funding to ICE funding. Representative Hakeem Jeffries, the Democrats House leader, reflected the overwhelming sentiment among Democratic members when he stated, “ICE is totally out of control using taxpayer dollars to brutalize American citizens and law-abiding immigrant families.”

Prospects for bringing ICE to heal are slightly more favorable in the Senate. The Senate rules require 60 votes to end debate, a provision that gives ICE critics powerful leverage. Republicans do not have the numbers to shut down a filibuster by Democrats supporting ICE. Ice supporters. The prospect of a denial of ICE funding was further strengthened when the Democrat’s leader in the Senate, Chuck Shumer, announced “Senate Democrats will not provide the votes” to support ICE.

 With this the case, there is the real possibility of an anti-ICE victory in the Senate even though it might result in a governmental shutdown. Furthermore, the New York Times reports that the ICE appropriation might be separated from other government funding. With that, every Senator would be forced to publicly vote whether or not to fund the rogue agency.

But whatever the outcome in the current congressional session, the long-term future of ICE and the use of state force against American citizens, as well as the future of our political system, will be decided in the electoral arena. This November the mid-term elections will determine the leadership of Congress. And in 2028 a new President can be elected.

It is possible that the forces of authoritarianism will prevail in these elections. If so, the United States will embark upon a dystopian future in which military might is regularly deployed in its city streets. Minneapolis would be the political model for that future.

However, it is also possible that the electorate will vote to resist tyranny by electing  representatives who will reverse the political use of force. Current polling data make it clear that a large majority of voters today reject the disaster occurring in Minneapolis.

But it remains to be seen if American citizens, hopefully casting their votes in the 2026 midterms and again in 2028, will finally reject the rule of force.

About the Author 
Jay Mandle is the Emerita W. Bradford Wiley Professor of Economics, Emeritus,at Colgate University. His many books include Change Elections to Change America: Democracy Matters Students In Action, and Creating Political Equality: Elections As a Public Good,. Mandle’s regular monthly editorials, Money On My Mind, appear on the Democracy Matters website where they explore the role of private money in politics and other critical social issues.
The views expressed in Justice On My Mind monthly columns are those of the author, (not necessarily those of Democracy Matters), and are meant to stimulate discussion.