By The South Asia Times

WASHINGTON - Protests against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations have spread across Minneapolis and other U.S. cities, prompting a strong response from the White House and renewed national debate over immigration enforcement and civil unrest.

The unrest in Minnesota has been driven by public anger over multiple shootings connected to federal immigration crackdowns, including the fatal shooting of Renee Nicole Good on January 7 and a separate incident this week in which an ICE agent shot a man in the leg, according to authorities and local officials.

Demonstrators in Minneapolis have repeatedly taken to the streets to oppose the federal presence, accusing ICE of aggressive tactics including arrests and raids in residential areas. Smoke filled streets Wednesday night near one protest site as federal officers deployed tear gas and confronted small crowds, with police declaring an unlawful assembly.

In response to the mounting protests, President Donald Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act, a rarely used federal law that would allow the deployment of active-duty troops or federalized National Guard forces to quell unrest if local authorities fail to restore order. Trump’s threat, posted on social media, accused Minnesota politicians of failing to control “agitators” and warned that invoking the law would “quickly put an end to the travesty.”

The president’s remarks drew sharp reactions from local and state leaders, who maintain that the federal response has inflamed tensions rather than calmed them. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey has called the situation “unsustainable” and urged protesters to remain peaceful while criticizing the scale of federal enforcement.

The protests reflect broader unrest around ICE activities in cities beyond Minneapolis, where community members and advocacy groups have repeatedly challenged immigration enforcement as overly forceful and disruptive.

The possibility of invoking the Insurrection Act has raised constitutional and political questions, as the measure empowers the president to use military forces domestically under specific conditions. Critics argue that such a step risks escalating conflict and undermining civil liberties, while supporters say it is a necessary tool to maintain public order amid escalating clashes between federal agents and protesters