UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA Susan Tincher, John Biestman, Janet Lee, Lucia Webb, Abdikadir Noor, and Alan Crenshaw, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals, Plaintiffs, v. Kristi Noem, Secretary of U.S. Department Of Homeland Security; Todd Lyons, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration And Customs Enforcement (ICE); Marcos Charles, Acting Executive Associate Director, Enforcement And Removal Operations (ERO), ICE; David Easterwood, Acting Field Office Director, ERO, ICE Saint Paul Field Office; John A. Condon, Acting Executive Associate Director, Homeland Security Investigations; the Department of Homeland Security; Unidentified Federal Agencies; and Unidentified Federal Agents; in their official capacities, Defendants. No. 0:25-cv-4669 (KMM/DTS) ORDER
[x] AFP via Getty Image A protester (centre) shouts towards a line of federal law enforcement agents during an anti-ICE demonstration outside the Bishop Whipple Federal Building in Minneapolis, Minnesota AFP via Getty Image
A US federal judge has issued an order limiting the crowd control tactics that can be used by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents (ICE) towards "peaceful and unobstructive" protesters in Minneapolis.
Judge Katherine Menendez ruled on Friday night that federal agents cannot arrest or pepper spray peaceful demonstrators, including those monitoring and observing ICE agents.
The ruling comes ahead of planned weekend protests against the widespread immigration action in the city and follows the fatal shooting of Renee Good by an ICE agent earlier this month.
The US Department of Homeland Security said it is taking measures to protect officers from rioters.
Minnesota officials earlier urged protesters expected to take to the streets this weekend to stay orderly and peaceful.
A US defence official has told the BBC's US partner, CBS News, that some 1,500 active-duty soldiers are on standby in Alaska for possible deployment to Minneapolis.
The soldiers, who are part of the 11th Airborne Division at Fort Wainwright in Fairbanks, are an option if Trump decides to use active duty military personnel , the official said, according to CBS.
No decision has yet been made on whether to deploy the soldiers, the official told CBS.
The state's National Guard has been placed on alert and other law enforcement officers have been deployed ahead of both expected anti-ICE demonstrations and a counter march being planned by a conservative influencer.
Judge Menendez's 83-page order bars federal agents from arresting and "using pepper-spray or similar nonlethal munitions and crowd dispersal tools against persons who are engaging in peaceful and unobstructive protest activity".
The ruling, which stems from a lawsuit filed by a group of protesters in December, also limits agents from "stopping or detaining drivers and passengers in vehicles where there is no reasonable articulable suspicion that they are forcibly obstructing or interfering" with their work.
"The act of safely following [immigration agents] at an appropriate distance does not, by itself, create reasonable suspicion to justify a vehicle stop," it says.
In a statement to CBS, the BBC's US partner, in response to the order, a spokesperson for the Department of Homeland Security said the agency "is taking appropriate and constitutional measures to uphold the rule of law and protect our officers and the public from dangerous rioters".
The White House also criticised the ruling.
"This absurd ruling embraces a dishonest, left-wing narrative," spokesperson Abigail Jackson told Politico. "Here's the truth: federal agents have acted lawfully to protect themselves and ensure the integrity of their operations when individuals attempt to intervene."
Minneapolis has been on edge since Good's 7 January shooting, with protests across the city.
There have been some reported clashes between protesters and federal officers over the past week.
On Saturday, the Minnesota National Guard posted on X that troops "are on standby, ready to assist local law enforcement and public safety agencies."
The post added that National Guard troops will wear high-visibility yellow vests "to help distinguish them from other agencies in similar uniforms".
Additionally on Friday, the justice department announced it was investigating two of the state's leading Democrats - Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey - over alleged attempts to impede federal immigration operations.
Both have condemned the ICE operations in the city.
"A reminder to all those in Minnesota: No one is above the law," US Attorney General Pam Bondi said in an online statement.
The investigation was criticised by Walz and Frey.
"Weaponizing the justice system against your opponents is an authoritarian tactic," Walz said in a statement.
**************************
Judge rules feds in Minneapolis immigration operation can’t detain or tear gas peaceful protesters By AUDREY McAVOY and STEVE KARNOWSKI apnews.com Updated 4:40 AM MST, January 17, 2026 https://apnews.com/article/minneapolis- ... 85ffa8c034
MINNEAPOLIS (AP) — Federal officers in the Minneapolis area participating in its largest recent U.S. immigration enforcement operation can’t detain or tear gas peaceful protesters who aren’t obstructing authorities, including when these people are observing the agents, a judge in Minnesota ruled Friday.
U.S. District Judge Kate Menendez’s ruling addresses a case filed in December on behalf of six Minnesota activists. The six are among the thousands who have been observing the activities of Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol officers enforcing the Trump administration’s immigration crackdown in the Minneapolis-St. Paul area since last month.
Federal agents and demonstrators have repeatedly clashed since the crackdown began. The confrontations escalated after an immigration agent fatally shot Renee Good in the head on Jan. 7 as she drove away from a scene in Minneapolis, an incident that was captured on video from several angles. Agents have arrested or briefly detained many people in the Twin Cities.
The activists in the case are represented by the American Civil Liberties Union of Minnesota, which says government officers are violating the constitutional rights of Twin Cities residents.
After the ruling, U.S. Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin issued a statement saying her agency was taking “appropriate and constitutional measures to uphold the rule of law and protect our officers and the public from dangerous rioters.”
She said people have assaulted officers, vandalized their vehicles and federal property, and attempted to impede officers from doing their work.
“We remind the public that rioting is dangerous — obstructing law enforcement is a federal crime and assaulting law enforcement is a felony,” McLaughlin said.
The ACLU didn’t immediately respond to requests for comment Friday night.
The ruling prohibits the officers from detaining drivers and passengers in vehicles when there is no reasonable suspicion they are obstructing or interfering with the officers.
Safely following agents “at an appropriate distance does not, by itself, create reasonable suspicion to justify a vehicle stop,” the ruling said.
Menendez said the agents would not be allowed to arrest people without probable cause or reasonable suspicion the person has committed a crime or was obstructing or interfering with the activities of officers.
Menendez is also presiding over a lawsuit filed Monday by the state of Minnesota and the cities of Minneapolis and St. Paul seeking to suspend the enforcement crackdown, and some of the legal issues are similar. She declined at a hearing Wednesday to grant the state’s request for an immediate temporary restraining order in that case.
“What we need most of all right now is a pause. The temperature needs to be lowered,” state Assistant Attorney General Brian Carter told her.
Menendez said the issues raised by the state and cities in that case are “enormously important.” But she said it raises high-level constitutional and other legal issues, and for some of those issues there are few on-point precedents. So she ordered both sides to file more briefs next week.
___
McAvoy reported from Honolulu. Associated Press writer Hallie Golden in Seattle contributed to this report.
TEL AVIV IN FLAME: Netanyahu FLEES to His Bunker as 1 million angry Mob Take over Gov’t Buildings! by OPTM Jan 20, 2026 #Netanyahu #IsraelProtests #TelAviv
This video rips the mask off the “rules-based order” and the selective outrage machine that props it up. In Israel, protests against Benjamin Netanyahu keep boiling over—and now we’re seeing fighter jets roaring over Tel Aviv as tensions spike. Meanwhile, the same Western voices that thunder about “democracy” and “human rights” when Iran cracks down suddenly go cautious, quiet, or euphemistic when crackdowns happen in an allied state. Then we pivot to the United States, where troop-standby talk around domestic unrest shows how fast “freedom” language turns into force at home. This isn’t a debate about values. It’s a demonstration of double standards—who gets condemned, who gets excused, and who gets protected by the media narrative.
In this 10-minute breakdown, I connect the dots between Netanyahu’s domestic pressure, the political incentives to keep Israel in permanent security mode, and the way Trump-style politics and European governments weaponize moral language when it serves geopolitical interests. If you’re tired of selective empathy, selective law, and selective outrage—this one is for you. Watch to the end, because the conclusion isn’t just about Israel or Iran or America… it’s about how power lies to you, and how easily audiences get trained to accept it.
If this analysis hits home, drop your take in the comments: Do you think leaders use external threats to drown out domestic anger? And why do “human rights principles” disappear when the ally badge is involved? Like, subscribe, and share this with someone who still believes double standards are “just politics.”
Transcript
The shock: protests, pressure, and jets over Tel Aviv Among the Israelis, what started as a protest against judicial reforms is now becoming a rebellion against the Netanyahu government. Israelis rallied in Tel Aviv on Saturday, demanding for an independent state commission of inquiry into the events of October 7th, 2023 and for a change in government. Imagine you step out into the street because your country is spiraling. Because leadership is dragging you through political chaos, war decisions that never seem to end, and a government that acts like accountability is a nuisance. You bring a flag, maybe a sign, maybe just your voice. And instead of your leaders listening, you're met with barricades, arrests, and a security state posture that basically says, What the Israeli protests are really about (and why they won’t stop) "We'll crush you before we'll answer you." That's the atmosphere around Israel's protests right now. People are still mobilizing in Tel Aviv and Jerusalem against Netanyahu's government, still showing up, still refusing to pretend everything is normal. And what makes it sickening is not only the crackdown dynamics themselves, but the way the world reacts depending on who's doing the cracking down. Because when Israel does it, the global moral megaphone suddenly goes silent. Let's ground this in what's actually happening. Today, demonstrations again gathered in Tel Aviv's Havima Square. Hundreds of people, renewed energy, renewed anger, renewed demands aimed at Netanyahu's government and the direction it keeps forcing on the country. Reports around that day tied the protest to renewed efforts to advance the judicial overhaul and wider frustrations with the government. And the mood wasn't polite disagreement. It was a public verdict that Netanyahu's project is corrosive, selfish, and dangerous. And it isn't just one type of protest or one political constituency. In Jerusalem, Israeli Palestinian citizens demonstrated outside Netanyahu's office about 500,000 people angry about rising crime and what they describe as police Crackdowns, arrests, and the “public order” excuse inaction or failed protection in their communities. Think about that. Different communities, different grievances, same conclusion. The government is failing people and power responds with indifference or force. Like and share to help me out. Hit that subscribe button if you haven't already. It is free. Thank you.
And if you want an even clearer picture of what Netanyahu under pressure looks like, look back to November 2023. A crowd in the hundreds pushed through police barriers around Netanyahu's residence, chanting, "Jail now!" because of anger over government failures. And in September 2024, reporting described police arresting at least 10 protesters outside Netanyahu's home in Jerusalem, with police periodically pushing into the crowd and confiscating protest items. So when people ask, "Do protesters try to get to Netanyahu's home?" They do again and again because they want the country's leadership to feel the heat it keeps dumping onto ordinary people. And the state response again and again is not humility or reflection. It's force and arrests. I will come to that later, but let's listen to this pastor unload on war criminal Netanyahu. If you're still supporting Israel in the year 2025, Netanyahu’s survival politics: control, coalition pressure, and fear messaging there's something seriously wrong with you as a person. You do not have a normal, healthy sense of empathy and morality. It's 2025. Israeli soldiers are telling the Israeli press that they're being ordered to massacre starving children trying to obtain food from aid centers. People by the thousands are leaving evangelical churches more than any time in our nation's history. And a lot of it, if not most of it, has to do with they are sick and tired of their evangelical pastors and churches supporting genocide against the Palestinian people. They're sick of it. Jesus said the peacemakers are blessed, War posture as distraction: how “security” swallows accountability not the people who support Israel. That's not what Jesus said. Did he? No. I dare yet find one verse of scripture where Jesus said, "Bless Israel and you'll be blessed." Jesus said, "Blessed are the peacemakers, for they shall be called the children of God." There's a lot of verses that repeat this. Romans 14:19, "Follow after the things which make for peace." 1 Corinthians 7:15, God hath called us to peace. God hath called us to peace. 1 Corinthians 14:33. For God is not the author. Here's the part that should make you angry. When domestic pressure rises, the temptation for Netanyahu is always to shift the national conversation outward toward conflict, threat, retaliation, Iran unrest and the West’s instant moral megaphone and war messaging. You don't even need to be a conspiracy theorist to see the political logic. A leader drowning in domestic anger wants an external enemy narrative because it forces the public into a false binary. Support the government or endanger the nation. That is the oldest manipulation trick in the book, and it's especially poisonous when it's paired with real military operations that kill real people. And even when the trigger is not a planned distraction, Netanyahu repeatedly benefits politically from a world that treats Israeli escalation as strategic necessity rather than political opportunism. So why are Israelis protesting him again and again, year after year? Cuz Netanyao has made politics a survival bunker. The judicial overhaul fight wasn't some harmless reform debate. It was experienced by many Israelis as a power grab that weakens checks and concentrates authority. Exactly the kind of move a leader makes when he's obsessed with control. Add in corruption allegations and long-running legitimacy crisis and you get a government that governs like it's defending itself from its own public rather than serving them. And layered on top of that is the war posture, the endless reliance on security crisis, the constant mobilization of fear, the sense that the Netanyahu + Trump hypocrisy: condemning others while excusing force at home country is being dragged into escalations that conveniently keep Netanyahu at the center of the national stage where he can posture as indispensable. Now, let's talk about those fighter jets over Tel Aviv because this is not just a claim floating around online today. There is real-time documentation from multiple posts and clips showing Israeli Air Force jets flying north over Tel Aviv with the roar clearly audible and the movement described in plain language by journalists and Osent feeds. Trey Yinst for example posted that IDF jets are flying north over Tel Aviv and the same update appears across mirrored posts and video formats circulating today. And let's be brutally honest about what that means for the political atmosphere. When your city is tense, when protests are simmering, when government legitimacy is being challenged in the streets and fighter jets are ripping overhead in daylight. Whether or not the official purpose is routine movement or operational readiness, the psychological Minneapolis and the domestic force playbook message is the same. It reinforces a culture where force is always present, always looming, always available as the government's preferred language. And Netanyahu's entire political persona feeds off that posture. Drown the public sphere in security theater, keep the country in permanent war mode, and make disscent feel like it's happening under the shadow of military power. And this is where the hypocrisy becomes impossible to ignore. Because the moment you shift your gaze to Iran, the Western reaction transforms into performative moral outrage at maximum volume. In effect, the protest in Iran, which was caused by the effects of Western sanctioned regime on ordinary people of the country, was hijacked by MSAD and the CIA to unleash their regime change dream, which is far from their rhetoric of aiding the people of Iran. A former CIA officer, Philip Gerard, captured it in clear terms. Sure, you've all heard the expression that a friend does not let a friend drive drunk. Well, the United States has been driving drunk for quite some time, and that dangerous behavior has to some extent been encouraged by Israel and its many Europe’s selective outrage: condemnation abroad, silence for allies supporters in Washington. I also would not doubt that Israel, accustomed to behaving with impunity towards its alleged friend and patron in Washington, might manufacture a pretext to draw the US into a new conflict. If the United States goes to war with Iran in the near future, it will not be because Thrron actually threatens America. It will be because Israel and its powerful lobby in the US have succeeded in creating an essentially false casus belly to mandate such action. While it is often uh observed that everyone spies on everyone else, particularly true if one is referring to our own NSA, espionage is a high-risisk business that most countries are extremely careful when they are spying on friends because of fear of blowback. The real takeaway: permission-based morality, not principles Israel, which relies on Washington for billions of dollars in in aid and also for because as of today, January 19, 2026, look at Minneapolis. There are protests tied to a federal immigration enforcement drive and multiple major outlets reported that the Pentagon put about 1,500 active duty soldiers on standby for possible deployment to Minnesota with discussion around the Insurrection Act hanging in the air like a threat. Do you understand how outrageous that is? The same political culture that lectures Iran about repression is casually normalizing the Final call: stop accepting the script idea of active duty troops being readied for domestic unrest. And Trump's style of politics thrives on that intimidation vibe. Make the public feel the state is a fist, not a service. So now we're at the heart of the double standard. Iran cracks down and it's instantly treated as proof of illegitimacy. Statements, condemnations, sanctions, summoning ambassadors. But when Israel clamps down on protesters, when police use aggressive dispersal tactics, when arrests pile up during waves of political unrest, the tone from Western capitals becomes cautious, evasive, and conveniently muted. This is not about a consistent principle of protest rights. This is about alliances. It's about whose violence gets called security and whose gets called brutality. Yeah. So like look at what happened in the United States a few days ago. a young woman, white, blonde, she's turning to her right. No. Then she gets shot in the face. The debate in the United States is whether she was turning to the right enough or whether she was not turning right enough and she was moving towards the police officer, thus making his killing mur his killing of her acceptable. The US president says, "I accept I I support him." So in the United States, a police officer can shoot someone in the face sitting in a car. But in Iran, when these rioters and these terrorists are gunning down police officers, attacking police stations, destroying tens of fire engines, tens of public buses, many ambulances. They burned down a clinic and a young nurse inside. She was burned alive. She couldn't get out. She kept going upstairs and but the fire kept growing going up and she burned to death. They burned two young men in the mosque. They surrounded them and kept throwing Molotov cocktails. Burned them alive. So this is what they were doing. They were shooting ordinary people. They were and then Western media says these are peaceful protesters. The Israelis beg to differ. is Mousad put out a statement in Persian saying that we're on the streets in Tehran and the Jerusalem Post and the Jerusalem Post essentially wrote a story saying that the Mossad is inside uh they didn't use the word infiltrate, but it seems like that's what they were implying. And the former CIA director of the United States also posted, "Happy New Year to the Mossad and the protesters in Iraq working together." And Europe, don't even get me started because the European reaction to Iran has been swift and loud. Reuters reported European Commission President Ursula Vonda Lion saying the EU would swiftly propose additional sanctions targeting those responsible for repression. Reuters also reported the UK foreign secretary condemning the brutal killing of protesters and summoning the Iranian ambassador and other reporting described multiple European states taking similar diplomatic steps. The EU's foreign policy messaging has been saturated with condemnation of Iran's disproportionate response and support for new punitive measures. Fine, if that's your standard, apply it everywhere. But that's the point. They don't apply it everywhere. They weaponize human rights against adversaries while cushioning partners with euphemisms and silence. And that selective morality is not only hypocritical, it's dangerous because it teaches governments that brutality is negotiable as long as you're on the right geopolitical team. Friends, this is not just a story about protests in Tel Aviv or unrest in Thran or tension in Minneapolis. It's a story about how power lies. How it condemns repression abroad while flirting with repression at home. How it praises democracy while tolerating police force against disscent. How it lectures the world while refusing to look in the mirror. The most honest thing you can say about this global posture is simple. It's not a rules-based order. It's a permissionbased order. And the permissions depend on alliances, not principles. Thank you for watching. Don't forget to support Honest Journalism by subscribing. That would help me out.
*********************
'Ben-Gvir's Jealous of How Iran Handles Protesters' Thousands of Israelis Protest Netanyahu Government Amid Qatargate Probe. Thousands attended the Haifa protests, held under increasingly stringent conditions. In Tel Aviv, speeches focused on Qatargate: 'When those closest to Netanyahu receive money from Qatar – as Hamas did – to manipulate Israeli citizens, it's a betrayal of national security' by Bar Peleg, Adi Hashmonai, Yair Foldes, Eden Solomonand Nir Hasson haaretz.com 10:20 PM • January 17 2026 IST https://www.haaretz.com/israel-news/202 ... dff4230000
Thousands across Israel protested against Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu's government on Saturday night, as the country gears up for elections later this year.
Around 20 police officers blocked 30 right-wing counterprotesters from attempting to disrupt and film the anti-government protesters in Tel Aviv after the demonstration. One counterprotester wore a shirt that reads "Kahane Lives," referring to the late far-right extremist.
In Haifa, thousands attended the protests, which are held under increasingly strict police restrictions. For the first time in three years, police refused to stop traffic ahead of the march and instructed protesters to walk on sidewalks during the hour-long march.
Due to overcrowding, protesters were forced to step onto the road and block cars, and police then began to block traffic. The Democrats' MK Naama Lazimi and MK Gilad Kariv attended the protests.
At Habima Square in Tel Aviv, the speeches and clips onstage focused on Qatargate investigations.
"When those closest to Netanyahu receive money from Qatar – as Hamas did – to manipulate Israeli citizens, this is not a misconception," prominent activist Shikma Bressler, the rally's MC, said. "This is a betrayal of national security."
Politician and Former Defense Minister Moshe Ya'alon said at the Tel Aviv protest that Israel faced an internal threat rather than an external one, as the government was turning Israel into "a messianic and authoritarian, racist, fascist, homophobic, misogynistic, backward, corrupt pariah state."
The public would have to choose between separation from the Palestinians or "occupation, annexation, ethnic cleansing and Jewish settlement," the former defense official said. National Security Minister Itamar Ben-Gvir, he said, "looks on with envy at how the Iranian regime is handling protesters," and the prime minister feared a state commission of inquiry.
Gil Dickmann, cousin of Carmel Gat, who was murdered in Hamas captivity, accused Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu of surrounding himself with "despicable people indifferent to death."
In southern Israel, rallies were held calling for the return of the kidnapped soldier Ran Gvili, organized by the Hostages and Missing Families Forum.
Gvili's father, Itzik, former hostages Ziv and Gali Berman and Merav Leshem-Gonen, mother of former hostage Romi Gonen, attended a rally in Meitar.
"There's a crazy case here – everyone, religious and secular, agrees on bringing Rani home. Rani created national unity, and it's time for unity," Gvili said.
In Be'er Sheva, protesters gathered at the Performing Arts Center plaza, marking three years since the government overhaul. In Jerusalem, protesters marched to the President's Residence from the intersection of Azza and Metudela streets.
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA
Susan Tincher, John Biestman, Janet Lee, Lucia Webb, Abdikadir Noor, and Alan Crenshaw, on behalf of themselves and other similarly situated individuals,
Plaintiffs,
v.
Kristi Noem, Secretary of U.S. Department Of Homeland Security; Todd Lyons, Acting Director, U.S. Immigration And Customs Enforcement (ICE); Marcos Charles, Acting Executive Associate Director, Enforcement And Removal Operations (ERO), ICE; David Easterwood, Acting Field Office Director, ERO, ICE Saint Paul Field Office; John A. Condon, Acting Executive Associate Director, Homeland Security Investigations; the Department of Homeland Security; Unidentified Federal Agencies; and Unidentified Federal Agents; in their official capacities,
Defendants.
No. 0:25-cv-4669 (KMM/DTS)
ORDER
In early December 2025, the Department of Homeland Security launched Operation Metro Surge, an ongoing enforcement effort that has led to an unprecedented increase in federal law enforcement presence to enforce immigration laws in Minnesota. In this case, six named Plaintiffs who have protested and observed these enforcement activities claim that their First and Fourth Amendment rights have been violated and request both declaratory and injunctive relief. In addition to demanding relief on their own behalf, they also seek to represent a class of persons who record, observe, and protest the immigration enforcement officers and their efforts.
This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. (Dkt. 16.) For the following reasons, the Motion is granted in part and denied in part.
BACKGROUND
I. Procedural History
Plaintiffs Susan Tincher, John Biestman, Janet Lee, Lucia Webb, Abdikadir Noor, and Alan Crenshaw are individuals who have observed or protested U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) activity taking place in and around the Twin Cities. Plaintiffs allege that, despite remaining law abiding when engaging in those protected activities, Defendants subjected them to the use of chemical irritants, intimidation, including by pointing firearms at them, detention, and arrest, in violation of their First and Fourth Amendment rights.
Plaintiffs initiated this action on December 17, 2025, seeking to vindicate their First and Fourth Amendment rights. They also seek to represent a proposed class, which they define as: “All persons who do or will in the future record, observe, and/or protest against the DHS immigration operations that have been ongoing in this District since December 4, 2025.” (Id. ¶ 179 (“Proposed Class”).) The Complaint asserts five class claims: (1) “First Amendment—Free Speech, Free Press, Free Assembly”; (2) “First Amendment—Retaliation”; (3) “Fourth Amendment—Unlawful Seizure and Excessive Force”; (4) “Civil Conspiracy”; and (5) “Declaration of Rights, 28 U.S.C. § 2201.” (Dkt. 1 at 56–60.1) The Complaint also includes 14 declarations total from the named Plaintiffs and nonparties.
The next day, Plaintiffs moved for a temporary restraining order (Dkt. 16.) with an initial proposed order seeking extensive injunctive relief (Dkt. 19). They subsequently filed a more narrowly tailored request for relief. (Dkt. 38.) The day after that, on December 19, 2025, the Court held a status conference. The Court converted the motion for a temporary restraining order into a motion for a preliminary injunction and set a briefing schedule on the motion.2 (Dkt. 24; see Dkt. 23 (minute entry).) Plaintiffs sought a more expedited briefing schedule, but the Court provided Defendants with additional time to allow for an opportunity to provide the Court with a full response. The Court also set a deadline for the parties to request an evidentiary hearing, but neither party requested such a hearing. Over the next few weeks, Plaintiffs continued to file additional evidence.3 Defendants filed a response to Plaintiffs’ motion and a declaration. (Dkt. 46 (Response); Dkt. 47 (Decl. of Defendant David Easterwood).)
On January 13, 2026, the Court held oral argument on the motion and allowed the parties to submit additional relevant video evidence. (See Dkt. 70.) Both parties submitted additional evidence.
II. Factual Background4 A. Arrests 1. Arrest of Plaintiff Susan Tincher
Ms. Tincher is a longtime resident of the Near North neighborhood in Minneapolis. (Dkt. 1-1 (“Tincher Decl.” ¶ 1.) On December 9, 2025, Tincher woke up around 6:30 a.m. to alerts that ICE was in her neighborhood and drove to the intersection of 21st Street and Oliver Avenue “with the intent to observe and record what [she] saw happening.” (Id. ¶¶ 2–3.) Upon arriving, she saw “several people” who she believed to be federal immigration agents5 wearing masks and bulletproof vests with “POLICE” and “ERO”6 labels standing outside a house. (Id. ¶ 4.) A vehicle with flashing lights was parked partially on the sidewalk and additional unmarked vehicles blocked access to crosswalks. (Dkt. 1-10 (“Rollins Decl.”7) ¶ 4; Dkt. 1-12 (“Sorensen Decl.”8) ¶ 6.) The agents appeared to have “set up a perimeter around the house.” (Tincher Decl. ¶ 5; see also Sorensen Decl. ¶ 9.) Ms. Tincher saw “a few” individuals observing from “a safe distance.” (Tincher Decl. ¶ 6; see also Rollins Decl. ¶ 16 (stating that there were “at most” seven observers who “kept their distance from the agents and did not threaten or impede the[m]”); Sorensen Decl. ¶ 16.)
Tincher exited her car and began walking toward the house “to get a sense of what was happening.” (Tincher Decl. ¶¶ 7, 9.) From the sidewalk, about six feet from the agents, Tincher, who had her hands “down” with “neutral body language” (Sorensen Decl. ¶ 10), asked them, “Are you ICE?” (Tincher Decl. ¶ 7.) One agent approached Tincher and instructed her from “about one or two feet” away to “get back.” (Id.) Tincher heard other officers say “‘Get back!’ and ‘Take her down!’” (Id.) Within “[a]bout 15 seconds,” several agents grabbed Tincher and “pulled [her] to the ground.” (Id. ¶ 8; see also Rollins Decl. ¶ 12.) Tincher was then handcuffed “while . . . on the ground, facedown in the snow[.]” (Tincher Decl. ¶ 9.) At around this point, Sorensen began to record the incident. (See Sorensen Decl. ¶¶ 11–13.)
Ms. Tincher “think[s]” the agents said that she was being arrested for obstructing a federal officer. (Tincher Decl. ¶ 9.) But according to Ms. Rollins, Tincher “did not . . . physically resist the agents in any way” and “did not taunt or threaten the agents, . . . make any threatening gestures toward [them,] or take any action to endanger or impede the[m]” at any point. (Rollins Decl. ¶¶ 13–14.) While still on the ground, Tincher told observers her name and yelled for help because she “was afraid [she] was being kidnapped” and arrested “for no reason.” (Id. ¶ 10; see also Rollins Decl. ¶ 13; Tincher Video 0:00–0:12, 0:44–1:11.9) Sorensen saw one of the federal agents recording them. (Sorensen Decl. ¶ 18.10) As the agents arrested Tincher and placed her in an unmarked car, Sorensen heard an agent say, “You are under arrest. This is what you get for interfering.” (Id. ¶ 14; Tincher Decl. ¶ 11.) While at times blurry, video of the incident does not show Tincher to be resisting the arrest as agents took her to an ICE vehicle and placed her inside. (Tincher Video 1:37–1:59.)
The agents took Ms. Tincher to the Whipple Federal Building, where they removed her clothes and cut off her wedding ring before shackling her. (Tincher Decl. ¶¶ 11–16; Rollins Decl. ¶ 15.) “[M]ore than five hours” after the arrest, officers from Homeland Security Investigations (“HSI”) read Tincher her rights and asked if she would speak to them without a lawyer present. (Tincher Decl. ¶ 16.) After she declined, the officers told Tincher that she would be charged with obstructing a federal officer, and she was released. (Id. ¶ 17.) Ms. Tincher’s clothes were never returned, and she suffered bruising from the arrest. (Id. ¶ 18.)
Since the incident, which Ms. Tincher describes as a “frightening experience that would scare anybody,” she continues to monitor her neighborhood chat and believes that she would go observe ICE activity again. (Id. ¶ 19.)
Defendant David Easterwood’s Account
Defendant David Easterwood, the Acting Field Office Director for ERO’s St. Paul Field Office, provides a different narrative of what occurred leading up to Ms. Tincher’s arrest. He confirms that ICE agents were conducting a criminal investigation in Minneapolis when “a small number of protesters started to gather, blow whistles, and record on their phones.” (Dkt. 47 (“Easterwood Decl.”) ¶ 24.) Ms. Tincher then “attempted to enter the established perimeter of the operation” and, despite being instructed “multiple times to step back,” she “verbally refused” and “expressed her continued intent to cross into the established perimeter[.]” (Id.) Even when an officer “positioned her body to prevent [Tincher] from entering the perimeter,” she “continued to defy instructions to move back” and “attempted to push the ICE officer out of the way.” (Id.)
The officer warned that Ms. Tincher would be arrested “for impeding a federal officer” before attempting to handcuff her in a “standing position,” but she “continued to actively resist.” (Id.) The officers “placed [Tincher] on the ground” and then handcuffed her. (Id.) She “continued to try to pull away from the ICE officers” while being escorted to a vehicle and “refused to get in[],” requiring the officers to “pick her up and lift her in[]” before taking her to an ICE processing center. (Id.) In the vehicle, Tincher “unbuckled her seatbelt and attempted to uncuff herself.” (Id.)
Following the hearing on the Plaintiffs’ motion, Defendants were unable to locate any video footage of this incident. (Dkt. 78 at 1.) Easterwood’s description of the events is based on an HSI report that was submitted under seal to supplement the record. (Dkt. 79.) The report echoes Easterwood’s account. ICE officers involved in the enforcement activities describe Ms. Tincher approaching the perimeter; refusing commands to get back; stating that she would enter the area via a nearby sidewalk because it was a public space; and eventually attempting to push past a female officer to get into the area. (Id. at 20.)
2. Arrest of Plaintiff Abdikadir Noor
Mr. Noor is a 43-year-old resident of Fridley, Minnesota. (Dkt. 1-5 (“Noor Decl.”) ¶ 1.) He is Somali American and a U.S. citizen. (Id.) On December 15, 2025, while Noor was out with his wife and a friend, Noor noticed some cars behind them, one of which he initially thought was a police car with its lights on. (Id. ¶¶ 2–3.) Thinking he was being pulled over, Noor “stopped and pulled into a safe spot.” (Id.) As people “in plain clothes,” military vests, and masks exited the cars, Noor realized they were ICE agents and saw them approaching one of the other vehicles occupied by “two Latinos.” (Id. ¶¶ 2–4.)
Four masked agents passed by Mr. Noor and “surrounded” the other vehicle. (Id. ¶ 5.) Noor called out to the occupants of the car, “You don’t have to show them anything. Don’t roll down your window or unlock your door!” in an attempt “to tell them about their rights,” but they did not appear to speak English. (Id. ¶ 6.) Around then, another woman arrived and “started telling the Latino people to exercise their rights and telling ICE to leave.” (Id. ¶ 7.) At that point, a crowd began to gather. (Id.)
As the woman stood on the sidewalk, “an ICE agent grabbed her hand to get her to move,” and “[s]omeone in the crowd grabbed her other hand they started to tussle.” (Id. ¶ 8.) The agent “thr[ew]” the woman on the ground and “put his knee on her back.” (Id.) Someone in the crowd said the woman was pregnant, and the crowd, including Noor, “started yelling at ICE to let her go.” (Id.) While the woman was pinned to the ground, face down in the snow for about 30 minutes, “other agents broke the windows of the car the Latinos were in and pulled them out,” seemingly without showing a warrant. (See id. ¶¶ 9–10.) As the crowd threw snow at the agents, Noor saw one of the agents call for backup and told people “not to throw things” and “to be peaceful” because they “needed to save the lady, and . . . to save the agent from himself.” (Id. ¶ 10.) Noor also “tried to keep people back from the agents.” (Id.) “Suddenly,” the agent kneeling on the woman “drag[ged] her by her hand to his car” but let go because “[h]e couldn’t quite get her there, at which point she “was able to get up and leave.” (Id. ¶ 11.)
At some point, additional agents had arrived and “decided to focus on” Mr. Noor. (Id. ¶ 13.) He describes his arrest as follows:
One of the[] [agents] said something like “let’s get this guy” to the other agents. They all walked toward me. I heard one of them say something to me about ICE, but I don’t know what. They grabbed me and threw me on the ground and handcuffed me. I have bruises on my knees and my head from this.
(Id.) Noor was put in a car with an agent who drove “about 85 miles per hour” to the Whipple federal building. (Id. ¶ 14.) The agents did not put a seatbelt on him and refused to “slow down and to let [him] put on a seatbelt” when he asked. (Id.)
At the Whipple building, the agents looked at Mr. Noor’s passport, while saying things like, “[T]hey all come here fraudulently. 50% are here fraudulently”; “Somalis drained Minnesota”; and “Somalis should go back home.” (Id. ¶ 15.) Noor was shackled, placed in a cell, and eventually read his rights, to which Noor responded that he wanted a lawyer. (Id. ¶ 16.) He was detained until about 6:00 p.m. and was not charged or given any paperwork upon release. (Id. ¶ 17.)
Defendant Easterwood’s Account
According to Mr. Easterwood, ICE officers were attempting to arrest a noncitizen when a “group of 60-70 protesters surrounded the officers and began throwing rocks and snowballs, assaulting, taunting, challenging, and yelling ‘kill yourself’ and other obscenities[.]” (Easterwood Decl. ¶ 27.) The officers witnessed a female protester trying to spray paint a government vehicle. (Id.) They were unsuccessful in their attempt to arrest her because of her “continued resistance” and another protester “pulling her away from the officers[.]” (Id.)
Mr. Easterwood states that Mr. Noor was “[l]eading some of the[] protestors” by “threaten[ing] to interfere, act[ing] aggressively, push[ing] up into ICE officers’ faces, shout[ing] obscenities, and thr[owing] rocks and ice at ICE officers.” (Id.) The officers, who were “[g]reatly outnumbered,” tried to leave but “were blocked in by a growing crowd of protestors and their vehicles.” (Id.) Local authorities arrived in response to the ICE officers’ requests for backup for “crowd control” and “help[ing] . . . officers leave the area.” (Id.) But the local authorities “left soon thereafter despite the crowd’s escalating hostility against ICE officers” because the situation “lack[ed] what they perceived to be an emergency[.]” (Id.) The ICE officers sustained injuries, and their vehicles were damaged from the incident, during which two protesters, including Mr. Noor, were arrested. (Id.)
Defendants supplemented the record concerning these events by filing an incident report under seal. (Dkt. 78 at 2; Dkt. 79-1.) The incident report describes how a large group of 60 or more protesters had formed near the ICE efforts to secure the target of their investigation in the back seat of a vehicle; some of the demonstrators threw objects (apparently ice and snow) at ICE officers who called for backup; and as agents attempted to get their vehicles out of the area, they deployed pepper spray to disperse the crowd. (Dkt. 79-1 at 1.) Further, the report indicates that an officer “straddled [a] protestor that was down on the ground to protect him from the ongoing struggle . . . as well as to detain him until it could be sorted out what his role was in the incident. A member of [the backup team] said they wanted him cuffed and arrested.” (Id.) Presumably, this portion of the report refers to the arrest of Mr. Noor, but it does not identify or describe any conduct in which he was allegedly involved that formed the basis for his arrest.
Videos
There are multiple videos in the record relevant to Mr. Noor’s arrest. In one video, agents can be seen standing over a woman on the ground, struggling to detain her while concurrently telling protesters to get back. During this scrum, one officer points a stun gun at protesters and another aims what appears to be a cannister of a chemical irritant. (First Noor Video 0:08–0:35.11) Protesters yelled at the officers and explain that the woman was pregnant. (Id. 0:08–0:35.) The agents tell the woman to stop resisting as they pull her onto her stomach, with the agents then kneeling on her back. (Id. 0:20–0:30.) After a cut in the video, one officer can be seen standing, holding the arm of the woman who is face down, and pointing his stun gun at individuals out of frame. (Id. 0:35–0:44.) Protesters appear to be approaching to observe and voice their displeasure, with the individuals in frame approximately 10–20 feet from that officer. (Id. 0:35–0:44.) The other agent, who appears to be 5–10 feet from two protesters, is seen on the phone. As he speaks into the phone, he is hit with a handful of loose snow thrown by a protester. (Id. 0:36–0:39.) Audio of a 911 call from a Homeland Security officer telling the dispatcher that the officers needed immediate assistance because agents were getting “surrounded” and “attacked,” and “60 to 70 agitators” were present and “fighting” the officers. (Id. 0:35–1:14.)
A smattering of snowballs begins to fly, and officers are hit by many, as the woman on the ground begins to try to get away from the officer. (Id. 0:45–0:59.) Regaining control of the woman, the officers begin to spray a chemical irritant intermittently toward parts of a crowd that has come and broadly encircled the officers as additional snowballs are thrown toward the officers. (Id. 0:59–1:08.) The officers then begin to move, dragging the woman along behind them, causing more snow to fly, and the officers spray more chemical irritant. (Id. 1:08–1:18.) Another protester can be seen pulling the woman’s leg to free her and the officer lets go and begins to leave the scene. (Id. 1:18–1:26.)
It is at this point that Noor can be seen in the background for the first time, appearing to hold a phone up to record the officers as they run away. (Id. 1:25–1:26.) Sometime later, after local law enforcement has arrived on the scene and the area is relatively calm, both protesters and officers intermix on the street and the officers begin to leave the area. (Second Noor Video 0:00–7:35.12) At one point, a protester appears to get close to an officer, and the officer extends a nightstick to get the protester to backup, at which point Noor can be seen with a phone in one hand recording and the other arm outstretched to indicate that the protester back up. (Id. 7:33–7:39.) As other protesters begin to walk toward the officer, Noor holds his arms up to indicate that they stay back and appears to be saying something to the officer. (Id. 7:39–7:44.) As a couple of protesters attempt to get closer to the agent, Noor pushes the protesters away. (Id. 7:44–7:47.)
Then, Noor becomes more animated as he sees the officers involved with the attempted arrest of the pregnant woman, taking a couple of steps closer and gesturing at them. (Id. 7:46–7:51.) At the same time, he pushes another protester away from the officers. (Id. 7:49–51.) He again appears to say something to the agents and gestures at the them as they enter their vehicle. (Id. 7:51–8:04.) He is about 10 to 15 feet from the agents. (Id. 7:51–8:04.) Noor then steps within 5 to 8 feet of the vehicle door and out of frame, but his shadow appears to show him gesturing and swinging his arms around in the direction of other agents outside of the car. (Id. 8:05–8:10.) The view of exactly what happens next is obstructed by another protester, but Noor suddenly moves backward, and a different agent takes his spot in the frame. (Id. 8:10–8:13.) Noor then begins to back away from the car. (Id.8:13–8:15.) The agent sitting in the vehicle then steps out, gathers himself, and communicates with the other agents outside the vehicle. (Id. 8:14–8:24.) That agent then says, “Let’s get him. Right here,” and he and another agent step up to Noor, grab him, and swing him to the ground. (Id. 8:24–8:31.) Protesters step forward to attempt to push the officers, one of which falls over Noor, who lies face down on the pavement. (Id. 8:31–8:37.) Noor briefly lifts his chest off the ground with his forearms, before another officer grabs his hand and Noor returns to his chest. (Id. 8:39–8:42.) Noor continues to lie on the ground as the officer slowly lifts him up and places him in a government vehicle. (Id. 8:42–10:07.) At no time during his arrest does Noor appear to resist the officers.13
B. Following Agents by Car
In Plaintiffs’ Complaint, and in the evidence submitted by Plaintiffs and other non-parties, they describe efforts to observe ICE activities by following ICE vehicles and sharing information about what ICE is doing in the community. In declarations from Plaintiffs Lucia Webb, John Biestman, and Janet Lee, and from numerous other Minnesotans, they describe how this following activity has led federal law enforcement officers to stop them, accuse them of impeding or interfering with federal investigations, and otherwise instruct them not to continue engaging in this method of observation.
1. Stop of Plaintiff Lucia Webb
On December 3, 2025, Ms. Webb, a thirty-one-year-old Minneapolis resident, heard about ICE activity in South Minneapolis and drove there “to document all the things ICE has been doing to disrupt [the] city.” (Dkt. 1-4 (“Webb Decl.”) ¶¶ 1–2.) Once Webb arrived, she saw vehicles with “dark tinted windows and Virginia license plates” that other observers were looking into and confirmed had ICE agents driving them. (Id. ¶ 3.)
When the ICE vehicles drove away, Ms. Webb followed to “let[] other people know where they were headed.” (Id. ¶ 4.) She was “fairly certain [she] stayed a few car lengths behind” the ICE vehicles and “didn’t run any red lights or ignore traffic signals,” reminding herself “to stay calm and to be careful.” (Id. ¶¶ 4–5.) Webb followed them to the Whipple Federal Building, where she saw “more ICE vehicles” and, among “many” others, an agent “standing in the middle of the road and gesturing like a traffic controller.” (Id. ¶¶ 6–7.) Webb initially stopped because she was unsure “what to do or where to go” but moved forward into a parking lot once “it seemed like the agent in the road was waving [her] through.” (Id. ¶¶ 7–8.)
Suddenly, Ms. Webb found herself surrounded by “something like four cars,” and five agents approached, which “scared and confused” her. (Id. ¶ 8.) As the agents began talking to her, she started recording the interaction. (Id.) One masked agent said that Webb “had been chasing them, breaking traffic laws and running red lights,” which they claimed to have on video. (Id. ¶ 9.) When Webb denied the accusations, the agent told her that she would be “arrested for impeding” if she did not stop following the officers. (Id.) Webb said that she “should have the right to follow the[] [agents] and observe them on public streets” and said she was “ashamed of them for “kidnapping people[.]” (Id. ¶ 10.) In response, the agents insulted her. (Id.)
The incident left Ms. Webb “really shaken, both emotionally and physically[.]” (Id. ¶ 11.) She collected herself “for a while” before “[driving] home crying and upset[.]” (Id.) Since then, Webb has experienced “a lot of trouble concentrating,” which has interfered with her work; “more trouble sleeping than usual”; and “paranoi[a]” when she sees cars with tinted windows nearby. (Id. ¶ 12.)
The following day, Ms. Webb was in a friend’s car following ICE vehicles with other observers, when a car “pull[ed] a U-turn . . . and [stopped] in the middle of [the street], impeding traffic generally, but specifically blocking” other cars that were following the ICE vehicles. (Id. ¶ 13.) Masked agents exited one of the other vehicles and aimed a gun at nearby observers who were on foot and in the other cars that had been following the ICE vehicles. (Id.) One of the agents “smack[ed]” an observer’s car and appeared to put “the front end of his gun . . . inside that car’s window.” (Id.) Later, as the agents drove away, Webb and her friend followed until they decided that the agents “were driving too fast.” (Id.) Webb saw the agents’ car run a red light, which was “very frightening given it was rush hour.” (Id.)
Ms. Webb states that she “will continue to observe and tell agents what [she] thinks about their actions,” in part “to let the government know that [she doesn’t] like what they’re doing to [her] neighbors, and that it is far beyond what should be considered normal or ok.” (Id. ¶ 12.) However, she plans to “try not to go out alone when [she] ha[s] the option to be with another person.” (Id.)
2. Stop of Plaintiffs John Biestman and Janet Lee
Mr. Biestman lives in Minneapolis with his wife, Ms. Lee. (Dkt. 1-2 (“Biestman Decl.”) ¶ 1.) On the morning of December 7, 2025, Biestman and Lee heard that ICE was present at a church in Richfield, Minnesota, where they planned to arrest congregation members as they left the service. (Id. ¶ 2.) Biestman and Lee drove to the church “to observe and document ICE activity” and “to express [their] strong disapproval of such cruel and callous behavior,” which Lee views as her “civic obligation.” (Id.; Dkt. 1-3 (“Lee Decl.”) ¶ 2.) Upon arriving at the church, Lee saw “fewer than a dozen” people, who appeared to be observers. (Lee Decl. ¶ 5; see also Dkt. 14 (“Rudolph Leon Decl.”14) ¶¶ 4, 6 (stating that there were “approximately eight people at the church to observe and document any ICE activity,” including Biestman and Lee).) Lee and Biestman also saw ICE vehicles “driving recklessly” nearby and began to follow what they believed to be an ICE vehicle, ensuring that they drove “carefully and lawfully” without “following too closely” or “blocking, impeding or interfering with anyone[.]” (Biestman Decl. ¶ 3; see Rudolph Leon Decl. ¶¶ 7–9.) They stopped at a red light, which “put some distance” between them and the ICE vehicle. (Lee Decl. ¶ 7.)
As the couple turned into a nearby park, they “[a]lmost immediately . . . were boxed in and stopped by four unmarked ICE vehicles.” (Biestman Decl. ¶ 4.) There were no other people in the park. (Lee Decl. ¶ 8.) At that point, “[m]asked . . . and unmarked ICE agents surrounded” their car, “point[ing] semiautomatic weapons at [them] at close range, demand[ing] that [they] roll down [their] windows, and threaten[ing] [them] multiple times with arrest.” (Biestman Decl. ¶ 4–5; see also Lee Decl. ¶¶ 9–10.) Biestman told the agents that he and Lee were U.S. citizens, to which the agents replied that “it didn’t matter,” and said, “[W]hat you’re doing is illegal, this is like Germany 1938.” (Biestman Decl. ¶ 6; see also Lee Decl. ¶ 10.)
At that point, one of the agents reached into their car through the driver-side window, pointed at Lee, and said, “[W]e’re going to arrest her too, we have handcuffs.” (Biestman Decl. ¶ 7.) They also told the couple that they “had to leave” immediately and stop following the agents. (Lee Decl. ¶ 13.) When Biestman asked about an arrest warrant, the agents said that they “didn’t need one.” (Biestman Decl. ¶ 8; see also Lee Decl. ¶ 10.) They “continued to threaten” the couple by pointing guns “right in [their] faces” and commenting that they had the couple’s license plate and “[knew] where to find [them]” despite it being “readily apparent” that Lee and Biestman were unarmed. (Biestman Decl. ¶¶ 8–9.) However, the agents “did not, at any point, tell [them] what [they] had done wrong[.]” (Lee Decl. ¶ 14.)
To Lee, the agents seemed “angry because [the couple] w[as] watching them and because [the couple] communicated by [their] presence that [they] did not approve of [the agents’] conduct.” (Lee Decl. ¶ 14.) Biestman and Lee were unable to record the incident out of fear, but Lee called another observer “so that [the observer] [could] . . . hear what was happening.” (Id. ¶¶ 10, 12; Biestman Decl. ¶¶ 8–9.) Several officers recorded the couple’s faces and license plate. (Biestman Decl. ¶ 8; Lee Decl. ¶¶ 10.)
The incident left Biestman and Lee feeling “traumatized,” anxious, and “intimidated and terrified.” (Biestman Decl. ¶¶ 11, 14; Lee Decl. ¶¶ 16–17.) Nevertheless, the couple has “continued to engage in constitutional observation activities,” (Lee Decl. ¶ 17), and plans to continue doing so “despite the agents’ threats and intimidation,” (Biestman Decl. ¶ 14). However, Lee “ha[s] been more cautious since the event” out of “fear that ICE agents will physically harm [her].” (Lee Decl. ¶ 17.)
3. Stops of Nonparties
Evidence submitted by Plaintiffs from more than a dozen nonparties reflects that other Minnesota residents who have followed immigration officials’ vehicles to observe and share information about their activities have also been stopped. (E.g., Rudolph Leon Decl.; Dkt. 1-7 (“Engelhart Decl.”); Dkt. 1-8 (“Clark Decl.”); Dkt. 1-9 (“Page Decl.”); Dkt. 1-11 (“Kellermeyer Decl.”); Dkt. 34 (“Smith Decl.”); Dkt. 35 (“Holboy Decl.”); Dkt. 36 (“Mielke Decl.”); Dkt. 52-3 (“Smith Decl. 2”); Dkt. 59 (“Burdine Decl.”); Dkt. 63 (“Jackson Decl.”); Dkt. 64 (“Juhn Decl.”); Dkt. 67 (“Levy Decl.”); Dkt. 69 (“Salm Decl.”).) The declarants serve as witnesses to what Plaintiffs characterize as a broad pattern or practice whereby federal immigration agents are stopping residents’ vehicles without sufficient cause to justify detention. Their accounts are detailed, signed, dated, and provided under penalty of perjury. 28 U.S.C. § 1746. The Court summarizes the common aspects of these accounts most relevant to the issues under consideration.15
These witnesses have identified vehicles occupied by ICE agents and attempted to follow them. (E.g., Rudolph Leon Decl. ¶¶ 8–9; Page Decl. ¶ 2; Clark Decl. ¶¶ 6–7; Kellermeyer Decl. ¶ 2.) These declarants state that while following ICE vehicles, they have maintained a safe distance, obeyed traffic laws, and refrained from aggressive or dangerous driving, though many of them have repeatedly honked their horns while doing so. (See, e.g., Smith Decl. 2 ¶ 2; Mielke Decl. ¶ 5; Holboy Decl. ¶¶ 9–13; Rudolph Leon Decl. ¶ 9; Levy Decl. ¶¶ 8, 14; Juhn Decl. ¶ 5.)
After the nonparties followed the ICE vehicles for varying distances, they were stopped by federal immigration officers in a variety of ways. Several ICE vehicles have boxed in or surrounded the witness’s vehicle; ICE agents have positioned their vehicles to block the road; other times, an ICE vehicle has braked abruptly in front of the witness; and other ICE vehicles driving behind the witness have activated emergency lights to initiate a stop. (See, e.g., Rudolph Leon Decl. ¶ 18; Mielke Decl. ¶¶ 6–9; Smith Decl. 2 ¶¶ 2–3; Burdine Decl. ¶¶ 5–6; Levy Decl. ¶¶ 7–8.) Once stopped, ICE agents have approached the witnesses’ vehicle and accused the drivers of breaking the law by interfering with or impeding federal agents, occasionally mentioning 18 U.S.C. § 111, and other times providing no explanation of the laws the nonparties have purportedly violated. (E.g., Mielke Decl. ¶ 10; Holboy Decl. ¶ 13; Kellermeyer Decl. ¶ 5; Clark Decl. ¶ 20; Page Decl. ¶ 6.) These incidents have caused these nonparties anxiety and affected their behavior, but they have expressed a commitment to continuing to follow and observe the actions of federal immigration authorities in their communities. (See Rudolph Leon Decl. ¶¶ 36–38; Page Decl. ¶¶ 10–11; Clark Decl.¶¶ 24–27; Kellermeyer Decl. ¶¶ 6–7; Holboy Decl. ¶¶ 14–16; Mielke Decl. ¶ 11; Burdine Decl. ¶¶ 8–11; Levy Decl. ¶¶ 14–15; Jackson Decl. ¶ 11; Juhn Decl. ¶ 11; Salm Decl. ¶¶ 24–25.)
4. Defendants’ Response Regarding Stops
Defendants have not provided declarations or other evidence regarding the circumstances of the stops of Plaintiffs Webb, Biestman, and Lee, nor have they provided evidence to refute the accounts provided by the nonparty witnesses who were stopped by immigration officers. However, in his declaration, Director Easterwood discusses the phenomenon of Minnesota residents following government vehicles and the safety concerns presented by such conduct:
I understand that Plaintiffs make several allegations of ICE officers being involved in multiple confrontations with protesters following the protesters pursuing after government vehicles. ICE officers are trained and instructed to follow all traffic laws. When protesters’ pursuit of government vehicles, however, cross into erratic, aggressive driving and risk the officers or the public’s safety, ICE officers may try to lose the pursuing vehicle, call for assistance from local authorities, or they may stop the pursuing vehicle and issue a warning that continued aggressive driving could lead to a federal arrest. In at least one instance, local authorities arrested for harassment one driver who followed government vehicles erratically, thereby endangering public safety. There have also been instances where individuals caused vehicular crashes, endangering both ICE officers and the public’s safety, due to erratic driving behaviors – photos of some of the damage provided below. Sometimes people following ICE vehicles will run red lights and cut off other vehicles in order to stay behind ICE vehicles. In other instances, the followers use their vehicles to block the road and to box in ICE vehicles as soon as they are able. This behavior is not safe and impedes ICE officers from effecting arrests. Prior to 2025, this type of behavior was virtually nonexistent. Now, it occurs almost daily.
(Dkt. 47 ¶ 29.)
C. Plaintiff Alan Crenshaw & December 9, 2025
Plaintiff Alan Crenshaw and other witnesses describe the use of pepper spray and other chemical irritants in an incident in the Cedar-Riverside area on December 9, 2025. Mr. Crenshaw and other witnesses also discuss the use of irritants in other incidents from mid-November 2025 through January 2026.
Mr. Crenshaw is a 35-year-old Minneapolis resident. (Dkt. 1-6 (“Crenshaw Decl. 1”) ¶ 1.) On December 9, 2025, Crenshaw heard that ICE was in the Cedar Riverside area and “that the Somali community was hoping to have people observe what the government ha[d] been doing to their community[.]” (Id. ¶ 2.) Because it was “important for [Crenshaw] to be able to make people aware of ICE’s presence in the neighborhood,” he walked to the Cedar Riverside area and followed someone else who told him that ICE had just entered a restaurant in the area. (Id. ¶¶ 2–3.) Crenshaw planned “to document what they were doing.” (Id. ¶ 3.)
As Crenshaw entered the restaurant, he saw “two agents . . . violently slamming a young black man against the wall.” (Id. ¶ 4.) The man was “yelling in pain and saying that he was a U.S. citizen,” but the agents “didn’t seem to care” and “dragged [the man] outside,” even though he continued to tell them he is a citizen. (Id.) When Crenshaw and other observers followed the agents outside, one of the agents “slammed the door on [them]” and appeared to be “frustrated with [them] being there and filming them and telling them that what they were doing was wrong[.]” (Id. ¶ 5.)
Once Crenshaw was outside the restaurant, he saw the agents “violently push the young man into the snow for no apparent reason” and “put him in handcuffs” and into a car with “black windows” and a Florida license plate. (Id. ¶ 6.) Throughout the incident, observers “were shouting at the agents and blowing whistles,” but the agents “repeatedly ignored requests for their badge numbers or any identifying information.” (Id. ¶ 7.) They also ignored people who appeared to be the man’s friends or family, who showed the agents his identification, and drove away as people “followed, recording, blowing their whistles, and yelling.” (Id. ¶¶ 8–9.) Even though “[n]o one was getting in the way of the agency cars, which were moving slowly[,]” an agent “pepper sprayed the crowd with no warning.” (Id. ¶ 9.) Crenshaw was “about 10-15 feet away when they sprayed” and “[saw] the bright orange” of the chemical irritant. (Id.)
After the agents left, Mr. Crenshaw “headed over to a group of people observing other ICE activity[.]” (Id. ¶ 10.) There, he “saw about nine ICE vehicles with lights on attempting to leave the parking lot, causing a traffic jam.” In the 20 minutes it took the vehicles to exit the area, observers were “recording, chanting, blowing whistles, and telling ICE to leave.” (Id.) Crenshaw saw “multiple incidents of people being pepper sprayed with no warning,” as well as “some agents warn[ing] people to move before spraying them.” (Id. ¶ 10.) In one instance, agents drove slowly past, opened the car door, and “sprayed [a bystander] directly” as the bystander “held their arms out” and “was standing on the edge of the road.” (Id. ¶ 11.) As the bystander moved away from the car, “another agent on foot came behind them and sprayed them directly in the face again,” before spraying “into the small crowd.” (Id.) At that point, “[t]he crowd was really shouting,” and it appeared to Crenshaw that the agents “seemed to deliberately want to provoke a reaction by spraying like that.” (Id. ¶ 12.) Some observers “threw snowballs at the car wheels as it drove away,” but Crenshaw did not. (Id.)
Then, while Mr. Crenshaw was standing “on the side of the road in the crosswalk,” another ICE car without lights on “drove past and sprayed [him] right in the face,” leaving him “immediately overtaken by pain,” unable to keep his eyes open, feeling unable to breathe, and “coughing very hard[.]” (Id. ¶ 13.) Crenshaw had “red swelling,” “spots on [his] eyes for about 24 hours,” and “skin tingling for a few hours.” (Id.) Crenshaw writes that it is “important” to him that “the abuses that are occurring at the hands of ICE in [his] community is documented.” (Crenshaw Decl. 1 ¶ 14.)
Other nonparty witnesses, Joe Mitchell and Mary Hackman, have provided declarations concerning the events in the Cedar Riverside area on December 9. (Dkt. 1-14 (“Mitchell Decl.”); Dkt. 37 (“Hackman Decl.”).) Mr. Mitchell describes an ICE agent exiting a government vehicle as a crowd of protesters followed at a distance and pepper-sprayed the crowd, although the protesters were not within reach of the car and the vehicle had room to continue to drive away. (Mithcell Decl. ¶¶ 15–29.) Ms. Hackman observed two agents jump out of a vehicle, approach two people standing nearby who were on the sidewalk, and spray them with a chemical irritant. (Hackman Decl. ¶¶ 4–5.) She said this occurred while nobody was “blocking any vehicles; they were just standing there, recording, chanting, shouting, and blowing whistles.” (Id. ¶¶ 5, 7.)
Declaration of Defendant Easterwood
Director Easterwood declares that on December 9, 2025, ICE officers were “conducting enforcement operations” in Cedar Riverside when “protesters gathered and began obstructing traffic and impeding government vehicle progress.” (Dkt. 47 ¶ 25.) Easterwood states that “[p]rotesters honked their horns; blew whistles; threw snowballs, ice, and other projectiles; kicked and hit government vehicles; and shouted insults and obscenities at the ICE officers.” (Id.) Easterwood declares that officers “issued multiple verbal commands” as well as those “over the public address system” directing protesters “to move back or ICE officers would have to resort to the use of chemical munitions if protesters continued to impede vehicular traffic.” (Id.) Easterwood states that “[p]rotesters refused to comply,” so officers “deployed [pepper] sprays to disperse the crowd blocking the street” so they could advance. (Id.) Easterwood further states: “As a tactic to deter further aggression and advancement from protesters, ICE officers kept their [pepper] sprayers aimed at the crowds.” (Id.) Following the hearing, Defendants supplemented the record, under seal, with the ICE incident report that formed the basis for Easterwood’s Declaration concerning the events of December 9, 2025. (Dkt. 78 at 3; Dkt. 79-2.) The incident report does not add any significant additional detail to the record regarding the specific deployment of a chemical irritant that was sprayed in Crenshaw’s face.
Plaintiffs present evidence concerning other interactions between observers and protesters and federal immigration authorities from mid-November 2025 through January 2026. Witnesses to these encounters describe agents’ use of chemical irritants and other force in a variety of circumstances. The Court provides a summary of the record evidence below.16
1. ICE Activity at Bro-Tex
Moriah O’Malley
On November 18, 2025, Minneapolis resident Moriah O’Malley heard of immigration enforcement by federal agencies at Bro-Tex, a business in Saint Paul, and decided to join other protesters and observers. (Dkt. 1-13 (“O’Malley Decl.”) ¶ 2.) At Bro-Tex, O’Malley saw a large group of protesters and federal agents from a variety of agencies. (Id. ¶ 3.) As the agents, who were “mostly in plainclothes with vests identifying their agencies,” hats, and face coverings, were preparing to leave with detained people in their cars, the situation “started to escalate[.]” (Id. ¶¶ 3–4.) Agents began to “throw people to the ground, shoot pepper balls, and use pepper spray and tear gas,” without warning, “sometimes to get the people to move, and sometimes for what seemed like no reason at all.” (Id. ¶ 5.) While O’Malley, who “was filming a silver Dodge Charger,” had “turn[ed] to focus on other things behind [her],” the car came towards her without any lights or sirens on and without honking or yelling for her to move. (Id. ¶ 6.) According to O’Malley, the car “rammed right into” her, “knocking [her] to the ground” and leaving her “shocked.” (Id.) After she got up, she “filmed the same car hitting another person and knocking them to the ground.” (Id. ¶ 7.) O’Malley “ran up to the window of the car to try to get a shot of [the driver’s] face” and “yell[ed] that he had just hit people with his car.” (Id.)
Declaration of Defendant Easterwood
According to Director Easterwood, federal law enforcement officials “serving a federal search warrant” at Bro-Tex were met with “significant protester presence attempting to disrupt” them. (Easterwood Decl. ¶ 22.) “A crowd of approximately two hundred protesters yelled obscenities at the federal officials; violently pushed, hit, threw objects at, and body slammed into the officials; obstructed the path of government vehicles; and caused property damage to at least seven government vehicles.” (Id.) Federal officials advised protesters on “numerous occasions to move back and stop blocking traffic, [but] protesters refused to comply and even intruded past secured perimeters marked with police caution tape.” (Id.) Federal officials attempted to “attempted to physically push protesters back” because both the officials’ and the public’s safety was at risk. (Id.) When this failed to create a clearing, the officers “deployed non-lethal munitions” to disperse the ground and make a path for their vehicles. (Id.) The operation and the events that followed resulted in the arrest of 13 undocumented aliens and one protester. (Id.) Easterwood also attaches three photos of the events with one showing a group of protesters standing in front of a vehicle, one of a protester appearing to kick a vehicle, and one of an agent appearing to throw a protester to the ground. (Dkt. 47 at 8–9.)
Video
Video of the incident from a news report shows a crowd of protesters around federal agents with crime scene tape on the ground. (Bro-Tex Video17 0:50–0:52.) Protesters can be seen interlinking arms to create what the report called “a human blockade.” (Bro-Tex Video 0:48–0:50, 1:01–1:06.) Agents can be seen pushing protesters part of this blockade. (Bro-Tex Video 1:01–1:06.) Agents face-to-face with protesters can also be seen pepper spraying the crowd. (Bro-Tex Video 0:53–0:57.) At some point a peaceful crowd of protesters can be seen talking face-to-face with agents and recording them. (Bro-Tex Video 1:21–1:26.)
2. Pepper Spray Deployment
Several witnesses describe apparently gratuitous deployment of pepper spray at observers and protesters on separate occasions in December 2025 and January 2026. On December 10, 2025, Riley Kellermeyer was observing ICE operations in the Cedar Riverside neighborhood, she saw agents “pepper spray a man full in the face who was simply standing on the road as they drove past [him].” (Kellermeyer Decl. ¶¶ 8–9.) That same day, after Dan Engelhart had earlier been stopped and then mocked by ICE agents he was following in his vehicle, he witnesses his Somali-American friend, Bihi, get sprayed directly in the face with a chemical irritant by agents in an SUV that was driving past him. (Engelhart Decl. ¶¶ 5–10.)
On January 6, 2026, Claire Smith and her neighbor saw an ICE agent spray chemical irritants “directly into the window” of an observer car that had been following it as it passed by the ICE vehicle. (Smith Decl. 2 ¶ 5.) On January 9, 2026, Richfield resident Troy Carrillo had just gotten out of his car to record an ICE officer in Bloomington when a vehicle that he recognized from an earlier ICE observation “zoomed up next to” him. (Dkt. 60 (“Carrillo Decl.”) ¶¶ 6, 8.) “An agent jumped out and said, ‘Back the fuck up, you’re impeding,’” to which Carrillo said, “No, you back the fuck up I’m walking away.” (Id. ¶ 8.) The agent then sprayed a chemical irritant into Carrillo’s eyes. (Id.) When Carrillo looked up, he was sprayed again “right in the eyes” and “couldn’t see anything.” (Id. ¶ 9.) The interaction left his eyes and face “swollen” and “irritated,” preventing him from going out again, but Carrillo thinks that he “will probably be out there soon.” (Id. ¶ 12.)
3. ICE Activity at Roosevelt High School
There are several declarations in the record concerning events that unfolded at Roosevelt High School in Minneapolis on January 7, 2026, including a second declaration from Plaintiff Alan Crenshaw.18 Mr. Crenshaw has continued to observe ICE after the December 9, 2025 incident in Cedar Riverside. (Dkt. 53-2 (“Crenshaw Decl. 2”) ¶ 1). On January 7, 2026, Crenshaw and his friend drove to Roosevelt High School after being alerted to “significant ICE presence” that warranted observation. (Id. ¶ 2.) Because of traffic, Crenshaw exited the car and began recording. (Id. ¶ 3.) There were “[s]everal cars . . . in the middle of the road” in what appeared to be an accident, and “[a] large crowd was already there.” (Id.) Crenshaw saw “that about 6 or 7 agents had taken a young man down to the ground . . . [and] in a car.” (Id. ¶ 4.) For several minutes, the agents “just stood around facing the crowd, sort of menacing them,” as the crowd “yell[ed] a lot,” “bl[ew] whistles, “call[ed] [the] agents murderers and t[old] them to leave.” (Id. ¶ 4–5.)
As some of the cars began to leave, the agents threw two women, who were “standing in the crosswalk, recording and observing,” over to the side of the road and into other observers. (Id. ¶ 5.) According to Crenshaw, the agents “seemed comfortable just shoving people out of the way.” (Id. ¶ 9.) At that point, someone suddenly “r[an] across the street” and was followed by agents who “chased them back onto school grounds,” “body-slammed them to the ground,” and “sat on the person[.]” (Id. ¶¶ 6, 8.) While the crowd was yelling, Crenshaw saw “some snow fly through the air,” at which point an agent “shot off some chemical irritant into the crowd” using a “weapon [that] looked something like a paintball gun.” (Id. ¶ 7.) Crenshaw “could taste the spray in the air.” (Id.)
As “[o]ther agents came up and shoved the protesters and observers out of the way,” Crenshaw saw agents “pull[] . . . down” another person for “[getting] too close[.]” (Id. ¶ 8.) He “think[s] [the agents] sprayed her in the face with a chemical irritant because when they stood her up and walked her to the car, she had it on her face and it looked like she was in pain.” (Id.) According to Crenshaw, the agents—who “were dressed differently, in fatigues and camo and helmets” and “were decked out in more gear and had bigger weapons”—appeared to be “even more aggressive, more violent, more cavalier about things than the ones [he had] seen before.” (Id. ¶ 9.) Crenshaw intends to “continue to observe when [he] can.” (Id. ¶ 10.)
Others who were at Roosevelt High School to protest ICE’s presence there provided declarations. Christopher Lee Beal describes seeing “ICE agents indiscriminately pushing, shoving, and throwing legal observers to the ground as a show of force and intimidation,” “brandish[ing] their weapons and point[ing] them toward a crowd,” and “fir[ing] chemical irritants, which appeared to be pepper rounds, into the ground in front of the crowd.” (Dkt. 58 (“Beale Decl.”) ¶ 5.) As the ICE agents were leaving, Beal “saw several individuals running alongside the agents without trying to block or impede their exit,” but “an ICE agent violently grabbed a woman by the neck or shoulder and threw her to the ground.” (Id. ¶ 6.) Similarly, Minneapolis resident Kristen Koerth went to the school to protest and saw agents chasing and pushing protesters, including at least one person who appeared to be a high schooler, and deploy pepper spray into the crowd. (Dkt. 65 (“Koerth Decl.”) ¶¶ 6–10.)
Ann Kreitman also went to the school to observe ICE activities and saw officers throw a peaceful observer face first into the snow. (Dkt. 66 (“Kreitman Decl.”) ¶¶4–7.) Kreitman witnessed an woman who had been recording with her phone having her arm grabbed and held by an ICE agent and then shoved roughly into a snowbank even though the woman “had not been doing anything violent or aggressive toward” the agent. (Id. ¶¶ 8–10.) And Ms. Kreitman saw ICE agents “indiscriminately” pepper spraying crowds that were standing on sidewalks shouting, even though they had not behaved violently or aggressively. (Id. ¶¶ 10–12.)
Finally, Minneapolis resident Hallie Patterson describes what she observed at Roosevelt High School. (Dkt. 68 (“Patterson Decl.”).) Ms. Patterson arrived and saw a nonviolent crowd of around 100 people, and despite their peaceful demonstrations, immigration officers “shov[ed]” people and “fired teargas canisters into the crowd,” seemingly to “disperse it and prevent people from” further demonstrations. (Id. ¶¶ 3–5.)
4. Protests Outside Whipple Federal Building
Another location where protesters and federal immigration authorities have clashed is near the Bishop Henry Whipple Building in Minneapolis where detainees are held and immigration court proceedings take place. Nonparty witnesses Theresa Del Rosario and Thomas Ett describe events that unfolded there on January 8, 2026. (Dkt. 61 (“Del Rosario Decl.”); Dkt. 62 (“Ett Decl.”).) According to Mr. Ett, other than “one protestor throw[ing] a single snowball,” nobody took “any threatening action against the agents” that Ett observed. (Ett Decl. ¶ 3.) As vehicles were entering the Whipple building, agents began “pushing the protestors using chemical spray” without any warning, which made it hard for Del Rosario and Ett to breathe, and “shoving people to make room[.]” (Id. ¶ 5; Del Rosario Decl. ¶ 8.) At some point, Del Rosario and Ett “[felt] too intimidated to stay,” even in nearby public spaces. (Del Rosario Decl. ¶ 12.) As they tried to leave, the agents herded “40 to 50 people” into a space that was only big enough “for two or three to get through at a time.” (Id. ¶ 13.) Ett was “shoved repeatedly” (Ett Decl. ¶ 6), and Del Rosario, who uses a walking cane, was shoved “very hard” by an agent, which caused her to stumble (Del Rosario Decl. ¶¶ 1, 14). The agents’ use of force seemed “unnecessary” and “disproportionate” to Mr. Ett, given that the protesters “were attempting to leave as instructed.” (Ett Decl. ¶¶ 6–7.) Del Rosario and Ett have experienced health issues since the incident, but they plan to continue protesting. (Id. ¶ 8; Del Rosario Decl. ¶ 17.)
DISCUSSION
I. Legal Standard
“A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy[.]” Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). Its purpose “is to preserve the status quo until, upon final hearing, a court may grant full, effective relief.” Cigna Corp. v. Bricker, 103 F.4th 1336, 1342 (8th Cir. 2024) (quoting Ferry-Morse Seed Co. v. Food Corn, Inc., 729 F.2d 589, 593 (8th Cir. 1984)). The status quo is “the last actual, peaceable uncontested status which preceded the pending controversy.” N. Am. Soccer League, LLC v. U.S. Soccer Fed’n, Inc., 883 F.3d 32, 37 (2d Cir. 2018) (quoting Mastrio v. Sebelius, 768 F.3d 116, 120 (2d Cir. 2014) (per curiam)); see also Minn. Min. & Mfg. Co. v. Meter for & on Behalf of N.L.R.B., 385 F.2d 265, 273 (8th Cir. 1967); Aggarao v. MOL Ship Mgmt. Co., 675 F.3d 355, 378 (4th Cir. 2012) (“[I]t is sometimes necessary to require a party who has recently disturbed the status quo to reverse its actions” because “such an injunction restores, rather than disturbs, the status quo ante.”) (cleaned up).
Under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 65, “[t]he court may issue a preliminary injunction only on notice to the adverse party.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(a)(1). As such, “the rule ‘implies a hearing in which the defendant is given a fair opportunity to oppose the application [for a preliminary injunction] and to prepare for such opposition.’” Tumey v. Mycroft AI, Inc., 27 F.4th 657, 665 (8th Cir. 2022) (quoting Granny Goose Foods, Inc. v. Bhd. of Teamsters & Auto Truck Drivers Loc. No. 70 of Alameda Cnty., 415 U.S. 423, 432 n.7 (1974)). A district court has “broad discretion” in determining whether to issue a preliminary injunction. Entergy, Ark., Inc. v. Nebraska, 210 F.3d 887, 898 (8th Cir. 2000) (quoting United Indus. Corp. v. Clorox Co., 140 F.3d 1175, 1179 (8th Cir. 1998)).
In the Eighth Circuit, a party seeking to obtain a preliminary injunction must demonstrate that the Dataphase factors favor injunctive relief. See Dataphase Sys., Inc. v. C.L. Sys., Inc., 640 F.2d 109, 114 (8th Cir. 1981). These factors include: (1) likelihood of success on the merits; (2) irreparable harm to the movant without injunctive relief; (3) a balance of the equities; and (4) the public interest. Tumey, 27 F.4th at 664 (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 20 (2008), and citing Dataphase, 640 F.2d at 114). In applying these factors, a court must “flexibly weigh the case’s particular circumstances to determine whether the balance of equities so favors the movant that justice requires the court to intervene to preserve the status quo until the merits are determined.” United Indus. Corp. v. Clorox Co., 140 F.3d 1175, 1179 (8th Cir. 1998) (quotation omitted). The party seeking relief bears the burden of showing that a preliminary injunction is needed. Lindell v. United States, 82 F.4th 614, 618 (8th Cir. 2023).
While no single factor is determinative, the likelihood of success on the merits is considered the “most important.” Jet Midwest Int’l Co., Ltd. v. Jet Midwest Gr., LLC, 953 F.3d 1041, 1044 (8th Cir. 2020) (quoting Roudachevski v. All-Am. Care Ctrs., Inc., 648 F.3d 701, 706 (8th Cir. 2011)). To meet its burden on this factor, the moving party must show a “fair chance of prevailing, . . . but it need not show that it has a greater than fifty per cent likelihood of success[.]” Sleep Number Corp. v. Young, 33 F.4th 1012, 1016–17 (8th Cir. 2022) (cleaned up); see also Wilbur-Ellis Co., LLC v. Jens, 139 F.4th 608, 611 (8th Cir. 2025) (same).
A showing of irreparable harm is also necessary to obtain a preliminary injunction. See Choreo, LLC v. Lors, No. 25-1706, 2026 WL 82841, at *3 (8th Cir. Jan. 12, 2026) (explaining that a movant’s failure to show irreparable harm is “an independently sufficient basis” to deny a preliminary injunction) (quotation omitted). “Irreparable harm occurs when a party has no adequate remedy at law, typically because its injuries cannot be fully compensated through an award of damages.” Gen. Motors Corp. v. Harry Brown’s, LLC, 563 F.3d 312, 319 (8th Cir. 2009). To satisfy this factor, “a party must show that the harm is certain and great and of such imminence that there is a clear and present need for equitable relief.” Morehouse Enters., LLC v. Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms & Explosives, 78 F.4th 1011, 1017 (8th Cir. 2023). But this does not mean that the alleged harm must be “occurring or be certain to occur before a court may grant relief.” Richland/Wilkin Joint Powers Auth. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 826 F.3d 1030, 1037 (8th Cir. 2016) (quoting Michigan v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 667 F.3d 765, 788 (7th Cir. 2011)). When the government is the party opposing a preliminary-injunction motion, the balance-of-harms and public-interest factors merge. See Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435 (2009); Eggers v. Evnen, 48 F.4th 561, 564–65 (8th Cir. 2022).
II. Evidentiary Considerations
Before turning to questions of standing and the merits of Plaintiffs’ request for a preliminary injunction, the Court addresses the weight that should be given to the evidence. The Court notes that it instructed the parties to request an evidentiary hearing if they believed it was necessary, but did not receive such a request from either party. Therefore the evidentiary record consists primarily of affidavits and declarations which courts frequently rely upon when ruling on requests for preliminary injunctive relief. See, e.g., Reg’l Multiple Listing Serv. of Minn., Inc. v. Am. Home Realty Network, Inc., 960 F. Supp. 2d 988, 993 n.3 (D. Minn. 2013) (citing Movie Sys., Inc. v. MAD Minneapolis Audio Distribs., 717 F.2d 427, 432 (8th Cir. 1983)). There are also videos and unsworn sealed police reports in the record.
The Court has carefully considered how to weigh the various components of the record before it. See 11A Charles Alan Wright & Arthur R. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 2949 (3d ed. Sept. 2025 update) (“[T]he question of how much weight an affidavit will be given is left to the trial court’s discretion and the quality of the affidavit will have a significant effect on this determination[.]”); Flathead-Lolo-Bitterroot Citizen Task Force v. Montana, 98 F.4th 1180, 1193 n.16 (9th Cir. 2024) (explaining that the “weight of the evidence . . . is left to the trial court’s discretion”) (citing Wright & Miller, at § 2949). And, in doing so, the Court is mindful that the Federal Rules of Evidence do not apply with full force in this context. Herb Reed Enters., LLC v. Fla. Ent. Mgmt., Inc., 736 F.3d 1239, 1250 n.5 (9th Cir. 2013) (explaining that “the rules of evidence do not apply strictly to preliminary injunction proceedings” given their “urgency” and the “limited factual development” at that stage); Kos Pharms., Inc. v. Andrx Corp., 369 F.3d 700, 718 (3d Cir. 2004) (quoting Univ. of Tex. v. Camenisch, 451 U.S. 390, 395 (1981)) (considering evidence that otherwise may be excluded, including evidence based on “multiple levels of hearsay” and “not based solely on personal knowledge,” because the preliminary-injunction procedure is “less formal” and evidence may be “less complete” than at trial); see also Mullins v. City of New York, 626 F.3d 47, 52 (2nd Cir. 2010) (collecting cases). At the same time, evidence that does not meet admissibility standards may be given less weight. See id. (“The admissibility of hearsay under the Federal Rules of Evidence goes to weight, not preclusion, at the preliminary injunction stage.”).
Applying those principles here, the Court finds that the Plaintiffs’ declarations are entitled to substantial weight. Each named plaintiff has submitted at least one declaration based largely on their personal experiences and knowledge. Each of these declarations was sworn under penalty of perjury. Plaintiffs’ descriptions of their own conduct, the conduct of federal immigration officers, and the circumstances in which the relevant conduct occurred provide essential context for evaluating Plaintiffs’ claims, and the Court credits their accounts.
By contrast, Defendants did not provide sworn declarations from immigration officers (or others) who witnessed or were themselves directly involved in the conduct challenged by Plaintiffs. Rather, in opposing Plaintiffs’ evidentiary showing, Defendants elected to rely primarily on the declaration of Defendant David Easterwood, who is the Acting Field Office Director for the ICE Saint Paul Field Office. While Director Easterwood’s declaration is made under penalty of perjury pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1746, he does not aver that he was present when any of the plaintiffs were observing or protesting ICE activities and instead provides the following explanation for the basis of his declaration testimony:
The statements contained in this declaration are based upon my personal knowledge, reasonable inquiry, and information made available to me in the course of my official duties from information obtained from records, systems, databases, other DHS employees, and/or information portals maintained and relied upon by DHS.
(Easterwood Decl. ¶ 7.) As his declaration makes clear, Easterwood’s personal knowledge is not derived from firsthand observations, but from conversations with other DHS personnel, reviews of their written accounts, and review of unspecified information maintained by DHS.
As to substance, Director Easterwood’s declaration offers a partial counter-factual narrative of the events leading up to the arrests of Tincher and Noor (id. ¶¶ 24, 27), and a more generalized discussion of the December 9, 2025 encounter between protesters and ICE officers during which Crenshaw was sprayed with a chemical irritant (id. ¶ 25).19 As described more fully below, the Court concludes that Easterwood’s accounts of what occurred with respect to Plaintiffs Tincher, Noor, and Crenshaw are entitled to considerably less weight than Plaintiffs’ declarations.
Moreover, Defendants’ supplementation of the record does not cure the imbalance. Following the motion hearing, the Court instructed the parties to supplement the record with any video evidence in their possession. Defendants asserted that they were unable to locate relevant video evidence as to the claims of Plaintiffs Tincher, Lee, Biestman, and Webb, but submitted videos relevant to Plaintiffs Noor and Crenshaw’s claims. However, after close review, the Court concludes that the supplementary videos do not provide meaningful evidentiary support for Defendants’ position regarding the incidents involving either Noor or Crenshaw.
Defendants also provided incident reports prepared by DHS personnel concerning Tincher’s December 9, 2025 arrest; Noor’s December 15, 2025 arrest; and the use of chemical irritants on Crenshaw from December 9, 2025. Although the reports reflect the basis for the statements in Director Easterwood’s declaration, the Court finds that they are not entitled to the same weight as the declarations provided by Plaintiffs. Most notably, all of the declarations in support of Plaintiffs’ motion, including those submitted by non-parties, are made under penalty of perjury in compliance with 28 U.S.C. § 1746 and therefore carry considerable weight. By contrast, the few narrative reports submitted by Defendants, and relied upon by Director Easterwood in his declaration, are not sworn or made under penalty of perjury.20 See, e.g., Hudson v. Preckwinkle, No. 13 C 8752, 2015 WL 1541787, at *13–14 (N.D. Ill. Mar. 31, 2015) (noting that the court “finds little reason to afford any significant weight to . . . unsworn and unauthenticated statements” in the preliminary-injunction context).
In short, what we have in this record is a qualitative imbalance. To be clear, the Court does not exclude or disregard any evidence submitted by Defendants, including any of Director Easterwood’s averments or the supplemental evidence submitted by Defendants after the hearing. It may ultimately be that Defendants could persuade a factfinder through admissible evidence that their version of events is more believable, but that issue is not before the Court now, and Plaintiffs are not required, at this stage, to clear the hurdle of proving a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims beyond a “fair chance” of doing so. Sleep Number Corp., 33 F.4th at 1016.
III. Standing
The Court must consider standing before turning to the merits of Plaintiffs’ motion for injunctive relief. To establish Article III standing, a plaintiff must have “(1) suffered an injury in fact, (2) that is fairly traceable to the challenged conduct of the defendant, and (3) that is likely to be redressed by a favorable judicial decision.” Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 578 U.S. 330, 338. Specifically, an injury in fact must be both “concrete and particularized,” and “actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.” Lujan v. Defs. of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555, 560 (1992) (quotation omitted). In evaluating standing at the preliminary-injunction stage, a court takes the moving party’s allegations as true and view those allegations in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party. See Dakotans for Health v. Noem, 52 F.4th 381, 386 (8th Cir. 2022); see id. at 386 (considering a declaration and sworn testimony, in addition to the complaint, in analyzing standing). Those allegations must make a “clear showing” at this stage that Plaintiffs are “likely to establish each element of standing.” Murthy v. Missouri, 603 U.S. 43, 58 (2024) (quotation omitted).
Plaintiffs must specifically “demonstrate they have standing for each claim they bring and for each form of relief they seek.” Webb ex rel. K. S. v. Smith, 936 F.3d 808, 814 (8th Cir. 20190. When injunctive relief is sought, allegations of past injuries alone are insufficient to establish standing, and a plaintiff must show “an ongoing injury or . . . an immediate threat of injury.” Frost v. Sioux City, 920 F.3d 1158, 1162 (8th Cir. 2019) (quotation omitted). For the latter, “a person exposed to a risk of future harm may pursue forward-looking, injunctive relief to prevent the harm from occurring, at least so long as the risk of harm is sufficiently imminent and substantial.” TransUnion LLC v. Ramirez, 594 U.S. 413, 435 (2021); see FDA v. All. for Hippocratic Med., 602 U.S. 367, 381 (2024) (defining this requirement as “meaning that the injury must have already occurred or be likely to occur soon”). But if the risk of harm is too speculative, there is no Article III standing. Arc of Iowa v. Reynolds, 94 F.4th 707, 711 (8th Cir. 2024).
Although future risk is required, past events remain relevant to the standing inquiry. Indeed, past injuries can support injunctive relief if they are accompanied by “any continuing, present adverse effects,” See O’Shea v. Littleton, 414 U.S. 488, 495–96 (1974). Similarly, “[p]ast wrongs [are] evidence bearing on ‘whether there is a real and immediate threat of repeated injury.’” City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 102 (1983) (quoting O’Shea, 414 U.S. at 496); cf. Susan B. Anthony List v. Driehaus, 573 U.S. 149, 164 (2014) (stating that “good evidence” of a threat of future enforcement is “past enforcement against the same conduct”); Goyette v. City of Minneapolis, No. 20-cv-1302 (WMW/DTS), 2021 WL 3222495, at *5 (D. Minn. July 29, 2021) (citing Index Newspapers LLC v. U.S. Marshals Serv., 977 F.3d 817, 826 (9th Cir. 2020) (“A recurring-injury case . . . is not speculative when actual repeated incidents are documented.”); see 303 Creative LLC v. Elenis, 600 U.S. 570, 583 (2023) (agreeing that the plaintiff had established a “credible threat” of enforcement where the state had “a history of past enforcement against nearly identical conduct”).
A. Standing for First Amendment Claims
“The First Amendment standing inquiry is lenient and forgiving.” GLBT Youth in Iowa Schs. Task Force v. Reynolds, 114 F.4th 660, 667 (8th Cir. 2024) (quotation omitted) (stating that when “threatened enforcement effort implicates First Amendment rights, the . . . inquiry tilts dramatically toward a finding of standing” (cleaned up)).21 Specifically, “[t]his leniency manifests itself most commonly in” the injury-in-fact element. Dakotans for Health, 52 F.4th at 386 (quotation omitted).
“In the First Amendment context, two types of injuries may confer Article III standing to seek prospective relief.” Missourians for Fiscal Accountability v. Klahr, 830 F.3d 789, 794 (8th Cir. 2016) (quotation omitted). Most relevant here is the existence of a “credible threat of prosecution” under a challenged law. Id. (quotation omitted). A person “facing a credible threat of future prosecution suffers from an ongoing injury from the . . . chilling effect on [their] desire to exercise [their] First Amendment rights.” Id. (quoting Ward v. Utah, 321 F.3d 1263, 1267 (10th Cir. 2003)). However, this requires “present[ing] more than allegations of a subjective chill” and “alleg[ing] a ‘specific present objective harm or a threat of specific future harm[.]’” Miller v. City of St. Paul, 823 F.3d 503, 506 (8th Cir. 2016) (quotation omitted).
Here, Plaintiffs allege they have been subject to a variety of retaliatory behavior by Defendants, including traffic stops, arrests, the indiscriminate use of chemical irritants, and pointing of firearms. These kinds of conduct are those that undoubtedly give rise to an objective chill of First Amendment rights. See Section IV.A.2 (citing Garcia v. City of Trenton, 348 F.3d 726, 728–29 (8th Cir. 2003); Watson v. Boyd, 119 F.4th 539, 557 (8th Cir. 2024); Laney v City of St. Louis, 56 F.4th 1153, 1157 (8th Cir. 2023)). And the record before the Court demonstrates that the threat of future enforcement is both real and non-speculative. Indeed, it is ongoing. Plaintiffs each submitted a declaration describing how they engaged in different forms of protected First Amendment activity and were subsequently subjected to law enforcement conduct that objectively chills that activity.
Additionally, Plaintiffs have established an ongoing, persistent pattern of Defendants’ chilling conduct. The dozens of declarations by similarly situated nonparties detail similar, if not more egregious, injuries to rights suffered at the hands of federal law enforcement officers for engaging in protected activity.22 And although the Court is resisting relying broadly on media reports of recent developments, it cannot ignore the almost-nonstop press reporting of continuing protest activity met with continuing aggressive responses by immigration officers operating in the Twin Cities. Taken as a whole, the record adequately illustrates that Defendants have made, and will continue to make, a common practice of conduct that chills observers’ and protesters’ First Amendment rights. See Index Newspapers LLC, 977 F.3d at 826 (concluding that the “risk of future injury [was] not speculative” where plaintiffs “introduced powerful evidence of the Federal Defendants’ ongoing, sustained pattern of conduct that resulted in numerous injuries” to those exercising their First Amendment rights); Goyette, 2021 WL 3222495, at *5 (finding an imminent risk of future injury under similar circumstances). Here, as in Samaha v. City of Minneapolis, Plaintiffs “have plausibly alleged that [federal] officers violate[] their constitutional rights . . . pursuant to an unofficial custom of using excessive force against peaceful protesters,” and that they “will peacefully protest in [Minnesota] in the future.” 525 F. Supp. 3d 933, 645 (D. Minn. 2021).
Therefore, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have sufficiently established standing to support much of the relief they seek, and the relief the Court awards, at this stage.23
B. Standing for Fourth Amendment Claims
Plaintiffs Biestman, Lee, and Webb, who each alleged that they have been stopped and questioned by the federal law enforcement agents they followed, also have standing to bring their Fourth Amendment claims.
There is no dispute that these Plaintiffs were seized under the Fourth Amendment. United States v. Martinez, 358 F.3d 1005, 1009 (8th Cir. 2004) (“A traffic stop constitutes a ‘seizure’ within the meaning of the Fourth Amendment.”) Moreover, as explored below, the Court finds those seizures to be unlawful. And for substantially similar reasons to those stated above, the Court finds persuasive Plaintiffs’ allegations in the record about the risk of future seizure being “sufficiently imminent and substantial.” TransUnion, 594 U.S. at 435. Of the 34 declarations filed by Plaintiffs, 15 attest to nearly an identical set of circumstances: the declarant was driving their car lawfully; the declarant was following federal law enforcement agents at a safe distance to observe the agents’ activity; and the agents initiated a traffic stop of the declarants. The consistent recurrence of incidents that are similar in all relevant respects illustrates an “ongoing, sustained pattern of conduct,” Index Newspapers LLC, 977 F.3d at 826, where federal law enforcement officers are initiating traffic stops of anyone they suspect to be following them. And, again, because Biestman, Lee, and Webb each declare that they will continue to observe and follow federal agents (Biestman Decl. ¶ 14; Lee Decl. ¶ 17; Webb Decl. ¶ 12), it is not merely speculative that they will be seized again.
Relying primarily on City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95 (1983), Defendants argue that the incidents of past conduct described by Plaintiffs are insufficient to establish an ongoing or imminent harm in the Fourth Amendment context. There, the plaintiff was placed in a chokehold during a traffic stop. Id. at 97–98. The court concluded that the plaintiff lacked standing to seek injunctive relief because he could not establish a risk of being subjected to such conduct again. The Court explained that he would have had to assert that “all police officers in Los Angeles always choke any citizen with whom they happen to have an encounter,” or “that the City ordered or authorized police officers to act in such a manner.” Id. at 106. But Lyons is distinguishable for two reasons. First, unlike the plaintiff’s single allegation of the challenged conduct, the record here contains at least 15 instances of the conduct at issue. The numerosity of the incidents strongly suggests that these Plaintiffs in fact face a substantial risk future harm that warrants injunctive relief.
Second, in Lyons, the plaintiff’s risk of being put in a future chokehold was predicated on him being subjected to another traffic stop, which would require assuming that he would break the law again. See id. at 103, 106. But here, Biestman, Lee, and Webb were harmed while engaging in solely lawful conduct. See Chicago Headline Club v. Noem, No. 25 C 12173, 2025 WL 3240782, at *73 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 20, 2025) (“Unlike in Lyons, where the plaintiff could avoid being choked by conducting his activities within the law, thus avoiding exposure to future injury, Plaintiffs cannot avoid injury as they are being threatened and harmed for acting firmly within the law and exercising their First Amendment rights.”); see also Los Angeles Press Club v. Noem, 799 F. Supp. 3d 1036, 1060 (C.D. Cal. 2025) (distinguishing Lyons on similar grounds). And most critically here, each named Plaintiff has declared an intention to continue protesting, observing, and following ICE, meaning the likelihood of a future traffic stop is much higher than the speculative risk of a future chokehold in Lyons.
The Court is unpersuaded by Defendants’ argument and concludes that Plaintiffs Biestman, Lee, and Webb have established standing on their Fourth Amendment claims.
IV. Likelihood of Success on the Merits
Next, the Court addresses whether Plaintiffs have met their burden to show a likelihood of success on the merits of their claims. Specifically, the Court finds that Plaintiffs Tincher and Noor have met this burden as to their claim that they were arrested in retaliation for their protected First Amendment activity, and Plaintiff Crenshaw has also met his burden on his claim regarding the use of chemical irritants in retaliation for engaging in protected activity. The Court also finds that Plaintiffs Lee, Biestman, and Webb have shown a likelihood of success on their claims that ICE officers violated their Fourth Amendment rights by stopping them without a reasonable, articulable suspicion of criminal activity.
A. First Amendment Retaliation
The First Amendment protects “the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.” U.S. Const. amend. I. Those protections “prohibit[] government officials from subjecting an individual to retaliatory actions for engaging in protected speech.” Nieves v. Bartlett, 587 U.S. 391, 398 (2019) (quoting Hartman v. Moore, 547 U.S. 250, 256 (2006)). “If an official takes adverse action against someone based on that forbidden motive, and non-retaliatory grounds are in fact insufficient to provoke the adverse consequences, the injured person may generally seek relief by bringing a First Amendment claim.” Id. (quotation omitted).
A plaintiff bringing a First Amendment retaliation claim must establish three elements: “(1) the plaintiff engaged in protected activity, (2) the government took adverse action against the plaintiff that would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing in the activity, and (3) the adverse action was motivated at least in part by the exercise of the protected activity.” Wolk v. City of Brooklyn Ctr., 107 F.4th 854, 859–60 (8th Cir. 2024). Each is discussed in turn.
1. Protected Activity
Here, Plaintiffs assert that they engaged in the following protected activity: assembling in public to protest ICE actions and activity; observing ICE officers who are engaged in their official duties in public, including by following ICE vehicles; and recording and disseminating videos of ICE agents they observe. (Dkt. 18 at 16–23.) While Defendants do not dispute that expressing disapproval of ICE operations is protected speech, they challenge whether Plaintiffs’ specific actions of observing, recording, and following ICE officers in the performance of their duties are protected by the First Amendment. (See Dkt. 46 at 13, 30.)
Relying on Molina v. City of St. Louis, 59 F.4th 344 (8th Cir. 2023), Defendants argue that Plaintiffs’ retaliation claims must fail because the First Amendment does not protect a right to observe law enforcement officers, which it is not inherently expressive conduct. (See Dkt. 46 at 37–38.) But Molina does not control the outcome here. In Molina, the defendants appealed from a denial of qualified immunity to individual officers at the summary-judgment stage. 59 F.4th at 337. Under that framework, which required the plaintiff to establish that defendants had violated a “clearly established” right, the Eighth Circuit held that, in 2015, there was no clearly established First Amendment right to observe the police. Id. at 340. Whether a right was clearly established is a separate inquiry from whether a right is constitutionally protected. Therefore, the Court disagrees that Molina forecloses the conclusion that there now exists a First Amendment right to observe and record law enforcement officers. See id. at 340 n.2 (“It is not beyond the realm of possibility that a First Amendment right to observe police exists[.]”)
Instead, for several reasons, the Court concludes that the First Amendment protects the right to peacefully observe government officials, including law enforcement officers, who are engaged in their official duties in public.24 First, several Eighth Circuit decisions support the existence of such a right.25 See Ness v. City of Bloomington, 11 F.4th 914, 923 (8th Cir. 2021) (“The acts of taking photographs and recording videos are entitled to First Amendment protection because they are an important stage of the speech process that ends with the dissemination of information about a public controversy.”); see also Hoyland v. McMenomy, 869 F.3d 644, 656 (8th Cir. 2017) (rejecting argument that plaintiff had no right to observe a traffic stop), abrogated in part on other grounds by Nieves v. Bartlett, 587 U.S. 391 (2019)).26
Moreover, this Court notes that every other Court of Appeals to have considered the issue has found that the First Amendment protects a right to peacefully observe and/or record law enforcement officers who are engaged in their official duties in public. Fields, 862 F.3d 353, 360 (“In sum, under the First Amendment’s right of access to information the public has the commensurate right to record—photograph, film, or audio record—police officers conducting official police activity in public areas.”); see also Turner v. Lieutenant Driver, 848 F.3d 678, 689 (5th Cir. 2017); Gericke v. Begin, 753 F.3d 1, 7–8 (1st Cir. 2014); ACLU of Ill. v. Alvarez, 679 F.3d 583, 595–96 (7th Cir. 2012); Smith v. City of Cumming, 212 F.3d 1332, 1333 (11th Cir. 2000); Askins v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 899 F.3d 1035, 1044 (9th Cir. 2018); Irizarry v. Yehia, 38 F.4th 1282, 1289 (10th Cir. 2022). The reasoning reflected in these decisions echoes that in Ness upholding a First Amendment right to record and disseminate media “on matters of public controversy.” 11 F.4th 923. And they underscore the reality that, for the First Amendment’s protection of “actual photos, videos, and recordings . . . to have meaning[,] [it] must also protect the act of creating that material” because “[t]here is no practical difference between allowing police to prevent people from taking recordings and actually banning the possession or distribution of them.” Fields, 862 F.2d at 358 (citation omitted); see Alvarez, 679 F.3d at 595 (“The act of making a[] . . . recording is necessarily included within the First Amendment’s guarantee of speech and press rights as a corollary of the right to disseminate the resulting recording.” (emphasis omitted)).
Finally, the Plaintiffs here have specifically described that they observe and record ICE officers in part to express their disapproval of the Operation Metro Surge mission. While counsel in Molina did not explain the expressive aspect of observing law enforcement in that case, Plaintiffs have done so here. (Mielke Decl. ¶ 11 (“I have already and plan to continue to exercise my constitutional right to observe federal authorities’ activities in public places.”); Jackson Decl. ¶ 11 (“Although that scared me, I think it is important for me to exercise my constitutional right to observe ICE enforcement activity to ensure that any abuses by ICE is documented.”); Levy Dec. ¶ 15 (“Although this experience was frightening, I plan to continue to exercise my constitutional right to observe and document federal authorities’ activities and presence in public spaces, and to disseminate information and express my dissent regarding the same.”)27
Because here, Plaintiffs have specifically alleged facts, supported by evidence of meaningful weight, that they engaged in conduct that the Court finds to be protected by the First Amendment, they have satisfied the first element of a First Amendment retaliation claim.
2. Adverse Action
The second element requires Plaintiffs to show that Defendants took adverse action that would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing to engage in protected activity. Garcia, 348 F.3d at 729. The test “is designed to weed out trivial matters from those deserving the time of the courts as real and substantial violations of the First Amendment.” Id. at 728.
Defendants do not appear to argue that Plaintiffs have failed to demonstrate adverse actions. But they suggest that no chilling has occurred as a result of these actions because protests, speech, observation and recording continue, and the named Plaintiffs themselves continue to engage in such conduct. But the test of “chilling” is an objective one. Id. (noting that the issue was not whether the jury may have believed the plaintiff’s testimony that she had been chilled from further exercising her right to protest, but rather one that asks what “a person of ordinary firmness [would] have done in reaction to the [government’s actions]”) (cleaned up). And the Eighth Circuit has held that weaponizing “the punitive machinery of government in order to punish [someone] for speaking out” by imposing “concrete consequences”—in Garcia, parking tickets—would chill a person of ordinary firmness from continuing their conduct. Id. at 729.
The Court finds that a variety of Defendants’ conduct would chill a person of ordinary firmness from engaging in further protected activity. See id. at 728–29. That conduct includes the drawing and pointing of weapons; the use of pepper spray and other non-lethal munitions; actual and threatened arrest and detainment of protesters and observers; and other intimidation tactics. (Dkt. 18 at 23–32.)
Specifically, here, Plaintiffs Tincher and Noor were arrested, and Plaintiff Crenshaw was doused with a chemical irritant.28 These are adverse government actions that would have the requisite chilling effect. Plaintiffs presented uncontroverted evidence to support these claims, and the likelihood that such acts would chill a reasonable person is at least as great as the risk of chill found in other cases. See Garcia, 348 F.3d at 729 (noting that a reasonable jury could find that plaintiff’s receipt of parking tickets totaling $39 satisfies the ordinary-firmness test); see also Watson, 119 F.4th at 557 (finding that an officer’s drawing of a firearm and statements that he could shoot the plaintiff “easily satisfies the ordinary firmness test”); Laney, 56 F.4th at 1157 (observing that the use of pepper spray undisputedly “would chill a person of ordinary firmness from speaking out”) (quotation omitted)). Accordingly, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have shown a fair chance of prevailing on the second element of their First Amendment retaliation claim.
3. Causal Connection
Finally, the Court turns to the last, and most difficult, element of Plaintiffs’ First Amendment retaliation claim: causation. Defendants contend that Plaintiffs are not likely to succeed on the merits because they cannot show that any protected activity actually motivated the challenged adverse actions. According to Defendants, the evidence shows Plaintiffs “assaulting federal officers, damaging federal property, blocking officers from leaving a volatile scene where such assaults are occurring, [and] chasing a law enforcement vehicle,” thus undermining their causation argument. (Dkt. 46 at 13, 31–43.) The Court disagrees. Of course, these preliminary findings are not final, binding determinations for later stages of litigation. But, at this point, Plaintiffs have shown that they have a fair chance of demonstrating that it was their protected conduct—speech, protest, and observation—that motivated Defendants’ adverse actions.
Arrests of Tincher and Noor
The Court begins with Ms. Tincher’s activity and her arrest. The record establishes that, leading up to and during her arrest, she was observing ICE agents where they had secured a perimeter around a home while trying to effectuate an arrest. (Tincher Decl. ¶ 5; see also Sorensen Decl. ¶ 9.) But Tincher did not forcibly obstruct or impede the agents’ work. Several witnesses corroborate her account of the events and confirm that she remained non-violent and did not engage in any threatening or assaultive behavior. (Sorensen Decl. ¶ 16; Rollins Decl. ¶ 16.) At most, Tincher approached to criticize the agents’ conduct but maintained a safe distance from the perimeter and where they were conducting their law enforcement duties. As she stood several feet away from the perimeter, an officer ordered her to back away, but Ms. Tincher remained where she was and was then forcibly taken to the ground and placed under arrest. (Tincher Decl. ¶¶ 8–9; Sorensen Decl. ¶ 10.)
In telling a different story, Defendants claim, based on the Easterwood declaration, that Ms. Tincher attempted to cross into the perimeter, put up her hands, and tried to push an ICE officer out of the way, ultimately engaging in unlawful conduct that justified her arrest under 18 U.S.C. § 111. (Dkt. 46 at 31–32 (citing Easterwood Decl. ¶ 24); see also Dkt. 79.) As discussed earlier, the Court declines to credit this narrative over the sworn affidavits in the record.
Therefore, on balance, the Court finds that the record warrants the conclusion that Ms. Tincher was engaged in protected activity and that such activity was an actual, but-for cause of her arrest. See Nieves, 587 U.S. at 398 (requiring a plaintiff “to establish a causal connection between the government defendant’s retaliatory animus and the plaintiff’s subsequent injury” (cleaned up)). In other words, a plaintiff must establish that “the adverse action against the plaintiff would not have been taken absent the retaliatory motive.” Id. at 399. Specifically, retaliatory-arrest claims, which “involve causal complexities,” require a showing that the arresting officers lacked probable cause for the arrest. Watson, 119 F.4th at 550–51 (quotation omitted).
Defendants argue that Ms. Tincher cannot show retaliatory animus because the ICE officers who arrested her had at least a reasonable, if mistaken, belief that there was probable cause to arrest her for a violation of 18 U.S.C. § 111.29 (Dkt. 46 at 33.) The Court disagrees. Section 111 makes it a crime to “forcibly” assault, resist, impede, intimidate, or interfere with a federal officer engaged in the performance of their official duties. 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1). Because “forcibly” as used in the statute “necessarily modifies each of the listed verbs that follows it,” United States v. Davidson, 108 F.4th 706, 712 (8th Cir. 2024) (quotation omitted), a violation of § 111 would require some aspect or threat of force. While shoving an officer would likely satisfy this showing, the evidence supports a finding that Ms. Tincher did not engage in or threaten such conduct. (Tincher Decl. ¶ 9; Sorenson Decl. ¶ 10; Rollins Decl. ¶ 14.) Moreover, Defendants do not point the Court to any authority suggesting that Tincher’s refusal to move back from the perimeter constituted “forcibl[e]” interference. See 18 U.S.C. § 111(a)(1). Indeed, the evidence does not support an inference that officers could have reasonably formed a mistaken belief as to probable cause to arrest Tincher.
Defendants further argue that there cannot be a fair chance that Tincher establishes retaliatory animus behind her arrest because the only pre-arrest speech she engaged in was neutral and could not have motivated retaliation. (Dkt. 46 at 32–33.) And, according to Defendants, others nearby who engaged in more provocative speech “but did not disobey orders” were not arrested. (Id.) But Defendants’ argument does not acknowledge that Tincher’s protected conduct was not limited to speech but rather included observing and protesting, which she was doing peacefully in a public place when she was arrested. And, the fact that Tincher may have been singled out for arrest among other protesters does not undermine this finding. Therefore, at this stage, the Court finds Ms. Tincher has a likelihood of success on showing causation on her First Amendment retaliation claim.30
The same holds true for Mr. Noor’s arrest, which followed peaceful protected activity. Noor repeatedly voiced his disapproval of the ICE agents’ actions, told them that they should let go of a pregnant woman they were holding down, and attempted to get others in the crowd to stay back and remain calm. (Noor Decl. ¶¶ 8, 10, 12–13.) After Noor had made these comments and was continuing to observe and protest, one of the agents said, “[L]et’s get this guy,” at which point several other officers approached Mr. Noor, grabbed him, and threw him to the ground. (Id. ¶ 13.)
Defendants argue that Noor was “participating in a violent protest” and therefore was not engaged in protected First Amendment activity. (Dkt. 46 at 34.) According to Defendants, Mr. Noor’s own declaration shows he was part of a disruptive crowd, a fact that Director Easterwood’s declaration corroborates. (Id. at 35 (citing Easterwood Decl. ¶ 27)). Defendants argue that this supplied probable cause to arrest Noor for violating § 111 by forcibly assaulting officers, thus undermining his retaliation claim. (Id. at 34.) They also argue that the most plausible inference to draw from Noor’s account “is not that the officers arrested Noor in retaliation for his speech but because they believed that he was assaulting them and leading others in such assaults.” (Id. at 35.)
Again, the Court finds Defendants’ position unpersuasive. First, the narrative of events described in Director Easterwood’s declaration is entitled to less weight. Easterwood presents a counter-factual narrative that is unattributed to anyone at the scene and contains unsworn hearsay from police reports. It is largely contradicted by the videos that were linked to in the Easterwood Declaration or provided by the Defendants after the hearing. The full record does not provide a sound basis for the Court to conclude, as Director Easterwood states, that Mr. Noor “threatened to interfere, acted aggressively, pushed up into ICE officers’ faces, shouted obscenities, and threw rocks and ice at ICE officers.” (Easterwood Decl. ¶ 27.) In fact, at the time of Mr. Noor’s arrest, which occurs well into the provided videos, it appears most likely that the ICE officers were simply fed up with the protesters generally and Mr. Noor specifically, rather than responding to any threatening conduct. At no time can Noor be seen physically interfering with the agents, nor threatening them. Furthermore, in the moments leading up to his arrest, it is Noor who is pushed by an agent, after which he backs well away from the officers and their squad car, only for them to step forward to detain him. On this record, there is no basis to conclude that officers had even mistaken probable cause to place him under arrest. The Court finds that Mr. Noor is likely to succeed on the merits of his claim that he was arrested in retaliation for engaging in protected First Amendment activity.
The Court also finds that Mr. Crenshaw has shown a fair chance of prevailing on the merits of his First Amendment retaliation claim. Based on the facts in the record, Crenshaw protested and observed ICE activity in the Cedar Riverside neighborhood on December 9, 2025. The crowd became agitated, with some protesters throwing snow and other items, while others blocked the road at various times to prevent ICE vehicles from moving. And federal agents deployed chemical irritants on multiple occasions. But there is no evidence indicating that Crenshaw engaged in any violent acts while verbally protesting ICE’s actions, including at the critical time an ICE vehicle sprayed Crenshaw with a chemical irritant while he was standing on the side of the road. (Crenshaw Decl. 1 ¶ 13.) Video evidence submitted by the parties supports this conclusion. It appears that the officers who deployed the chemical irritant did so though Mr. Crenshaw was not obstructing ICE vehicles that were trying to leave. Taken together, the evidence sufficiently supports that Mr. Crenshaw has a fair chance of prevailing on his First Amendment retaliation claim.
Defendants again point to Director Easterwood’s differing account of these events. While not necessarily inaccurate, his generalized descriptions of what happened do not rebut Crenshaw’s firsthand account of the relevant events. This is particularly true where the video evidence shows multiple occasions where nondisruptive protesters walking away from ICE officers appear to be indiscriminately sprayed with chemical irritants. It is a reasonable inference at this stage, based on the evidence, that federal agents directly used chemical irritants on Mr. Crenshaw to punish him for exercising his protected First Amendment rights to assemble and to observe and protest ICE operations. See Garcia, 348 F.3d at 729.
In opposition, Defendants rely largely on Aldridge v. City of St. Louis, 75 F.4th 895 (8th Cir. 2023), where protester-plaintiffs alleged that an officer violated their First Amendment rights by pepper spraying them in retaliation for their protected expression. There, the court concluded that the officer was entitled to summary judgment because there was no evidence that he “singled out” the plaintiffs for their protected activity. Id. at 899. In doing so, the court emphasized that the officer had deployed the pepper spray in a “wide arc . . . target[ing] people who were within a 20-foot diameter,” which suggested that “no individual was targeted for [their] speech.” Id. at 899–900 (“One cannot simultaneously single out the appellants and ‘indiscriminately’ spray the crowd.”). And, there was no evidence that the officer was aware of the plaintiffs’ presence or had previously interacted with them, making it unlikely that they were singled out. Id. at 900. But Aldridge does not hold that the use of pepper spray at a group of protesters could never support a finding of retaliatory animus. In fact, counsel for Defendants conceded at the hearing that being “singled out” in this context would not require that the person be the only one exposed to the use of force. (Dkt. 81 at 67–69.) Instead, all that is required is a clear causal relationship between the protected activity and the retaliation. Nieves, 587 U.S. at 398.
Because the evidence shows that Mr. Crenshaw was engaged in protected First Amendment activity when he was pepper-sprayed, without an “obvious alternative explanation” for that use of force, see Aldridge. 75 F.4th at 899–900,31 the Court finds that he has demonstrated a fair chance of prevailing on the first element of his First Amendment retaliation claim.
B. First Amendment Content and Viewpoint Discrimination
Plaintiffs also argue that they are likely to prevail on the merits of their First Amendment content- and viewpoint-discrimination claims. (Dkt. 18 at 38–39.) The Court has made an effort to understand the nature of the claims Plaintiffs are advancing through a careful review of the Complaint, the briefing on the motion for preliminary injunction, and the discussion at oral argument. But exactly what is being asserted as a content- and viewpoint-based discrimination claim remains elusive.
The Complaint does not clearly set forth a standalone claim of content- or viewpoint-based discrimination in the section identifying separate counts. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 10(b). Under Count I, Plaintiffs claim that Defendants’ conduct violates their First Amendment rights under a “Free Speech, Free Press, Free Assembly” heading. (Dkt. 1, 56 (Count I); see also id. ¶¶ 190–96.) However, as pled, it is unclear how this claim differs from their retaliation claim, as pled in Count II.
Further complicating the Court’s task is the Plaintiffs’ discussion of this claim in their briefing on the preliminary-injunction motion. Plaintiffs assert that “Defendants have favored certain speakers who endorse ICE’s objectives at the expense of others. For instance, Dan Engelhart explains that while he was being harassed by ICE agents for following and recording them, the agents were simultaneously being followed by a pro-ICE media outlet, ‘Real America’s Voice[,]’” thereby granting favorable treatment to those whose viewpoint the government prefers over others whose viewpoint is critical of ICE. (See Dkt. 18 at 38–39.) But allegations relating to Defendants’ preference for certain media outlets with a specific pro-enforcement viewpoint over others who are opposed is not set forth in any count in the Complaint as a standalone claim.
More importantly, the briefing on the motion is relatively undeveloped on the content- and viewpoint-based discrimination claims. Plaintiffs do not point to any standards by which the Court should evaluate whether they are likely to succeed on the merits of those claims. Certainly, government attempts to prohibit speech based on its content or on the speaker’s viewpoint are particularly disfavored. See Thunderhawk v. Cnty. of Morton, 701 F. Supp. 3d 849, 859 (D.N.D. 2023) (noting that “content-based restrictions are presumptively invalid” and that the government cannot allow the use of a forum it has created by some and not others based on their views (quotation omitted)). However, in their opening memorandum, Plaintiffs cite only to cases discussing viewpoint discrimination in contexts quite different from those presented here. Specifically, Plaintiffs rely on Rosenberger v. Rector and Visitors of the University of Virginia, 515 U.S. 819 (1995), which addressed the First Amendment’s protection against viewpoint-based prohibitions on speech when the government provides a limited public forum. 515 U.S. at 828. They also rely on Phelps-Roper v. Ricketts, 867 F.3d 883, 897 (8th Cir. 2017), which concerned a plaintiff’s as-applied challenge to a funeral picketing law that was allegedly viewpoint-discriminatory.
At this stage, the Court cannot find a likelihood of success on the merits of a non-retaliation First Amendment claim.
C. Fourth Amendment
The Court turns next to whether Plaintiffs have shown a likelihood of success on the merits of their Fourth Amendment claims. Having found a likelihood of success on the First Amendment claims of Plaintiffs Tincher, Noor, and Crenshaw, the Court focuses on whether Plaintiffs have a fair chance of showing that Plaintiffs Biestman, Lee, and Webb were subjected to unreasonable seizures in violation of the Fourth Amendment. The Court finds that they do.
The Fourth Amendment prohibits “unreasonable searches and seizures[.]” U.S. Const. amend. IV. Consistent with the Fourth Amendment, law enforcement officers can reasonably conduct brief, investigatory stops within certain limits. Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 24–25 (1968). To make a Terry stop, there must be a “reasonable, articulable suspicion that a person is committing or is about to commit a crime.” United States v. Stokes, 62 F.4th 1104, 1107 (8th Cir. 2023) (quotation omitted).
While reasonable, articulable suspicion is not a high bar, a law enforcement officer “must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant that intrusion.” United States v. McMillion, 101 F.4th 573, 576 (8th Cir. 2024) (quotation omitted); Stokes, 62 F.4th at 1107 (“[O]fficers must be able to point to specific facts that justify the seizure and more than simply an ‘inarticulate hunch.’” (quoting Terry, 392 U.S. at 22) (cleaned up)). Further, reasonable suspicion must be “particularized” to “the particular person stopped [for] . . . criminal activity.” Navarette v. California, 572 U.S. 393, 396 (2014). Whether reasonable, articulatable suspicion exists “is determined by the totality of the circumstances, taking into account an officer’s deductions and rational inferences resulting from relevant training and experience.” United States v. Horton, 611 F.3d 936, 940 (8th Cir. 2010).
There is no question that Plaintiffs Biestman, Lee, and Webb were subject to a Terry stop. Rather, the issue is whether the officers in question had reasonable, articulatable suspicion to stop them. Biestman, Lee, and Webb allege the same relevant facts regarding their stops: each of these Plaintiffs observed an unmarked vehicle that they believed to be federal law enforcement; they followed the vehicle while driving lawfully and keeping a reasonable distance; and Plaintiffs’ vehicles were then stopped and surrounded by agents, constituting a seizure under the Fourth Amendment. (Biestman Decl. ¶¶ 3–4; Lee Decl. ¶¶ 7–9; Webb Decl. ¶¶ 3–8.) These uncontroverted facts establish a violation of Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amendment rights because the totality of the circumstances points to no reasonable basis for a Terry stop.
Defendants do not deny Biestman, Lee, or Webb’s allegations. Nor do Defendants offer any allegations to the contrary about objective, particularized observations that would provide a valid basis for why the ICE agents might have believed any of these specific Plaintiffs was engaged in criminal activity. Instead, Defendants rely on Director Easterwood’s statements that “[i]n recent months, drivers in the Twin Cities area have frequently followed ICE vehicles aggressively and erratically,” giving rise to public safety concerns. (Dkt. 46 at 48 (citing Easterwood Decl. ¶ 29).) In addition, Defendants note that: (1) Webb admits to having driven slightly faster than traffic while following an ICE vehicle on the freeway; (2) some declarants have followed ICE vehicles back to ICE’s Minneapolis office; (3) some persons have stated that they followed ICE vehicles in groups or placed their vehicles between ICE vehicles in a caravan; (4) many have honked at ICE vehicles while following; and (5) some have followed ICE vehicles for several loops through the same area. (Dkt. 46 at 36–37, 48.) And Defendants contend that “[t]his conduct gave officers reasonable suspicion that the drivers could be violating 18 U.S.C. § 111 by interfering or impeding law enforcement through the forcible operation of an automobile.” (Dkt. 46 at 48.)
The Court is not persuaded for several reasons. First, and most importantly, these averments fall short of showing that the officers who stopped Lee, Biestman, and Webb had any particularized suspicion of forcible interference with or impeding of federal law enforcement officers in the course of their duties. United States v. McLemore, 887 F.3d 861, 865 (8th Cir. 2019) (“[A]s the Supreme Court’s governing standard demands, . . . the determination of reasonable suspicion is fact specific, requiring the government to establish that the officer had a ‘particularized and objective basis for suspecting the particular person stopped of breaking the law.’”) (quoting Heien v. North Carolina, 574 U.S. 54, 60 (2014)). Though the Court declines to wade into whether federal immigration enforcement officers have any authority to enforce Minnesota’s traffic laws, Defendants do not even assert that the named plaintiffs were breaking such laws at all. And the Defendants point to no law or statute that prohibits citizens from safely following law enforcement officers performing their duties in non-emergency situations.
Nor is the Court persuaded by Defendants’ suggestion at the hearing that the “overall climate of following” rendered the stops of Lee, Biestman, and Webb in this case reasonable. (Dkt. 81 at 62.) Again, no evidence in the record supports a conclusion that Biestman, Lee, or Webb displayed hostile, menacing, or threatening conduct to the agents or that they created safety concerns. Under these circumstances, the Court cannot find any support for reasonable suspicion of a violation of § 111. Cf. United States v. Schrader, 10 F.3d 1345, 1348 (8th Cir. 1993) (“Force is a necessary element of any § 111 violation. . . . [T]hat element may be satisfied by proof of actual physical contact, or by proof of such a threat or display of physical aggression toward the officer as to inspire fear of pain, bodily harm, or death.”) (quotation omitted).32
It is important to note that not every protesting motorist engaged in following ICE vehicles drives safely and lawfully; nor do they refrain from using their vehicles in a way that could give rise to reasonable suspicion of a § 111 violation. And the Court is mindful of the potential safety concerns to officers and the public that can arise from such conduct. Therefore, given that the reasonable-articulable-suspicion standard depends on the totality of the circumstances, the Court has carefully considered and weighed Director Easterwood’s account of how vehicles have been used by observers to protest ICE activity in the Twin Cities. But, even crediting his statements about incidents of misconduct among other people following Operation Metro Surge, it simply does not establish reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop as to these particular plaintiffs. Florida. v. Royer, 460 U.S. 491, 525 (1983) (noting that “conformity with certain aspects of [a criminal] profile does not automatically create a particularized suspicion which will justify an investigatory stop”) (quotation omitted). There may be ample suspicion to stop cars, and even arrest drivers, engaged in dangerous conduct while following immigration enforcement officers, but that does not justify stops of cars not breaking the law.
V. Balance of Harms
A. Irreparable Harm to Plaintiffs
The Court finds that Plaintiffs have demonstrated a threat of irreparable harm sufficient to support a preliminary injunction pending the ultimate outcome of this litigation. The Court agrees with Plaintiffs that by demonstrating a likelihood of success on their constitutional claims, they have also supported a finding of irreparable harm. See Rodgers v. Bryant, 942 F.3d 451, 456–57 (8th Cir. 2019); see also Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976) (explaining that the “loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury”); Marcus v. Iowa Pub. Television, 97 F.3d 1137, 1140–41 (8th Cir. 1996) (“If [movants] are correct and their First Amendment rights have been violated, this constitutes an irreparable harm.” (citing Elrod, 427 U.S. at 373)); Goyette v. City of Minneapolis, 338 F.R.D. 109, 119 (D. Minn. 2021) (same); Chicago Headline Club v. Noem, No. 25 C 12173, 2025 WL 3240782, at *87 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 20, 2025). The alleged First Amendment violations here speak for themselves.
It is unclear whether Plaintiffs have another remedy available to them for their First Amendment injuries, aside from injunctive relief. This differs from the Fourth Amendment context, where plaintiffs whose rights are violated, even by federal agents, may have a remedy available at law because they can bring an action to recover damages. See Bivens v. Six Unknown Agents, 403 U.S. 388, 395–96 (1971). But even as to the Fourth Amendment claims, the availability of damages “does not necessarily preclude issuance of a preliminary injunction, because damages relief may not fully compensate the movant for being denied [their] rights.” Curtis 1000, Inc. v. Youngblade, 878 F. Supp. 1224, 1248 (N.D. Iowa 1995) (citing Glenwood Bridge, Inc. v. City of Minneapolis, 940 F.2d 367, 371–72 (8th Cir. 1991)).
Here, the record before the Court and the events unfolding daily in the greater Twin Cities area reveal that Defendants’ challenged conduct, including stopping drivers without a reasonable, particularized suspicion of wrongdoing, is ongoing. Therefore, money damages are unlikely to fully compensate members of the community for “less tangible injuries [that] cannot be so easily valuated or compensated.” Id. Under these circumstances, the Court finds that Plaintiffs have shown a threat of irreparable harm with respect to both their Fourth Amendment claims “because of the ongoing nature of the alleged violation of their Fourth Amendment rights, with monetary damages insufficient to compensate them for the repetitive constitutional violations.” Chicago Headline Club, 2025 WL 3240782, at *87 (citing cases).
Defendants dispute Plaintiffs’ showing of irreparable harm, arguing that they have not shown a threat that is sufficiently imminent. (Dkt. 46 at 51–52.) Essentially, Defendants argue that Plaintiffs “fail[ed] [to] offer anything more than a smattering of one-time isolated past incidents,” which “fatally undermines” any of their claims “that a preliminary injunction is necessary to prevent an immediate threat of harm recurring while the Court resolves the merits of their claims.” (Id. at 52.) The Court disagrees.
At the time the Complaint was filed, Operation Metro Surge had already been ongoing for two weeks. In the month since then, it has grown almost exponentially, with widespread estimates that there are now 3,000 immigration enforcement officers operating in Minnesota, most of them in the Twin Cities. And in the meantime, members of the Twin Cities communities, including the named Plaintiffs and members of the putative class, have continued to observe, record, and protest the presence and actions of the immigration officers participating in the operation. There is no sign that this operation is winding down—indeed, it appears to still be ramping up.
In some cases where allegations of civil rights violations are raised, defendants concede the illegality of the challenged conduct but oppose injunctive relief on the ground that the conduct was isolated. Here, in contrast, Defendants maintain that the actions of their officers are a lawful response to ongoing widespread protest activity. This indicates to the Court that the challenged conduct is likely to continue absent injunctive relief.
B. Harm to the Defendants and the Public Interest
Of course, the Court must balance the risk of irreparable harm to Plaintiffs in the absence of injunctive relief, against any harm to Defendants if an injunction were granted. And the Court must also consider if injunctive relief is in the public interest.
Defendants argue that issuance of an injunction would irreparably harm the government and contravene the public interest because it will prevent officers from being able to respond to disruptive and violent protests in Minnesota, further endangering officer and public safety. The Court recognizes that an overreaching injunction could have such an effect. However, Defendants do not explain why it is necessary for them to arrest and use force against peaceful observers, like the named Plaintiffs and similarly situated nonviolent protesters, to curb other violence or attempts to forcibly obstruct their operations. Nor do Defendants explain how the public interest is served by officers stopping law-abiding motorists without reasonable, particularized suspicion of criminal wrongdoing. To be clear, the Court’s injunction does nothing to prevent Defendants from continuing to enforce immigration laws. Chicago Headline Club, 2025 WL 3240782, at *88. But it does not constitute irreparable harm to require the government to honor the constitutional rights of those who peacefully protest and observe law enforcement activities. Id. (citing Exodus Refugee Immigr., Inc. v. Pence, 165 F. Supp. 3d 718, 740 (S.D. Ind. 2016)).
Finally, Defendants suggest that the entry of an injunction will “turn[] the separation of powers on its head by installing this Court as the overseer of every crowd-control and use-of-force decision that federal law-enforcement officers in Minnesota make in the context of often tense, uncertain, and rapidly evolving situations.” (Dkt. 46 at 52 (quotation omitted).) Once again, the Court takes the point and observes that an overly prescriptive injunction risks doing just that. Indeed, this separation-of-powers concern may have been more justified at the outset of this case, when Plaintiffs initially requested sweeping injunctive relief in the context of their motion for a temporary restraining order. But after this Court expressed skepticism about the scope of the TRO that Plaintiffs initially sought, they submitted a significantly scaled-back request for proposed injunctive relief. And the injunction the Court adopts in this Order is narrower still.
Finally, the Court emphasizes that the protection of constitutional rights is afforded significant deference in caselaw addressing the balancing-of-harms factor. “Generally, if a party shows a likely violation of [their] First Amendment rights, the other requirements for obtaining a preliminary injunction are deemed to have been satisfied.” Rodgers v. Bryant, 942 F.3d 451, 456 (8th Cir. 2019) (quoting Minn. Citizens Concerned for Life, Inc. v. Swanson, 692 F.3d 864, 870 (8th Cir. 2012) (en banc)) (cleaned up). And it is “always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights.” Goyette, 338 F.R.D. at 120 (quoting Connection Distrib. Co. v. Reno, 154 F.3d 281, 288 (6th Cir. 1998)). “Constitutional rights are not diminished during a period of ‘chaotic unrest.’” Id. (quoting Ex parte Milligan, 71 U.S. 2, 120–21 (1866)).
In granting the injunctive relief set forth in this Order, the Court has endeavored to balance the ongoing irreparable harm to Plaintiffs against harm to Defendants from limiting their activities, as well as any possible harm to the public. The Court has narrowly tailored the injunctive relief and endeavored to clearly define its scope.
VI. Scope of Relief
A. Class-wide Relief
Plaintiffs have asserted the claims here on behalf of not only themselves individually, but on behalf of a class of similarly situated individuals defined as: “All persons who do or will in the future record, observe, and/or protest against the DHS immigration operations that have been ongoing in this District since December 4, 2025.” (Dkt. 1 ¶ 179.) While Plaintiffs have not moved for class certification, nor has the Court granted it, Plaintiffs seek immediate interim relief on a class-wide basis. The Court concludes that limited class-wide relief is appropriate at this stage, and disagrees that recent Supreme Court jurisprudence forecloses that route.
In its recent decision in A.A.R.P. v. Trump, the Supreme Court affirmed that “courts may issue temporary relief to a putative class[.]” 605 U.S. 91, 98 (2025); see Padres Unidos de Tulsa v. Drummond, 783 F. Supp. 3d 1324, 1350–51 (W.D. Okla. 2025) (“Numerous courts have found provisional certification alone sufficient for purposes of awarding preliminary relief.”) (collecting cases). Citing the treatise Newberg and Rubenstein on Class Actions for its authority, the A.A.R.P. Court set aside the need to certify a class before issuing temporary injunctive relief. A.A.R.P., 605 U.S. at 98 (“[W]e need not decide whether a class should be certified as to the detainees’ due process claims in order to temporarily enjoin the Government from removing putative class members while the question of what notice is due is adjudicated.”). Subsequently, unpacking the high court’s decision in which it was singly cited, Newberg and Rubenstein on Class Actions concluded: “Put differently, the Court’s holding means that the filing of a class suit (‘a putative class’), coupled with a showing that the standard for interim relief has been met, is sufficient to enable such relief to the entire putative class. Nothing more, in terms of class certification, is necessary.” 2 W. Rubenstein, Newberg & Rubenstein on Class Actions § 4:30 (6th ed. Dec. 2025 update).
While unfamiliar in some respects, the Supreme Court’s decision functionally tracks with a body of well-established caselaw allowing courts to issue a class-wide preliminary injunction before determining if class certification is appropriate. See Gooch v. Life Invs. Ins. Co. of Am., 672 F.3d 402, 433 (6th Cir. 2012) (“Simply put, there is nothing improper about a preliminary injunction preceding a ruling on class certification.”); Just Film, Inc. v. Merch. Servs., Inc., 474 F. App’x 493, 495 (9th Cir. 2012) (“The district court did not abuse its discretion by finding sufficient evidence to support its preliminary injunction, which was carefully tailored to maintain the status quo where class certification is pending[.]”); Yang v. Kellner, 458 F. Supp. 3d 199, 218 n.5 (S.D.N.Y.) (“The Court need not formally certify a class in order to issue the requested preliminary relief.”), aff’d sub nom. Yang v. Kosinski, 960 F.3d 119 (2d Cir. 2020); Rubenstein, § 4:30 & n.12 (“[A] court may issue a classwide preliminary injunction in a putative class action suit prior to a ruling on the class certification motion[.]”) (collecting cases).
Defendants cite Trump v. CASA, Inc., 606 U.S. 831, 843 (2025) in support of their contention that relief any class members beyond the named Plaintiffs is outside the Court’s authority. CASA, issued a little more than a month after A.A.R.P., grappled with the scope of Judiciary Act of 1789’s grant of equitable power and whether so-called universal injunctions were traditionally recognized within such power. There, the universal preliminary injunctions issued by the district courts barred certain executive officials from applying the policy at issue not just the parties before the district court, but to anyone in the country. Id. at 839. As reasoning for disallowing the use of universal injunctions, the high court restated a longstanding principle of equitable relief that federal courts are restricted to granting “complete relief between the parties.” Id. at 851 (quoting Kinney-Coastal Oil Co. v. Kieffer, 277 U.S. 488, 507 (1928)) (emphasis in CASA); see id. at 852 (“Under this principle, the question is not whether an injunction offers complete relief to everyone potentially affected by an allegedly unlawful act; it is whether an injunction will offer complete relief to the plaintiffs before the court.” (citing Califano v. Yamasaki, 442 U.S. 682, 702 (1979) (“[I]njunctive relief should be no more burdensome to the defendant than necessary to provide complete relief to the plaintiffs.”))) (emphasis in CASA). In addition to expressing a general concern about the potential for overreach through universal injunctions, the Supreme Court reasoned that universal injunctions provide an illogical “workaround” to Rule 23 class actions. Id. at 850.
But nowhere does CASA suggest that issuance of class-wide relief in a preliminary injunction is improper. Instead, its reasoning affirms class actions and their remedies. First, while the CASA Court proscribes universal injunctions for lack of a historical analogue, the court did recognize such an analogue for class actions: bills of peace. Id. at 847–849. Because, the court concluded, bills of peace granted relief to a “group [that] was small and cohesive,” rather than “resolve[d] a question of legal interpretation for the entire realm,” universal injunctions were distinguishable and thus lacked historical support. Id. at 848; see Am. Council of Learned Societies v. McDonald, 792 F. Supp. 3d 448, 498 (S.D.N.Y. 2025) (concluding that this distinction “counsels [the court] that limited preliminary relief for a purported but still defined class of individuals is not the type of relief prohibiting the enforcement of a law or policy against anyone, to which the decision in CASA applied.”) (citing CASA, 606 U.S. at 837) (cleaned up). In addition, CASA implicitly blesses class actions as an appropriate alternative to universal injunctions for widespread relief, again distinguishing the two. CASA, 606 U.S. at 849 (discussing why Rule 23 class actions are a more appropriate avenue for broad relief). This discussion leaves no doubt that class actions and class-wide relief continue to be good law. See McDonald, 792 F. Supp. 3d at 496–97 (“While CASA did away with district courts’ ability to issue universal injunctions that enjoin a defendant’s actions against anyone, the class-wide relief that Plaintiffs are seeking in this case appears to have been largely blessed by the Court’s majority opinion.”); Castañon-Nava v. U.S. Dep’t of Homeland Sec., 161 F.4th 1048, 1063 (7th Cir. 2025) (“CASA involved a universal injunction that prevented the government from enforcing its policies against nonparties; this case involves a Rule 23 class action.”).
Defendants instead rely on a strained reading of CASA’s central and reanimated principle: that federal courts’ equitable power cannot justify granting relief to non-parties. CASA, 606 U.S. at 851 (citation omitted). This reading operates on the assumption that the absent class members are not parties for purpose of this, or any other, class action. But the Court thinks Defendants are wrong in both form and function. As to the former, absent class members, even before class certification, can be considered “parties” in some circumstances. Rubenstein, § 4:30. But even if they couldn’t, Defendants’ extremely narrow reading of CASA would not only contradict CASA’s own reasoning, but also wipe a body of caselaw off the map without discussion. That cannot be the case.33
Because interim class-wide relief here is consistent with Supreme Court precedent in both CASA and A.A.R.P., the Court’s preliminary injunction includes named Plaintiffs and members of the following class: “All persons who do or will in the future record, observe, and/or protest against Operation Metro Surge and related operations that have been ongoing in this District since December 4, 2025.”
B. Narrowly Tailored
The Court declines to adopt either version of the injunction submitted by the Plaintiffs. Instead, the Court adopts both a declaration of the relevant law and an injunction that are less broad and more tailored to the analysis of this order.34
First, the Court notes that the injunctive relief it can Order is necessarily limited by the claims and allegations raised by the Plaintiffs. Although the Court provides provisional class-wide relief to a class of similarly situated protesters and observers, it cannot order the Defendants to desist from conduct that the Plaintiffs themselves have not experienced. Therefore, any requests related to the volume or circumstances of crowd dispersal orders are not properly before the Court.
Similarly, although it is likely that recording law enforcement activities through video or audio on a cellphone is generally protected conduct under the First Amendment for the same reason that observing is, none of the Plaintiffs allege that the Defendants infringed on that right specifically, seized their phones, or ordered them to stop recording. Therefore, this injunction does not specifically address recording as a distinct protected activity.
The Court is also mindful that the protest activity being engaged in by protesters and observers in response to Operation Metro Surge is somewhat unique. There is little discussion in the caselaw about situations like the ones playing out all over the Twin Cities, in which small groups of protesters are mobile and gather wherever immigration officers are attempting to make arrests or otherwise enforce immigration laws. Therefore, the Court hesitates to adopt overly prescriptive rules that will prevent the Defendants from responding as necessary to such protest activity when it crosses the line from protected to unlawful.
Finally, the Defendants expressed concern about the statewide nature of the relief sought by the Plaintiffs, and suggested that it could hamper totally unrelated activities of other federal law enforcement offices throughout Minnesota. Therefore, the Court has limited the language used in the injunction to the Defendants and their officers and agents engaging in immigration enforcement activities as part of the current Operation Metro Surge. While the Court declines to specify a geographic limitation at this time because the operation is expanding beyond Minneapolis and St. Paul, it makes clear that the regularly conducted business of Border Patrol agents on the northern border, Coast Guard officers on the Great Lakes, customs officials at the airports, and other federal officers doing their work unrelated to Operation Metro Surge are not covered by the injunction.
VII. Bond
Rule 65(c) states that “[t]he court may issue a preliminary injunction or a temporary restraining order only if the movant gives security in an amount that the court considers proper to pay the costs and damages sustained by any party found to have been wrongfully enjoined or restrained.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 65(c). The amount of bond, however, “rests within the sound discretion of the trial court[.]” Stockslager v. Carroll Elec. Co-op. Corp., 528 F.2d 949, 951 (8th Cir. 1976). “Courts in [the Eighth Circuit] have almost always required a bond before issuing a preliminary injunction . . ., but exceptions have been made where the defendant has not objected to the failure to require a bond or where the damages resulting from a wrongful issuance of an injunction have not been shown.” Richland/Wilkin, 826 F.3d at 1043 (citation omitted). Further, the Eighth Circuit has approved of a district court waiving the bond requirement based on “the important public interest in the enforcement of” federal law. Id. (collecting cases where district courts required no, or minimal, bond where injunctions enforced the National Environmental Policy Act).
The Court declines to issue a bond here for two reasons. First, while Defendants have requested that the Court require a bond commensurate with the scope of its injunction (Dkt. 46 at 68), they do not articulate with any specificity the likely costs and damages it would sustain from an incorrectly issued injunction. Without those figures, the Court is only left to speculate on what amount may be appropriate. And second, this injunction serves the important public interest in the enforcement of the constitutional rights of Plaintiffs and those similarly situated. And because “[i]t is always in the public interest to prevent the violation of a party’s constitutional rights,” the Court finds no bond is appropriate here. Goyette, 338 F.R.D. at 120 (quoting Connection Distrib. Co., 154 F.3d at 288); Bukaka, Inc. v. Cnty. of Benton, 852 F. Supp. 807, 813 (D. Minn. 1993) (“[P]laintiff seeks to vindicate important first amendment rights. Requiring it to provide a security could prevent judicial review of the [law’s] constitutionality. Under the circumstances, the requirement of a security should be waived.”).
VIII. Stay Pending Appeal
Finally, Defendants ask the Court to stay its Order pending appeal. (Dkt. 46 at 68.) In determining if a stay pending appeal is appropriate, courts consider:
(1) whether the stay applicant has made a strong showing that he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) whether the applicant will be irreparably injured absent a stay; (3) whether issuance of the stay will substantially injure the other parties interested in the proceeding; and (4) where the public interest lies.
Kansas v. United States, 124 F.4th 529, 533 (8th Cir. 2024) (quoting Nken, 556 U.S. at 434). The party moving for a stay pending appeal “bears the burden of showing that the circumstances justify an exercise of that discretion.” Id. (quoting Nken, 556 U.S. at 434). Defendants here have not addressed any of the above factors in their request or explain why a stay is appropriate, failing to meet their burden. Because none of these factors support a stay here, the Court denies Defendants request for a stay pending appeal. Of course, either party can seek such a stay from the Court of Appeals.
ORDER
For the reasons stated herein, IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction is GRANTED IN PART.
1. This order applies to individual Plaintiffs and to all persons who do or will in the future record, observe, and/or protest Operation Metro Surge and related operations that have been ongoing in this District since December 4, 2025.
2. This Injunction applies to Defendants and their officers and agents operating in the District of Minnesota to conduct immigration enforcement activities as part of Operation Metro Surge. It also applies to Defendants and their officers and agents responding to protests that arise in response to Operation Metro Surge. (Hereinafter “Covered Federal Agents.”) This Injunction does not apply to Defendants and their officers and agents otherwise conducting routine operations within the District of Minnesota.
3. Covered Federal Agents are hereby enjoined from:
a. Retaliating against persons who are engaging in peaceful and unobstructive protest activity, including observing the activities of Operation Metro Surge.
b. Arresting or detaining persons who are engaging in peaceful and unobstructive protest activity, including observing the activities of Operation Metro Surge, in retaliation for their protected conduct and absent a showing of probable cause or reasonable suspicion that the person has committed a crime or is obstructing or interfering with the activities of Covered Federal Officers.
c. Using pepper-spray or similar nonlethal munitions and crowd dispersal tools against persons who are engaging in peaceful and unobstructive protest activity, including observing the activities of Operation Metro Surge, in retaliation for their protected conduct.
d. Stopping or detaining drivers and passengers in vehicles where there is no reasonable articulable suspicion that they are forcibly obstructing or interfering with Covered Federal Agents, or otherwise violating 18 U.S.C. § 111. The act of safely following Covered Federal Agents at an appropriate distance does not, by itself, create reasonable suspicion to justify a vehicle stop.
4. Dissemination of this Order
a. The Defendants must widely disseminate notice of this Order to all Covered Federal Agents, including providing copies in paper or electronic format.
b. The Order must be distributed to all Covered Federal Agents and all Defendants within 72 hours of its issuance.
c. The Order must be distributed to all newly deployed Covered Federal Agents that arrive in Minnesota to take part in Operation Metro Surge.
5. This Order shall remain in effect until Operation Metro Surge concludes or the conditions change such that it is no longer necessary. If any party believes that the surge has come to an end or that the injunction is no longer necessary, they may file a motion for its termination.
6. Either party may seek to modify this Order by filing a motion with the Court.
Date: January 16, 2026
s/Katherine Menendez Katherine Menendez United States District Judge
_______________
Notes:
1 Unless otherwise noted, all page numbers refer to the CM/ECF pagination.
2 Throughout the Order, Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order is referred to as a Motion for Preliminary Injunction.
3 See Declarations of Beatriz Leon, Kevin Riach, Carla Hennes, Claire Smith, Gabrielle Holboy, Luke Mielke, Mark Hackman, Christopher Lee Beal, Wesley Burdine, Troy Carrillo, Theresa Del Rosario, Thomas Ett, Elizabeth Jackson, Christopher Juhn, Kirsten Koerth, Ann Kreitman, Judith Levy, Hallie Patterson, and Abigail Salm.
4 The Court focuses on the substantial evidentiary record developed by the parties over the last several weeks. Operation Metro Surge, and the protests occurring in response, have also been the subject of extensive media coverage, both in Minnesota and nationwide. And that attention has increased in recent weeks, following the shooting of a protester by law enforcement. Although the Court relies on media coverage when specifically cited by the parties or for broad uncontested facts (e.g., the large number of agents involved in the current operation), videos, commentary, photographs, and reporting on these issues generally are not before the Court, and do not form the basis of this Order.
5 The Court uses the terms “agent” and “officer” interchangeably.
6 “ERO” is an acronym for Enforcement and Removal Operations, an arm of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (“ICE”) agency within the Department of Homeland Security (“DHS”).
7 Katherine Rollins is an attorney and a Minneapolis resident who lives near where Ms. Tincher was arrested. (See Rollins Decl. ¶¶ 1–3, 6.)
8 Nik (Nicole) Sorensen, a Minneapolis resident, was “one of the first observers to arrive” at the scene of Ms. Tincher’s arrest. (Sorensen Decl. ¶¶ 1, 4.)
9 MPR News, “Woman observing ICE arrested during early morning action in north Minneapolis,” YouTube (Dec. 9, 2025), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nIC0uFP0x9M&t=22s (“Tincher Video”) (embedded in Jon Collins, Federal agents arrest citizen observer watching ICE detain neighbors on her north Minneapolis block, MPR News (Dec. 9, 2025), https://www.mprnews.org/story/2025/12/0 ... inneapolis (cited Dkt. 47 at 11 n.8)) (last visited Jan. 14, 2026.)
10 Ms. Rollins and Sorensen observed individuals that had appeared with the agents, who appeared to be members of the media, filming at the scene before they got into a vehicle with the agents and left. (Rollins Decl. ¶ 17; Sorensen Decl. ¶¶ 15, 18.)
11 MPR News, While ICE agents call for backup, Minneapolis residents hurl insults and snowballs, YouTube (Dec. 16, 2025), https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgQpVsY92vs&t=4s (“First Noor Video”). (embedded in Jon Collins, ICE agents call for backup during Minneapolis traffic stop, bystanders hurl insults and snowballs, MPR News (December 17, 2025), https://www.mprnews.org/story/2025/12/1 ... affic-stop) (cited by Dkt. 47 at 12–13 n.9–11)) (last visited Jan 14, 2026).
13 After the hearing, Defendants submitted additional video evidence to the Court under seal. (Dkt. 78 at 2 (referring to exhibits submitted under seal).) These videos do not depict Mr. Noor’s arrest, nor do they provide additional relevant context that was not already in the record.
14 Beatriz Rudolph Leon is a 25-year-old Minnesota resident who responded to calls for community members to observe and record ICE activity at the church, which she did “in support of [her] childhood community” and “in protest against the unlawful attacks on” that community. (Rudolph Leon Decl. ¶¶ 1, 4–5.)
15 Some nonparty declarants have described disturbing conduct of agents during and after these stops, including: threatening to arrest and detain them despite knowing that they were citizens; threatening to break the driver’s windows; waiting for the witnesses outside their homes; following them to their homes or to an address where their vehicles are registered; and telling the witnesses that they know where they live. (Rudolph Leon Decl. ¶¶ 24–26; Jackson Decl. ¶ 8; Levy Decl. ¶ 12; Smith Decl. 2 ¶ 4; Kellermeyer Decl. ¶ 4.) Ms. Salm describes having her phone seized from her hands while recording agents; being choked by the collar of her shirt; fainting twice from being lifted off the ground too quickly; and being threatened with “a fucking bullet in [her] skull.” (Salm Decl. ¶¶ 9–23.)
16 Another nonparty witness, Carla Hennes of Minnetonka, describes her observations of ICE activity at a library on December 29, 2025. (Dkt. 33 (“Hennes Decl”) ¶ 1.) Hennes was blowing a whistle as several agents entered the building, and merely standing near the entrance, “an agent came up, grabbed [her] by the back of the head, and shoved [her] so hard that [her] glasses came off.” (Id. ¶¶ 9–11.)
17 Kare 11, Family members speak out after federal action in St. Paul, Facebook (Nov. 18, 2025), https://www.facebook.com/KARE11/videos/ ... 927587560/ (last visited Jan. 14, 2026) (“Bro-Tex Video”) (cited at Dkt. 47 at 8 n.6.)
18 Tensions in the Twin Cities between federal immigration authorities and protesters have increased since January 7, 2026, following the shooting in South Minneapolis of Renee Macklin Good by an ICE agent. This case does not involve any claims directly related to that shooting, but the Court mentions it here because it is an incident of wide notoriety and is part of the broader context for the events in this case.
19 Director Easterwood does not provide any specific discussion of the traffic stops of Lee, Biestman, Webb, or any of the declarants who describe such stops. Instead, he discussed the following of ICE officers by protesters and the stopping of those vehicles by officers over the last several weeks generally.
20 The Court recognizes that the record on this motion was submitted on an expedited basis. However, at the initial scheduling conference, the Court granted Defendants’ request for additional time specifically so that they could meaningfully respond to the evidentiary materials Plaintiffs submitted. And, if Defendants chose to provide only summary hearsay due to safety concerns for individual agents involved in Operation Metro Surge, as claimed in Director Easterwood’s declaration, the Court notes that they could have sought a protective order, asked to proceed under pseudonym, or filed the declarations under seal. The Court would have granted such relief. They did none of those things.
21 The Court notes that Plaintiffs have met their burden to assert viable First Amendment claims even under a traditional standing analysis applicable to parties seeking injunctive relief. But the issue is all the more clear given the First Amendment nature of many of their claims.
22 Defendants contend that the Court should give these declarations no weight because they are irrelevant to the standing analysis. But “the experience of other journalists, legal observers, and protesters bears directly on the operative question of whether Plaintiffs ‘will again be wronged in a similar way.’” Chicago Headline Club v. Noem, No. 25 C 12173, 2025 WL 3240782, at *73 (N.D. Ill. Nov. 20, 2025) (quoting Los Angeles Press Club v. Noem, 799 F. Supp. 3d 1036, 1059 (C.D. Cal. 2025). Moreover, the consistency of the facts alleged across a variety of incidents, dates, and neighborhoods, adds credibility to the Plaintiffs’ own declarations.
23 The Court is mindful that injunctive relief was stayed on appeal in a recent similar case. Chicago Headline Club v. Noem, No. 25-3023, Dkt. 28 (Stay Order) (7th Cir. Nov. 19, 2025). However, in that case, the stay was based in part on the observation that the enforcement surge in Chicago had come to an end by the time of the appeal. Stay Order at 2 (“And we are aware of public reporting suggesting that the enhanced immigration enforcement initiative may have lessened or ceased, which could affect both the justiciability of this case and the propriety of injunctive relief.”).
24 At this time, the Court does not find that following law enforcement vehicles is protected by the First Amendment. Plaintiffs have largely treated this question as coextensive with the issue of whether there is a right to observe and record. But none of the caselaw the Court has found clearly supports such a conclusion, and the Court is not prepared to explore this important, complex issue on the expedited provisional briefing before it. However, the Court holds, below, that peacefully and safely following immigration officers performing their duties in public, without more, does not provide a lawful basis for an investigative traffic stop under the Fourth Amendment.
25 Although the majority in Molina questioned whether observing law enforcement officers in public could be inherently expressive conduct entitled to protection under the First Amendment, 59 F.4th at 340 n.2, other courts have recognized such a right independent of any question of inherently expressive qualities because “[t]he First Amendment protects the public’s right of access to information about their officials’ public activities[.]” Fields v. Philadelphia, 862 F.3d 353, 359 (3d Cir. 2017) (finding it unnecessary to decide whether the act of recording is “inherently expressive conduct”).
26 See also Chestnut v. Wallace, 947 F.3d 1085 (8th Cir. 2020); Walker v. City of Pine Bluff, 414 F.3d 989 (8th Cir. 2005). The Molina court characterized Chestnut and Walker as cases concerned only with the scope of Fourth Amendment protections that did not clearly establish the existence of a First Amendment right to observe police. Molina, 59 F.4th at 339–40. But both Chestnut and Walker held that the Constitution protects an individual’s right to observe law enforcement. Chestnut, 947 F.3d at 1090–91 (stating that “Walker establishes that [the defendant] violated [plaintiff’s] clearly established right to watch police-citizen interactions at a distance and without interfering”); Walker, 414 F.3d at 992–93 (explaining that the rights of “a citizen who . . . stood at a considerable distance from police officers engaged in a conversation with [citizens], who spoke only when spoken to, and who complied with [the officer’s] request for identification after pointing out that he had done nothing wrong” were violated when he was arrested). Although Chestnut and Walker did not clearly establish a First Amendment right to observe law enforcement, they relied on cases from several circuit courts that did so. See, e.g., Chestnut, 947 F.3d at 1090–91 (citing First Amendment cases from the Eighth, First, Third, Seventh, Eleventh, and Ninth Circuits).
27 The declarations of others, including both named Plaintiffs and non-parties, contain similar statements. (Burdine Decl. ¶ 9 (“I have also been concerned about what would happen to my children if I get detained for exercising my constitutional rights because I am the one who picks them up from school.”); Biestman Decl. ¶ 14 (“I plan to continue to observe, document, and express my displeasure and disgust with ICE despite the agents’ threats and intimidation. I feel like I owe it to my grandchildren, my community and my country to continue to express my Constitutional rights.”); Lee Decl. ¶ 17 (“Despite this traumatic experience, I have continued to engage in constitutional observation activities. Even though I am frightened for my safety, I feel an obligation to protest, to bear witness to ICE’s cruelty and to disseminate information about what I observe.”); Webb Decl. ¶ 9 (“I should have the right to follow [the agents] and observe them on public streets and I told them so.”); Page Decl. ¶ 11 (“I have continued to observe, but I am afraid when I do it. I’m worried my rights will be violated again and that I’ll be detained again.”)
28 The Court does not suggest that the federal agents who pointed weapons at and threatened Plaintiffs Lee, Biestman, and Webb took actions that would not satisfy the second element of a First Amendment retaliation claim. But the Court analyzes their claims under the Fourth Amendment and finds that they have demonstrated a likelihood of success in that context.
29 If there is another basis in the law that justifies Defendants’ arrest of Ms. Tincher, they do not point the Court to it. That aside, the Court declines to explore the complex question of whether federal immigration officers operating in Minnesota during Operation Metro Surge are authorized to enforce local ordinances, traffic laws, or arrest people for misdemeanors, a matter which has been the subject of substantial recent debate but no briefing in this case.
30 Defendants suggest in their briefing that Ms. Tincher’s alleged resistance after the officers’ initial use of force also justifies her arrest. But even in Defendants’ unsworn accounts of what occurred, Ms. Tincher’s purported resistance did not take place until after the agents had used force with the intent to restrain her. Torres v. Madrid, 592 U.S. 306, 311–12 (2021) (explaining that a seizure of the person occurs when an officer uses force with intent to restrain). Those subsequent actions could not have established probable cause to arrest her before she was seized. Armine v. Brooks, 522 F.3d 823, 832 (8th Cir. 2008) (“[P]robable cause is determined at the moment the arrest was made, [so] any later developed facts are irrelevant to the probable cause analysis for an arrest.”).
31 This also distinguishes Crenshaw’s situation from that involved in Mitchell v. Kirchmeier, 28 F.4th 888 (8th Cir. 2022). There, the only plausible inference to be drawn from the allegations in the complaint was an obvious alternative explanation to retaliatory animus—the officers shot the plaintiff with a bean bag round not because he was engaged in protected activity, but because he was occupying a place on the bridge that the officers had declared a protected area near a law enforcement blockade. Id. at 896–97. Likewise, in Laney v. City of St. Louis, 56 F.4th 1153 (8th Cir. 2023), the plaintiff could not establish a causal connection because the officer who pepper-sprayed him had not heard his critical speech and only later saw him in a threatening standoff with an officer when the irritant was deployed. Id. at 1157–58.
32 It is worth noting that Plaintiffs and other declarants describe officers involved in these incidents as engaging in conduct that goes far beyond what is necessary for a routine traffic stop. Guns were carried, drawn, pointed, and brandished. More than one declarant was followed home, or told that they would be visited at home.
33 An open question remains as to whether CASA’s emphasis on applying the strictures of Rule 23 when granting class-wide relief undercuts the court’s grant of class-wide preliminary relief in A.A.R.P. The Court finds it doubtful that the Supreme Court, through reasoning alone, so sharply reversed course that it indirectly invalidated its own rule of law issued just 42 days earlier. McDonald, 792 F. Supp. 3d at 498 (“There is no reason for me to assume that the Court in CASA intended to walk back a pronouncement it made the previous month in A.A.R.P.”).
34 The Court observes that the Defendants have offered few specific challenges to the narrower injunction terms sought by the Plaintiffs in their second Proposed Order (Dkt. 38). They do not specifically raise any concerns about workability, overbreadth, or administration of that proposal. Nonetheless, the Court has considered those issues in issuing this Order.
Longtime Trump employee speaks out about Trump's documents & obstruction crimes at Mar-a-Lago Glenn Kirschner Mar 12, 2024 All the "King's" Men: Trump's lackeys and their disservice to America
A longtime Trump employee named Brian Butler just came forward and disclosed some of the incriminating information he has regarding the conduct of Trump and his two co-defendants, Walt Nauta and Carlos De Oliveira.
Butler was identified only as "Trump employee 5" in Trump's federal indictment in Florida for unlawfully concealing classified documents, obstructing justice and violating our nation's espionage laws. Butler said he hired his own attorney rather than acceptation an attorney provided by Donald Trump. Butler further indicated that he has been cooperating with federal law enforcement authorities from the beginning. Butler said he is sharing his story to counter Trump's false claim that the case against him is a "witch hunt."
This video covers three of the main takeaways from the revelations by Brian Butler.
Transcript
so friends a new witness against Donald Trump in Trump's Federal prosecution down in Florida a witness who is a longtime Trump loyalist just broke his silence let's talk about that because Justice matters hey all Glen kersner here so friends a new witness someone who worked at maral Lago and someone who was in Donald Trump's orbit for two decades just broke his silence and provided some damning information about the three charged codefendants the three co-conspirators in the federal prosecution down in Florida Donald Trump Walt NAA and Carlos De Aliva now the witness had previously been known only by a number a number that special counsel Jack Smith had assigned him in that Florida Federal indictment that of course is the case in which Donald Trump is charged with unlawfully retaining classified documents obstructing justice and violating our nation's Espionage laws and the witness previously had only been known as Trump employee number five well now we know Trump employee number five is a gentleman named Brian Butler and Brian Butler just shared his story with CNN here is some of the new reporting headline Trump employee number five who unknowingly helped move classified documents speaks out and that article begins a longtime maralago employee who is a central witness in the investigation into former president Donald Trump's handling of classified documents is now speaking publicly Because he believes that voters should hear the truth about his former boss and the case before the November election Brian Butler who is referenced as Trump employee 5 in the class specifi documents indictment brought by special counsel Jack Smith told CNN in an exclusive interview that he doesn't believe the criminal case against Trump is a Witch Hunt as the former president has claimed okay well now that we know that employee number five in the Federal indictment down in Florida is Brian Butler the question is who is Brian Butler Brian Butler has known Trump since 2002 and can recount detailed conversations with him his family and guests at maral Lago Butler a Florida native took a job working for Trump 21 years ago Butler 41 is a natural narrator of the world of trump in South Florida but Butler ultimately decided he had to make a break from Trump because the Maga approach to politics in recent years the intensifying FBI investigation and Trump's apparently Cavalier attitude toward National Security soured Butler on staying at his Mara Lago job after Trump's presidency disillusioned with how the club had grown into a more transactional environment for Trump during his presidency Butler quit maralago in November 2022 that year he watched his friends and former co-workers lives become disrupted because of the developing criminal case and even though we've now learned that Butler has been cooperating with federal law enforcement authorities all along he was asked why he decided to come forward now and tell his story publicly he said well for him Trump to get up there all the time and say the things he says about this being a Witch Hunt and everything he Trump just can't can't take responsibility for anything so now that we know just a little bit about who Brian Butler is here is some of what he just told CNN Butler gave testimony to Federal investigators that informed crucial portions of last year's criminal obstruction charges against Trump and his two codefendants Walt NAA a personal aid to Trump and Carlos De ala a property manager at maral Lago who had been Butler's closest friend until recently Butler who was employed at maralago for 20 years has spoken repeatedly with investigators paying for his own attorney and breaking with the orbit around Trump that he knows so well setting him apart from his former colleagues and friends as his former boss had been named in multiple Federal investigations Butler told CNN how he unknowingly helped Nowa deliver boxes of classified information from maral Lago to the former president's plane in June 2022 the same day that Trump and his attorney were meeting with the justice department at maral Lago about the classified documents that day June 3rd 2022 Butler received what he remembers as a strange request from NAA who wanted to know if he could borrow an Escalade from the car service Butler ran for maralago Trump and his family were about to fly to New Jersey that day for the summer and it was typically Butler and his valet who handled getting their luggage onto the plane but it was an unusual request from NAA for the car Butler says because NATA typically didn't handle moving luggage and asked Butler for the car in a guarded way Butler says NATA and the Ola loaded up the vehicle before driving it to the West Palm Beach airport Butler arrived with his own car filled with Trump family luggage then helped NATA load Trump's plane with the luggage as well as Banker boxes of documents that were in the Escalade Butler says he didn't realize the Banker's boxes contained anything out of the ordinary and this quote from Butler quote I left maral Lago I texted him now to hey I'm on my way he followed me he pulled out and got behind me we got to the airport I ended up loading all the luggage I had and he had a bunch of boxes Butler said of NAA quote they were the boxes that were in the indictment the white Banker boxes that's what I remember loading Butler added so friends before we continue with the article let me just put a finer point on the timeline here because this was in June 2022 at the very time doj and FBI officials were at maralago essentially begging and pleading Donald Trump to return all of the classified documents he had stolen he had wrongfully taken when he left the presidency um at that same time Trump was arranging to have 10 or 15 boxes worth of those materials whisked away from Mar Lago and flown up to his Club in New Jersey Bedminster that's what Brian Butler is talking about here helping load those boxes onto Trump's plane not knowing at the time what was in them he came to understand later what was in those boxes and remember these boxes were being whisked away to New Jersey to Bedminster about 2 and a half months before the FBI ultimately obtained a search warrant for maral Lago went down and executed that search warrant conducted that search and found tons of additional classified materials you know what they didn't find the 10 to 15 boxes that Donald Trump had you know whisked away from maral Lago to his Club in New Jersey the article continues three months after the FBI removed hundreds of government records from maral Lago in August 2022 Butler left his job as a club valet and manager in part due to a growing restlessness to move on Butler says he has considered for months going public about his role in the obstruction case against Trump as he has carefully followed developments in the criminal case Butler says he decided to sit down with CNN exclusively in West Palm Beach on Monday out of a wish to tell the truth and share what he knows to those who may doubt the facts of the case Butler who has not previously been named publicly is referenced six times in the Justice Department's indictment As Trump employee 5 the references made to Butler in the indictment capture only an inkling of what he knows and could be asked to speak about on the witness stand all of which he says he's already shared with prosecutors giving them a window into scenes where other Witnesses may have been closed spped or allegedly misleading now friends I want to talk about the three main takeaways from this new reporting this information that has been revealed by Trump employee number five Brian Butler but first just for context let me read the the two short passages in the Florida Federal indictment that referen Trump employee number five who we now know to be Brian Butler this from page 28 paragraph 81 on Saturday June 25th 2020 NAA Walt NAA one of the charged codefendants traveled from Bedminster New Jersey to Palm Beach Florida prior to Nat's trip D ala that's Carlos D ala that was Brian Butler's best friend DEA is the other charged co-defendant co-conspirator in the Florida prosecution prior to Na's trip DEA that's Carlos De ala the other indicted codefendant co-conspirator together with Trump and NAA and D ala was until not that long ago Brian Butler's best friend prior to Nat's trip D ala told a valet at the mara Lago Club Trump employee number five Brian Butler that NATO was coming down DEA asked Trump employee number five not to tell anyone Nat was coming down because NATO wanted the trip to remain secret DEA told Trump employee 5 that NATO wanted the Ala to talk to Trump employee number four to see how long camera footage was stored and of course there's a whole another storyline where Trump and his co-conspirators his codefendants were trying to erase what was very likely incriminating security footage here is the other reference in this indictment to Trump employee number five Brian Butler this from paragraph 91 of the indictment just over two weeks after the FBI discovered classified documents in the storage room and Trump's office on August 26 201 22 NAA called Trump employee 5 and said words to the effect of uh someone just wants to make sure Carlos is good in response Trump employee 5 Brian Butler told NATA that D ala was loyal and that D ala would not do anything to affect his relationship with Trump that same day at Nat's request Trump employee five confirmed in a signal chat group with NAA and the pack representative that D alera was loyal that same day Trump called D ala and told D ala that Trump would get di Vera an attorney so friends let's start our discussion about three of the takeaways from this new reporting with that last Point Donald Trump reaching out through an intermediary and asking uh di ala is he good is he good what does that sound like doesn't that sound like mob talk for is Dea with us or is he against us and when Trump is assured that no no no di alaa is good Trump says I'm going to get him a lawyer so what's an important difference between Brian Butler and his former best friend friend Carlos De alera Brian Butler paid for his own lawyer independent of Trump World and D ala got himself a Trump World lawyer Butler was paying for his own attorney and breaking with the orbit around Trump while DEA has used an attorney provided through Trump's Network and indeed Brian Butler says he has resisted repeated inquiries from D ala nudging him to use an attorney found and paid for by Trump now friends where have we seen this movie before there's another witness in the Florida Federal indictment designated As Trump employee 4 we learned over time that that was the former IT director down at marago a guy named yil tares and you may not remember this reporting from some time ago but tares originally had a lawyer provided by Trump World tares We later learned went into the grand jury and told a bunch of lies that seems like they were designed to cover up what was really going on at maral Lago and then Jack Smith filed a motion with the chief judge in federal court in Washington DC to try to get to varis Conflict Free Council and ultimately the judge ruled yeah Taris Trump employee number four is entitled to Conflict Free Council and when Taris got Conflict Free Council what did he do he said I want to go back into the grand jury retract my lies and testify truthfully about what I know what had been going on down at Mara Lago you know friends that highlights not just the the importance of our Sixth Amendment right to councel but our Sixth Amendment right to Conflict Free Council an attorney who is looking out for the best interests of their client exclusively their client's interests not the interests of some bigger criminal fish that the client can implicate so take away number one the importance of conflict free counsel because neither of those two witnesses Trump employee number four tarz who was the former IT director at maral Lago nor Trump employee number five Brian Butler neither one have been charged with any crimes I'm not saying there was necessarily enough to charge them with crimes however what did we just hear well at one point Brian Butler was acting as the go between you know passing messages about is Carlos good is Carlos okay is he with us yeah okay Trump's going to get him a lawyer I'm not saying that's necessarily criminal but it sure is cruddy it sure is a little dirty he hasn't been charged with any crimes as far as we know of course he's had conflict free counsil all along and he's been reportedly cooperating with federal law enforcement authorities the FBI and the prosecutors all along what about Trump employee number four youil Taris we were just talking about what we know about him he seems to have criminal exposure why because he had a Trump World lawyer and he went into the Grandeur and he lied what does that mean means he likely committed perjury perhaps obstruction of justice perhaps accessory after the fact we would need to know more about the evidence but then what happened he got Conflict Free Council he retracted his lies and he cleaned it up and he told the truth about what he knew was going on down in Marlo instead of trying to cover it up and as far as we know Mr Taris has not been charged with any crimes takeway number two telling the truth matters whether you tell it from jump or you start down the road of trying to cover up the crimes of others but you ultimately tell the truth you retract your lies you testify truth before the grand jury telling the truth matters Conflict Free councel is critically important takeway number one telling the truth matters because guys like Taris and Butler have not been charged with any crimes as far as we know they've just been run as Witnesses not as defendants or cooperating defendants somebody who's been charged with a crime agrees to plead guilty and testify truthfully about others yes telling the truth matters friends I could tell you stories for hours about how before every grand jury appearance and over three decades I put a lot of Witnesses in the grand jury I would beg and plead with the witnesses do not lie to this grand jury because if you do it could constitute perjury and obstruction and accessory after the fact please save yourself all of that trouble just tell them the truth because the truth matters take away number three this is one that you're probably already thinking about and we've talked about this one before it has now been reaffirmed that Donald Trump took boxes from Mara Lago lots of boxes before the FBI and the Department of Justice could retrieve them and sent them up to his New Jersey Club Bedminster where are they as best we can tell we've never heard anything about a search warrant being executed by the FBI at Bedminster to try to collect up to try to seize that evidence of crime those boxes of classified materials so where are they now friends I have a feeling in future litigation particularly when the Florida case finally goes to trial we're going to learn where those boxes ended up we're going to learn why the FBI never obtained or executed a search warrant at Bedminster in New Jersey and I have a feeling those explanations when we hear about just why it is there was never a search warrant conducted at Bedminster I have a feeling the pieces will fall into place I can think of at least three reasons I'm not going to spend all of the time laying out the three possibilities but having investigated cases criminally for decades both in and out of the grand jury I can see a number of possibilities um Regarding why the FBI not might not have gotten a search warrant for Bedminster um but rather than engage in all that speculation I want to wait until there's more reporting on it or until the case goes to trial and then I think the pieces are going to fall into place but at this point um let's just wrap it up by saying this important information that was provided courtesy of Brian Butler breaking his silence because he wanted to dispel the notion that this is a Witch Hunt he wanted to dispel the notion that there's no evidence supporting these charges and you heard him say directly Donald Trump will never take responsibility for anything he did it sure looks like Trump cost Brian Butler his best friend the relationship he had with Carlos De ala de ala chose not to tell the truth it appears chose to be represented by somebody from Trump World and look where it got him he'll be sitting in the defendant's chair right next to Donald Trump and Walt NAA going to trial down in Florida when and if judge Cannon actually sets a trial date and moves the case in the direction of a trial but you know telling the truth matters indeed telling the truth to the FBI to the federal prosecutors perhaps most importantly to the grand jury and to a trial jury like justice matters friends as always please stay safe please stay tuned and I look forward to talking with you all again [Music] tomorrow
Trump Confuses Greenland and Iceland in Davos Speech, “No Kings” Comes to Swiss Alps: A Closer Look Late Night with Seth Meyers Jan 21, 2026 A Closer Look - Late Night with Seth Meyers
Seth takes a closer look at Trump's Davos speech in which he confused Greenland and Iceland, called windmills “losers” and mocked the president of France.
Transcript
-Donald Trump addressed world leaders in Davos and gave a very normal speech in which he repeatedly confused Greenland with Iceland, called windmills losers, said US gives Canada freebies, mocked the president of France for wearing sunglasses, made up a new country called "Aberbaijan," and told the crowd in Switzerland -- where the majority of people speak German -- that without the United States they would be speaking German, which is what they already speak. For more on this, it's time for... [ Cheers and applause ] Okay, Wally, show me the next card. -Sorry, Seth. -[ Bleep ] Fine. For more on this, it's time for "A Closer Look." ♪♪ We keep harping on this because in many ways it's the single most overlooked fact of American politics right now. Donald Trump is very unpopular. -A new poll from The Economist shows President Trump's approval rating is on the slide just one year into his second term. Just 37% of Americans approve of the job the president has been doing. -A new CBS news YouGov poll asked Americans how they feel about his presidency. The top answer, 54%, said uneasy. 51% responded frustrated. 47% say they feel unsafe, 42% are exhausted, 25% replied they are confident, and 21% are satisfied. -Only 21% were satisfied? Did they pull Americans or my ex-girlfriends? -Rim shot! [ Laughter ] -Sorry, we can't afford to pay a drummer for an actual rim shot anymore, so we just had to record someone saying the words "rim shot." We're also out of money for music, so going forward, the title card for this segment will sound like this. -Time...for "A Closer Look." [ Laughter ] -I also have to ask -- [ Cheers and applause ] I have to ask, only -- only 42% of Americans are exhausted? And the other 58%, are they, what, drinking Red Bull -- now with cocaine? The only people I know who aren't exhausted are my kids, who keep coming into our bedroom at 3:00 in the morning like it's the middle of the day. Last night, my daughter said the back of her knee hurt and my son said he had a dream where orcas lived on land, to which I said, "At least one of you is [bleep] lying!" You guys, I'm starting to think I'd be exhausted no matter who the president was, but Trump isn't helping, and I'm not the only one. Trump's also facing stiff opposition abroad. -We're watching large protests take place in Greenland and Denmark today, as President Trump escalates his threats to take over the semi-autonomous Danish territory. -At the US Embassy in Copenhagen today, protesters show their support for Greenland's sovereignty. -Visitors in Davos could see a glow in those snow-capped mountains after the sunset this evening, after a group of 10 local residents hiked up the mountain with 450 torches to spell out one message that shone down across the valley -- "No kings." -That's in Switzerland. Their whole thing is being neutral. When you don't want to take sides in an argument, you say, "I'm Switzerland." Now if you say mid-argument that you're Switzerland, it means you're about to go up to the top of a mountain to leave a message written in fire. [ Laughter ] That's how unpopular Trump is. Angry villagers are trying to scare him with torches like he's Frankenstein. [ Laughter ] And not the sexy Jacob Elordi Frankenstein either. [ Cheers and applause ] Guillermo del Toro, stop making us horny for monsters! What's next? Hot Bigfoot played by Paul Mescal? [ Cheers and applause ] You know what? I said it as a joke, but now I'm kind of into it. And look, it's not just the locals in Copenhagen and Davos. Even world leaders are aghast and confused Trump's behavior. And we know that from private text messages that were leaked by Trump himself. -Trump has come out on Truth Social and posted what appears to be a text message chain with the French president, Emmanuel Macron. This is what it seems Macron has written to the president. Again, all we know is that this is what Trump has posted. It says from President Macron to President Trump... -Again, to be clear, Trump posted that message quite possibly before he read all the way to the end. [ As Trump ] "Oh, Macron wrote. Let's see here. 'My friend...' That's nice. Okay. '...in line on Syria.' That's very good to hear. Good to hear. '...great things on Iran.' You know what? This is all very positive. I've read enough. Let's get this out to the public." "You sure you don't want to just read to the end, sir?" [ As Trump ] "I've already read, like, all of it. It's such a long text. Put me in the 42% of Americans who are exhausted." [ Laughter ] In fact, Denmark did something that would have been unthinkable not long ago. They sent military assets to Greenland to protect it from us. -As Trump ramps up his threats, Denmark now increasing their military presence in Greenland and asking other NATO allies to help. Sweden today also sending troops. -That's right. Sweden is now on a war footing against the United States. Of course, we all know they've been waging psychological warfare for years with their insidious directions. [ Laughter ] If history is any guide, this means Republicans are going to start calling Swedish meatballs freedom balls. [ Chuckles ] The same people who stormed the Capitol on January 6th are going to storm their local Ikea. "We're taking the EKTORP and the ASKERSUND for America!" [ Laughter ] So in his speech to Davos today, Trump responded to the unrest he's caused by claiming both that he wouldn't use force to take Greenland, but also if he did, he could absolutely wreck Denmark. -We probably won't get anything unless I decide to use excessive strength and force where we would be, frankly, unstoppable. But...I won't do that. Okay? Now everyone's saying, "Oh, good." That's probably the biggest statement I made, 'cause people thought I would use force. I don't have to use force. I don't want to use force. I won't use force. -Okay, but when you say it like that, it sounds like you might still use force. [ Laughter ] Also, people thought you might use force because you refused to rule out using force. That's one of the many frustrating things about the Trump era. He quotes us quoting him, and that makes us sound crazy. Like he could say, [as Trump] "I was watching Seth Meyers last night -- bad guy -- and he said I was threatening to take over Greenland, which is a part of Denmark, because I didn't get a Nobel Peace Prize, which comes from Norway. I mean, that's crazy. Can you believe they let this guy on TV?" And I'd be like, "But that's what you wrote!" [ Laughter ] And it wouldn't matter. They'd still put me in an institution, which was my plan all along, because in an institution, my kids can't [bleep] wake me up. [ Laughter ] I'm gonna sleep like a baby in my straitjacket. So, Trump's now suddenly acting like he was never gonna use force to seize Greenland. I wonder where everyone got that idea. -The White House is explicitly putting the threat of military action against a NATO ally on the table in the case of Greenland. This is a new statement from Karoline Leavitt just in to CNBC moments ago. She says... -Greenland should be part of the United States. Nobody's gonna fight the United States militarily over the future of Greenland. -Greenland should make the deal 'cause Greenland does not want to see Russia or China take over. They don't go there. It's very far away from Greenland. And Greenland, basically, their defense is two dogsleds. Do you know that? Do you know what their defense is? Two dog sleds. -Oh, I'm sorry, did I miss something? Is this the "Comedy Central Roast of Greenland"? [ Laughter ] Can we play that back one more time? -Basically, their defense is two dog sleds. Do you know that? Do you know what their defense is? Two dog sleds. -Rim shot! [ Laughter ] -And for what it's worth, I actually think sled dogs would be a very effective defense against the Trump administration, because, as we've established before, Donald Trump hates dogs.
-CNN is dying like a dog. I dropped him like a dog. He's a guy that was thrown out of his family business like a dog. I'm sweating like a dog up here. They are cheating dogs. She lied like a dog! He was fired. Like a dog, he was fired. She basically choked and froze like a dog.
-Trump hates dogs so much that if you surrounded Greenland with an army of huskies, I think he would back off. [ As Trump ] "We better stay away from those dogs. They're liars and they're cheaters and they sweat a lot, too. And they're angry because they just got fired."
But the point is, Trump says he wants Greenland because it is strategically crucial. And you can tell how important it is because of the way Trump talks about it in his speech at Davos. -I'm helping Europe, I'm helping NATO, and I've -- until the last few days when I told them about Iceland, they loved me. They're not there for us on Iceland, that I can tell you. I mean, our stock market took the first dip yesterday because of Iceland. So Iceland's already cost us a lot of money. -Greenland! He can't even remember the name of the territory he wants to conquer. Hold on. I'm gonna try staring at the ceiling again. [ Laughter ] Wally? We are?! -Yeah. And there's more bad news. [ Laughter ] [ Cheers and applause ] -[ Indistinct ] By the way, Joe Biden used to mix up the names of countries all the time, and it was a huge story. But he was never threatening to invade any of the countries he was mixing up. I mean, this is so much worse. We have an addled 79-year-old with his finger on the button who could at any point order a military invasion of the wrong country. [ As Trump ] "My fellow Americans, tonight have authorized a military operation against Iceland. We're sending the same guys we used in Minnesota because they're so comfortable with the cold. Like this guy." [ Indistinct shouting ] [ Laughter, cheers and applause ] "I've just been informed our troops have slipped and fallen while invading Iceland, and they are currently surrounded by an army of lethal malamutes." [ Laughter ]
"Thank you for your service."
Americans don't want any of this, which is why Trump's numbers in the polls keep hitting new lows. He's already at 37%, and he's only one year into his term. If he keeps this up, by the time he leaves office, he'll be down... -Two dog sleds. -[ Chuckles ] This has been "A Closer Look." -Time...for "A Closer Look." [ Cheers and applause ] -Aah!
Why World Leaders Think Trump's an Idiot: Rothkopf | The Daily Beast Podcast The Daily Beast Jan 21, 2026
David Rothkopf, The Daily Beast’s unmissable columnist, joins Joanna Coles to unpack Donald Trump’s disastrous return to Davos and why it may mark a genuine rupture in the world order. What was once a gathering fueled by prestige and pretense becomes, this year, a summit driven by fear—of Trump’s bullying, his ignorance, his threats on trade, NATO, Greenland, and allies who once trusted the United States. Rothkopf explains why European leaders walked out, why markets rattled, why the EU froze trade talks, and why figures like Mark Carney are now openly warning that this is not a transition but a break.
Transcript
And then Trump showed up today in Davos and he gave a speech that was so offensive to the crowd. Europe does not trust us anymore. Europe does not trust the US and NATO. Americans need to remember: Europe's the same size as the US as an economy. But also Europe has the ability to focus on China, to focus on others in the world in a way that really changes the equation for the United States. So it was a fiasco. It was a mess. Trump was embarrassing. Trump was offensive. Trump was a bore. Trump was an idiot.
I'm Joanna Coles, this is the Daily Beast podcast. And what on earth is happening amid the boiling vats of fondue in that tiny little town in Switzerland where I have never been? The president descended somewhat gingerly from Air Force One and delivered a humdinger of a speech where he was basically equal opportunity, insulting everybody he could think of. Who knows if anybody wrote that speech or if it was just one of his weaves? But we have David Rothkopf here to dissect it and debrief on it for us. Who better? David was the editor of Foreign Policy magazine. He worked for the Commerce Department. So let's get into it. David Rothkopf, what are we doing here in the States? We should be in Davos eating bubbling cauldrons of fondue. Okay, first of all, fondue sucks. And and and I used to host a fondue dinner in Davos every year. You did and every every year. And I was there's this one little shop there that's a restaurant. That's the big Davos restaurant at the big, you know, place to go. And I would get the back room and I would host this dinner there. And every year I thought, fondue is terrible I love I love fondue. David before we get into the meat and potatoes of Trump's speech, and then, of course, the Gavin Newsom of it all in the new campaigning ground, I want you to set a little bit of the scene for us of Davos, because I know you were the ultimate Davos man. At one point, you were there for the State Department. I'm assuming you were there for when you were the editor of Foreign Policy magazine. So I and I've never been I'm always I would be terrified of slipping and breaking something on the snow. But I need more details about what it's actually like. Well, first of all, I never work for the State Department. I work for the Commerce Department. I always get that wrong. I always get that wrong. Why do I do that? Because I feel like. But I, you know, I was there when I was managing director of Kissinger Associates. I was there with foreign policy. I was there for many, many, many years. And, you know, the way it was described, you know, is this sort of mountain retreat where people would get together and, and hobnob and do deals is a little misleading. In fact, I remember once talking to Eric Schmidt, who was, you know, the founding CEO of Google, and he said, you know, every time I come to Davos, I'm pretty sure that somewhere and some hotel, some big deal is being done. But it's never where I am. So, so, you know, full of FOMO. It's full of FOMO. But but, you know, it's a lot of strutting your stuff. I remember going down the stairs at Davos and watching people look at your badge to see whether you were important enough. And I turned to somebody who happened to be next to me was, a finance minister from another country. I said, now I know a Dolly Parton feels like because, no, nobody looks me in the eye. Everybody looks you in the chest. Well, I think isn't it full of high price escorts? I mean, someone once told me that all the escorts from Europe just hone in on their roles. A lot of kind of Russian and East European escorts there. But that was you know, that was a demi monde on a demi monde. Let's, let's focus that, you know, this, this, all these people, you know, are there in the hopes of doing a deal, being seen, wanting to be perceived as being somebody who's in on the action. But the reality is there was never really that much action going on there. And it's had a couple of bad years now. There was a story in the Wall Street Journal this week which said Davos is back because Trump is back. And I don't know who planted that story Steven Chung or one of these for well, good for them. But the but the reality is people showed up at Davos this year because they are terrified of Trump. They are terrified. But he's doing to markets, to their businesses, to, to the, transatlantic relationship. And, you know, as it turned out, they had every reason to be, terrified. But my final point about Davos is this it's cold and unpleasant. You are absolutely right. Not they don't shovel the sidewalks because people who live in Davos go with their skis or their sleds, and they like to pull them along on the sidewalk. So everything is covered with ice and snow and on a regular basis, you see bankers and government ministers fly up into the air and land on the pavement, flopping around like seals about to be club. As big because it's it's just a really unpleasant place to be. Now, there's a story in the paper today saying it's also too small traffic jams, too much security. And so they're thinking of moving it. And they listed two places, Dubai, which I kind of understand. That almost makes some sense. Or Detroit, which makes no sense. Well, also cold, also cold and much easier for the Americans. Well, easier for the Americans. But Davos was never about the Americans. Davos originally was about the Europeans. It started in the 70s, as primarily a European thing. And then it was about multinationals. And people should never mistake big U.S. corporations as being American. They're multinational. They are they're dealing with their community at Davos, and people have more in common with other multinationals than they do with their home countries. And so that's why you get, you know, you get a lot of policies that may not have been in the US interest being promoted because ultimately, they were in the interests of these big companies who were the agenda setters and who are the agenda setters. Okay. So you must be missing being there and and being at the center of everyone and people staring at people staring at you. Amazing that not tell me. You told me once a very funny anecdote at the time that was happening around, Black Lives Matter. Can you just remember what it was? I want you to share it with people because it was you. So when I was the C, C or an editor of Foreign Policy magazine, we were to host a lunch with the Washington Post, which was part of the same group, and you would have all these sort of big shots together. And I remember at one, I and I can tell you when it was 2017, and I was hosting one table and Marty Banner and the editor of Washington Post was hosting another. And I think Lally Weymouth, who was affiliated with the family that owned it, was hosting another and and at like at my table or the right next to me because everybody was jammed in was, Jamie Dimon, the CEO of JP Morgan. And then I'm right next to him. At the next table was David Rubenstein, the billionaire from Carlyle Group. And somebody started talking about Black Lives Matter. And I think David Rubenstein was the one who leaned forward to turn to Jamie Dimon and at that point said, what about us billionaire Lives Matter to? And that was that was so good, so good. This is this is the off Asian people think is happening and downvote this. And it was actually happening at Davos. It's what a what a great anecdote. Billionaires lives matter to. Don't let's tell Zoran Mamdani that all right. So let's get into the vote. And the dolphin was of Trump's speech. And my favorite, like most I've been very, very smart, very smart. That's not how he speaks, but it's me trying to differentiate. And actually several commentators, on YouTube wrote in and said, I've got to stop doing, Donald Trump with an English accent when I quote him because it makes him sound too intelligent. So I'm going to try and do it in the very bad American accent. But I show up for these podcasts every week or so because of your impression. All right. So tell me what what what was he talking about? What was going on there? Well, I mean, again, let's set the stage. The US decided this was going to be a big deal. He was going to be a big deal. They took over what I think was a former little church along the street turned it into USA House. We're having events there. Scott Bezzant was speaking there. The cabinet was out in force and was last night. So, you know, today's Wednesday. So, Tuesday night, Tuesday night in Davos, Howard Lutton was giving a speech that was hosted by Larry Fink of Blackrock. And like Nick was, you know, lightning is a loose cannon to begin with. He'd, he totally out of his depth in this job. And he's kind of thuggish and he's ridiculously loyal to Trump. And he started getting up and insulting the Europeans Trump style, but without the finesse. And I use the term, but I was like, okay. Yeah, but he doesn't have any. He also was like, we need to go back to coal, and we need to and and people Europeans started booing him at this dinner. And people like Christine Lagarde, who's the head of the European Central Bank, who is the most poised, experienced international states person I know walked out. They just walked out. So things were going badly. And then Trump showed up today and he gave a speech in which he thought the big headline was going to be that he kind of sort of renounced the use of force to take Greenland. But the rest of the speech was so offensive to the crowd. You know, you you're to a bunch of Europeans, you'd all be speaking German if it wasn't for us. And then, you know, you know, we we gave Greenland back to the Danes and that was stupid of us. And, and and Greenland is just a piece of ice. And it's all my ask. And, you know, we're going to get it. And if we don't get it, you know, or else. And there is this big implied economic or else tariffs and other kinds of things would be imposed upon them. And he was a racist and he was talking about how Somalis are a low IQ people. And, and he was he was making up complete nonsense about the U.S. economy and he was talking about Venezuela as though it were something to be proud of. It was as though the United States seizing the oil assets of another country and putting them into a secret bank account in Qatar, which only Trump control was something to be proud of. And and, you know, he said, all the big oil companies are going in there. But we know Exxon. Exxon said when Trump got them together, this is an investable country. And, you know, he's he's having a meeting tomorrow there about, the peace board for Gaza, which he mentioned. And but meanwhile he invited Putin on the peace board. And then the big news, breaking news today was he invited Bibi Netanyahu to be on him, this this peace board. You know, the butcher of Gaza, like, hey, you come and join the peace board is now starting to look a little bit like, I don't know if you remember this scene in the James Bond movie specter, where all the heads of specter get together in this opera house, and I think it was in Germany. But it's starting to look like a bunch of bond villains, and Trump's charging them each $1 billion. And where's the billion going to go? And is it going to go to a Jared Kushner? You know, casino project on the Gaza coast? And what will happen to the Gazans? Who cares? So, so like from beginning to end, the speech was offensive. It was a fiasco. Markets responded badly. Immediately after the speech, the European Union announced, because Trump was threatening tariffs if the Europeans don't go along with giving Greenland to the US, the European Union pulled out of the trade deal that they negotiated with the United States said that's on hold because if you're going to change the terms every time something comes up, then we don't really have a deal. You know, markets are skittish, stock markets up a little bit, but other markets are highly skittish here. And and you know, I think finally and most importantly, as, as big a fiasco as it is politically as as as as embarrassing as Trump was for his ignorance and is slurring his words and his low energy and all of that. This is really a historical watershed. For a hundred years, the US has made building transatlantic relationship the foundation of peace and prosperity for us and for many, many people in the world. And it's over. Yeah, Europe does not trust us anymore. Europe does not trust the US and NATO. No one thinks they can count on NATO, the trade agreements. The cooperation is, is, is in trouble and there are threats of retaliations and, economic bazookas. And I think Americans need to remember Europe's the same size as us as an economy. Europe not only is big and important and leading in a lot of key technologies, but also Europe has the ability to focus on China, to focus on others in the world in a way that really changes the equation for the United States. So it was a fiasco. It was a mess. Trump was embarrassing. Trump was offensive. Trump was a bore. Trump was an idiot. But this is also a bright red line in history. And the world is not the world that it was when you woke up this morning. And it only promises to get worse and worse. And I just think all of us listening need to go. Holy shit. Is just, I mean, I grew up in Europe. I have lots of European friends and family still, and they're all saying, we cannot believe that Europe's biggest ally has now turning into an adversary, both militarily, potentially, which obviously brings around, the end of NATO and also economically. But but what we're seeing out of this, a new world leaders. Right. So we have Mark Carney speech about middle powers, which I want you to to talk about, too. We have, the great crested crane of Gavin Newsom strutting around, sensing opportunity. He's now pecking at opportunities there. And then we also had and I want you to talk about this, too, Donald Trump picking on certain European leaders, Macron being one that he, you know, taunted, because Macron refused to write the $1 billion check for his piece board. And also the prime minister of Switzerland, who he said rubbed him the wrong way. So so can we dissect each of those? And it feels like Mark Carney is emerging as the the sane leader of the West. Well, look, Mark Carney has the advantage that he's located directly next to the United States. Stand next to Trump. Anybody will look sane. But the reality is, Mark Carney is an incredibly gifted guy, was the head of the Bank of England before he ran the Central bank in Canada, before he became the prime Minister of Canada. A really brilliant guy, and he's quite low key, and his oratorical style is not great. But what he said in the speech was not he said, this is not a transition. This is a rupture right in the world. It's a rupture in the world. Really important because a lot of people have said, you know, and this has been the way a lot of people in the press have been writing. Well, we're sliding in this way. And that we've crossed the line. And that's what Mark Carney is saying. And why? Because the US is now a threat. Canada's biggest friend is now a threat that we have. There were stories in the paper yesterday, of the Canadians are now planning for what they would do if they were invaded by the US, and saying that they would try to figure out how to conduct guerrilla resistance like the US faced in Afghanistan and have people out there with improvised explosive devices. And so this is crazy. But Canada is taken seriously because Trump's not backing down. He did go into Venezuela. He is threatening huge economic pressure to go into Greenland. He changes his mind and force, but he could change it back and forth. It's crazy. So Trump insults him and says, well, the Canadians, they're not grateful. You know, we're going to build this golden dome and they'll benefit. Well, you know, I've said this on here before, the Golden Dome is a fantasy. If you talk to anybody who's a nuclear armed specialist, they will tell you it can't be done. You can't build that kind of shield for the United States, at least not with the current technologies that we have. But more importantly, Trump, you know, Trump like to be a bully. And he was like, well, you know, Canada, you know, you better. You better tell your leader the next time he gives a speech like that to watch out, because we're coming for him. And he did the same thing going after Macron. He made fun of Macron for giving a speech with sunglasses, on which Macron did because he has an eye infection. He did look cool, though. Only a French president could have pulled that off as well. This kind of blue tint to them, which is fabulous. And also he's got that tremendous accent. But I'm being facetious, obviously, before people write in and say I'm trivializing, which is what is clearly a very serious moment. Well, it's one thing, Macron was was just seemed like the worst kind of bullying playground bullying. Well, that he did. But, you know, he did the same thing with the Danes. We did a lot for the Danes. The Danes did nothing for us. The Danes were the first people to respond after 911. You know, the the only time article five has ever been invoked in the history of NATO. They're like, okay, we're here for you. Send our troops. They lost lives of Danish troops protecting the US. Responding to 9/11, the Danes were critical in a whole host of intelligence cooperation with the US. We're leading the way in a lot of those things. Trump is an ignoramus and he's a bully. And he went after the sweet, the Swiss, and he went after other Europeans. He you know, he said, well, you know, I talk to my friends about Europe and it's just it's not the same. You know, I know because he's stuck in 1965. Well, he's stuck. Yeah. I mean he does it I mean, I don't know, you know, what what he is referring to, he's never liked Europe. He's always he's always been a little, you know, fond of Eastern Europe. We could talk about that if you like. But he's never liked Western Europe that much. And, and, you know, he was he was going after them here and it's, it's very clear, you know, this guy has done more. He's wanted to damage NATO and blow it up since the last term. Right. He mentioned it, you know, he told Mark Esper, the secretary of defense, to pull troops out of Germany. Esper said no, you know, they found ways around all of this. They moved the troops from Germany and to Poland. So we didn't lose the leverage that that we had. But he doesn't have anybody like that around him. No, they all snapped to attention. Whenever he says something twice, they do it. So, David, David, one of the things that that people are beginning to say, which you have said for many years at this point, which is that Europe may not be the same, but Trump is not the same either, that Trump is, you know, cognitively slipping. We can see it in plain sight. He's been in the public eye long enough for us to have comparisons with his first administration with ten years ago, with 20 years ago. He's definitely not the same. Even Tom Friedman in the New York Times today said, is he a mad king? He is a mad king. Do you think there is? I mean, there's a rupture in the world order that may have been a rupture in Trump's brain, but but do you think there is also now an understanding and a panic among the ruling class? Perhaps I should say that that Trump is there's something wrong with him, that it's time. I believe that everybody who is looking at this objectively thinks there's something wrong with Trump, whether he's had a neurological incident or he's had a series of neurological incidents, or he's entering into a phase of dementia like his father did who had Alzheimer's. And we know that that's, you know, genetically passed on, to, to within families, or whether it's just aging or whether it's too many cheeseburger. I don't know, I don't know what it is, but Trump is certainly not the Trump. He was a year ago, and he's not the Trump he was ten years ago. And, you know, he wasn't so great to start out with. Right? I mean, he was a big, fat, guy who who never took care of himself even back then. But he is he has declined the notion that, you know, he is now, mad king or that he is now a threat. I find that I personally have a little bit of trouble with it. I don't want to pat myself on the back. There's nothing that bugs me more than the social media culture of I told you so, but there were a lot of us ten years ago who said, this is where it's going to go if you elect this idiot, you know, and you know when I say a lot of us, I mean, everybody who lived in New York City, anybody who read The Village Voice in the articles by Wayne Barrett in the 1980s, anybody who watched this guy go bankrupt over and over again, 66 times, anybody who listened to Barbara Walters interview with him when he talked about being president in the early 1990s, everybody knew it. I wrote in an editorial in 2016 saying, the biggest threat the United States faces is candidate Trump. You know, and when I was the editor of Foreign Policy, which we had never written an editorial like that, but we felt compelled to do it. I wrote an editorial in the Washington Post in 2017 saying, the biggest threat the United States faces is Donald Trump. The problem was everybody else, and a lot of the mainstream media and a lot of big businesses were like, well, if we say that he'll be offended, let's go along with it. How bad could it be? There will be guard rails. People. Well, the guard rails are gone. The Republican establishment has abandoned ship. They're on their knees before their king saying, yes, sir. How high sir? And and and and the the business establishment, many of them are going along with them. If I were going to say there is one little silver lining that I have seen in the past 24 hours in Davos, it's that the Europeans who have really had a hard time since there, you know, was the idea first posed of a united Europe in coming together on anything, are finally recognizing that you've got to stand up to Trump and and you know that you've got to be tough and that the head of the EU and the foreign Ministry, people from the EU and the head of the European Central Bank and the head of a lot of these countries and, you know, are saying, no, we're not going along with it. The Germans are saying, no, we won't be on the peace, for the French are saying, no, we won't be on the peace board. They're pulling out of these trade. This is the the US guardrails have give it out. So fortunately there's some in the world that are emerging. So it was Gavin Newsom right to go I mean he's obviously planting his flag for 2027 ism. I gotta tell you, you know, and I'll take one step back from it because, you know, I know your background and you have been a trendsetter. And you, you, you, you understand what's cool in the world. And the core definition of cool is not caring about right. You're not cool if you're trying to be cool. And the core with becoming a presidential candidate is not looking like you're trying so hard. And Gavin Newsom is trying so hard. He is trying every angle. I'm going to go and attack Trump, for which we applaud. He's been very tough on that. I'm going to go and play to the Joe Rogan crowd, which is gross and disgusting in the Ben Shapiro's and the others, but he's like, I'm, you know, I'll do whatever it takes. And so he goes off to Davos and you know, God love him, you know for speaking out against Trump. But you know you say him. What kind of bird did you say was a gray crested crane which has a sort of plume of hair like Governor Newsom, which I know shouldn't matter. But Donald Trump's hair oddly matters. He understood, even though it looks like a sort of candyfloss, a settled or what are those things that blow down, Texas roads that. No, nothing else on tumble? Wait, that a tumbleweed to somehow blown and settled itself on his head. He understands that it's recognition and that nothing matters more than recognition as a as a candidate. If I were if I were asked to nominate a bird, I would say Gavin Newsom is a preening peacock and he wants attention. And, you know, frankly, we need all the voices we can to speak out against Trump. So God bless and keep it up. But spare us this guy as the Democratic nominee. Do you think that? But do you think that Gretchen Whitmer and J.B. Pritzker and Wes Moore in Maryland and Josh Shapiro in Pennsylvania are sitting thinking, damn, why didn't my team say you should be in Davos? This is going to be a moment. You need to be there. No, I don't think they are because Davos is followed by a narrow group of people. And there's some people reading a story about it in the Washington Post. And nobody nobody is reading a story about it. No, but you say that. But don't you know the Daily Bugle? I mean, it's just not. But, David, as the founder of Deep State Radio, you know that this is all about opportunistic clips on YouTube and Instagram and Gavin Newsom is everywhere that now. Well, this is all he has for a moment. The reality is this. And I really think people need to keep this in mind for a three out of the last four Democratic presidential winners Jimmy Carter, Bill Clinton, Barack Obama were nowhere as candidates two years before they were elected. Joe Biden won, but frankly, everybody thought he was nowhere. We are way too early to know because for all the reasons you just talked about and YouTube and Instagram and, and, and and, and various other social media challenges, the channels the the the the the reality is that there's these guys changes all the time. And so the candidate who's going to win is going to be the one who comes out and gets the zeitgeist right a lot closer to Election Day. And so, you know, my my sense is, you know, people are going to do horse races throughout this year. It might be one of those people, but it could just as easily be somebody who the Democrats win in the House and they hold hearings and all of a sudden somebody becomes a star, or Trump sends troops into some city and some mayor or some governor stands in front of a statehouse building or turns away ice or gets arrested and then writes a letter from some jail someplace, and, and and that person will emerge as a hero. And I would I would just keep an eye out for the person you know, for whom lightning strikes in the social media world closer to Election Day. Okay. Well, from your lips to YouTube's ears, it's it's a really remarkable moment. It's a remarkable moment. And and also, the thing I found very strange was, Lindsey Graham, who, you know, a ridiculous figure at this point who's gone from calling Trump sort of tutti frutti Trump to now being he couldn't be more obsequious, saying that, NATO hasn't worked that the last 80 years of peace organized, you know, from world War Two onwards hasn't worked. And you're like, what are you talking about? I mean, they're just it's really remarkable. Yeah. If Lindsey Graham got a phone call from Donald Trump or Caroline Leavitt or whoever it is that calls Lindsey Graham, and they said, Lindsey, we want you to go on national television and say that the president's balls smell like a field of lavender in the south of France, like Lindsey Graham would say it. Well, he would say, when can I go? How fast can I get to the studio? Yeah, but that's his role. You know, his role is to say, oh, yeah, no idiocy. You know, this is where whatever the the president says, space aliens took over all the brains of the Democrats. I think we should investigate that. I wonder if Marco Rubio and J.D. Vance are talking to each other and going, Dear God, how long, how much longer do we have to put up with this? Or if they're, sharpening their elbows to go after each other? I mean, it just seems like they're putting that out. We saw the first when we saw the first shot fired in the Republican presidential. Campaign to succeed Trump this week because USA Vance announced she's having her fourth child, you know, say, and this is like, you know, this is J.D. Vance saying family values. And my wife, who should be deeply offended by the fact that I insult her, country of origin and everybody like her and anybody else who is brand, is willing to sleep with me and have another baby. And so we're not getting divorced, you know, here we are, making a bigger family. You know, this this this is him campaign. And, I'm sure Marco Rubio is trying to think of the appropriate countermove as we speak. Well, perhaps he could adopt David Beckham's son. Well, that kid wants out, man. I mean, I don't know what the Beckhams did to Brooklyn Beckham, but he wants out of that family bad. He really. He's doing that thing that a lot of the kids are doing these days where he just goes for a total cut off from family, which seems very dramatic. But, that's also a fascinating rupture in celebrity culture in a celebrity life that, that people can't get enough. It may not be quite as consequential as the rupture between the United States and our European allies, but it is another road. It's definitely a rupture. But I'm sure that David Beckham is at home whipping up some delicious potato dish that his wife will not eat because she wants the David Beckham documentary. What he's probably doing is he's on his knees in his skivvies scrubbing the the cooktop because he does seem to have a bit of an OCD thing. Yes, I know, see well. And also going around wiping the tops of candles, which is something I didn't know you were supposed to do, that was that was quite a helpful hint from that show. Well, David Rothkopf, it's never dull speaking to you. I'm sorry we're not dipping large, carby slivers of, whatever bread is the best for soaking up funding. Well, come to come to Washington and we will host a fondue party for you. Excellent. And all of your Washington admirers. And we'll say. And we'll just we'll be a very small crowd, David. It'll be a small bunch of us huddled around a pot of bubbling fondue. I am sure that when you look into the comments following this, this little venture into YouTube, there will be millions of volunteers who want to dip big chunks of bread into bubbling cheese. And here you do your Melanie. Oh thank you, thank you. Well that's not that's not Melania can't channel Melania today. Well David always a always a joy to talk to you. And I mean, who knows what happens next. What an extraordinary moment. But I'm very glad that we have you to decode it for us. And and the last 25 years of Davos look like they were just washed away on the sand, that the tides have moved in and how they couldn't happen to a nicer group of people. As far as I'm concerned, if Davos disappeared tomorrow the world would not in any way be diminished. On that note, David, on that note. All right. We will see you very shortly, I hope. And I can't recommend Deep State Radio your entire media network. Highly enough. You keep people go to go to Deep State Radio on YouTube. Subscribe to Deep State Radio on YouTube. It's the fastest growing part of what we're doing. And you'll get, you know, one of the benefit of Joanna, though, Joanna, you should come on there, too. I'd love to. Come on. You've never invited me. You've never invited me. This is a meditation that's not a follow up. Okay. Follow up. In the next week or two, we'll have you, grace our stage. And people can then go, also to DSR network. If you want to subscribe to the podcast the old fashioned way or go to YouTube, and get it there. But David Rothkopf and Deep State Radio, unafraid to speak truth to power. David, thank you. I love talking to David Rothkopf because he's funny and he's got a sense of perspective, but he also has a sense of how fucking serious this is right now. This is a rupture. Mark Carney is right. Europe's biggest ally, America for the last 80 years has become its destabilizing adversary. And it is a real moment in in the global order of things. And and frankly, Donald Trump does seem to be a government of one, as he's always telling us, he will decide it's his morality that will tell him when to stop. Well, for now, the Daily Beast is not paying him $1 billion to join his peace board. We're with Macron. I want some of Macron's sunglasses. In fact, I'm going to order them right now. If you have been. Thank you for joining us. You May 2nd want to add some sunglasses to your repertoire, especially those blue shades. We love having you. We love hearing your comments on YouTube. Feel free to subscribe to The Daily Beast. As you know, we are independent media. We stood up to lost the veto who told us for photo? Well, we hung around and actually Chrysalis veto. There was no apology, no retraction, no money paid. And if you want to read the story we wrote about Chrysalis veto and all the money that went to his, advancing strategies, it's still up there on the Daily Beast website, so have a good day. Evening, morning, whatever time zone you're watching this in. And a big thank you to our lawyers, Neil Rosen House and Kate Bulger. Joanna, hi. I have to tell you about something that we're obsessed with. I'm Kevin Fallon, and I met Will Stein, and we are hosting obsessed, the podcast about all the TV shows, movies and entertainment newsmakers that we're all obsessed with. So make sure you subscribe to us on YouTube at the YouTube channel. Make sure you follow us wherever you get your podcasts. Just search for obsessed. The podcast and we will see you there! Beast! Big thanks to our special beast tier of members. Here they are. If at Johnson, methinks. Betsy O'Farrell. Mills and Linz. Shelby, Max. Cubitt, David Sherry, Thomas Moore, Maria Walton, Dee. Huger, Watts, senior Lums, John H. Overlocker, Deb K Ostrander, Sandra Clark travels with Carl Andrew Beaver, cap. NATO, Harry Clark, Dawn McCarthy, Daniel. Dog lover, M Griner, dice. Stone, Fulvia. Orlando, Herbie. Andrew. Miller, Tattnall, Val. Love, Francisco, Will Hutchison, Andrea Hodel, Bo Kok, DC, Sharon Shipley, Connie Rutherford, Karen White, and last but never least, Heidi Riley and our production team Devin Roger Reno, Ryan Murray, Rachel Passa, and Heather Pizarro.
Trump's Never Going To Live This Down... Really American and Raw America Jan 21, 2026
Really American host Steve Harness breaks down Trump backing down from his threats on Greenland after his tariff bluff falls fails!
Transcript
not for sale. Yeah, the entire world has been freaking the f out over the idea that Trump wants to take over Greenland and the pressure has been relentless from protests like that being seen worldwide to world leaders denouncing it, elected officials and editorial boards calling on Trump's cabinet to invoke the 25th Amendment and remove his ass from office. Hell, we've even had songs written about it that have gone viral. And it appears it all may have worked as our taco president, which just to remind you means Trump always chickens out. He seems to have backed down and is now waving the white flag. So, let's get into it all. Hit subscribe to Really American Media right here on YouTube and go find us on Substack as well. All right. So, after a rambling speech in Davos today where yet again it looked like Trump was struggling to stay awake, he suddenly announced a framework for a deal with Greenland and he announced in true taco fashion that he would no longer be imposing new tariffs on Europe. And when CNN's Caitlyn Collins asked him about it all, he gave a sputtering answer that explained nothing. Does it still include the United States having ownership of Greenland like you've said you wanted? Uh, it's a long-term deal. It's the ultimate long-term deal. And I think it it puts everybody in a really good position, especially as it pertains to security and minerals and everything else. How long How long would the deal be, Mr. President? Uh, infinite. Denmark. Denmark. There's no time limit. It's forever. Right. So, he didn't answer the part about whether or not America would own Greenland as he demanded, probably because he now knows that whole thing is off the table. Although, he did mention getting the minerals, which is what he actually wanted all along. And apparently, this deal will last for all eternity, unlike Trump himself, who is clearly living on borrowed time. And why the sudden backtrack? Well, because Trump caved to public pressure after the entire planet piled on him and he is scared shitless of the 25th Amendment. Let me put this in words you might understand. Mr. President, [ __ ] off. Right. It's the nicest way to say [ __ ] off I've ever seen, by the way. [ __ ] off. Okay, please. You got to speak his language. So, yeah, it's true. Other people around the world are talking about Trump like this. President Trump is acting like an international gangster, threatening to trample over the sovereignty of an ally, threatening the end of NATO altogether, and now threatening to hit our country and seven European allies with outrageous, damaging tariffs unless he gets his hands on Greenland. This is an incredibly grave moment for the United Kingdom, Europe, and our world. Without provocation or justification, the president of the United States is attacking our economy, our livelihoods, and our national security. I think that's an important point, dude. Without provocation, you know, this is out of [ __ ] nowhere, dude. Exactly. That's what I'm saying. And there's no narcoterrorist there. Even if you buy that from Venezuela, they're not shipping boats full of ice to us. Yes. Ice and snow. Yeah. It's insanity. He wants to redraw the map. And literally, by the way, Trump tweeted an image today of just that where, you know, he photoshopped or someone did for him an image where all the world leaders were in his office and the map in the background has the American flag over North America, Venezuela, Canada, Greenland. I mean, he isn't joking. And he is freaking gone insane. No. And uh I'll tell you what, dude. If you think if you think for a minute that he anyone else thinks that he's joking, this should show you that that's not the case. Hey, what's up guys? We are here now at a remote port in Greenland where, as you can see down there, Denmark has just sent in the Arctic Special Forces. They got shyies, they got camo, they got ghillie suits, they got big ass dumpers, and they're about to walk up here. I I'm just I'm I'm shaking right now cuz I'm so nervous being an American. What I find funny about all this is they're all everyone's saying, "No, there's no problem. Everything's cool. Everything's cool and just more troops. More troops. Planes keep coming. Ships keep coming. We got the special forces here unloading their weapons. There's a troop build up. We've been saying it all along. Hello, brothers. How you doing? What regiment? What regiment are you with? No time to talk, dude. So, all the politicians, he's got an American accent, so I'm sure they're like, "Screw you." Yeah. I mean, it's unbelievably crazy that it's not a joke, dude. No one is taking this as a [ __ ] joke for one second. And do you know that Canada today said that they're doing military exercises for, you know, a theoretical invasion from America? Something that I don't think they've ever had to actually go out and practice, but they are actually practicing it right now. It's unreal. It's unreal. Of course, it's unreal. Uh, and get this. former national security official tears into the mad king Trump in a profane rant talking about that letter to Norway says quote that's rhetoric that we've never seen from a US president before. This is former US ambassador Mike Carpenter says quote he's essentially saying if you read between the lines you didn't give me the Nobel Prize so I'm going to use coercive force to take territory from uh one of your neighbors. This is [ __ ] Mad King tweeting. And it's just remarkable how many senior people in this administration have no [ __ ] balls, no [ __ ] spine, and are pedalling this crap like it's rational. Truly, those names need to be kept on a sheet of paper and remembered in the future what they said and what they did in this moment. Yes. Yes, indeed. and those people around him have clearly been telling him that he's in over his orange head on this one. Not only have world leaders and streets full of protesters been publicly shaming him, but we even had a native Greenlander put out this song that has gone viral worldwide and yet again has made Trump a global laughing stock. [Music] Oh ancient land of ice and stone. Kalalon not forever our home. A hungry giant ones who take our shore to drink the oil and eat the or now we the go through the deep and wake every soul from their sleep. Greenland defense front state all orange and reaches by his fingers freeze and fall. Oh let the drums mark this day. No more strangers lead the way. The bear, the hunter, the spirits rise to belong the greed from the stranger's eyes. We calm the tal ghost. Tear the foul spirit from our sacred ghost. [Music] Our [Music] hunters move without a sound. Silent ghost born on frozen ground. A gray bear rises from the drifting snow. The northern guardian who fears no fest where the green waves break. A force of nature. No tide can shake. Winds will come, winds will go. We've dealt with worse before. Ooh, let the drums mark this day. No more strangers lead the way. The bear the hunter the spirits rise to block the greed from the strangers eyes. We carve the tal ghost. Tear the foul spirit from our sacred coast. [Music] Well, who knew that polar bears could ski, shoot, and ride a dog sled? And who knew that Trump was a taco president that would tuck tail and run when the world piled on? Well, I kind of did. As I always say, Trump is a narcissist and will bend to public perception. It's why our best weapon against him is highlighting his insanity and getting public opinion to crush him. Step two is crushing him in the midterm elections this November. So, we'll see how this Greenland deal unfolds and we'll definitely cover it all right here. But in the meantime, we still have some ice to crush. So, keep the pressure on the Trump regime and let's see if we can solve that problem before he invokes the Insurrection Act and officially invades Minnesota. In the meantime, please like this video, comment below with your thoughts, and get vocal. It's the best tool we have from the vocal minority with Nick and Steve podcast.
