C (2:42)

That's right. So, you know, this was something that I really came to understand more deeply when I was there, is that the killing and the unrest that followed fundamentally changed how many residents in Minneapolis look at law enforcement, you know, the neighborhood around where George Floyd was killed was basically abandoned by police. I don't know if you remember this, Tamara, but like the precinct, the police precinct in that area was burned. The police vacated it and then they never came back. And so those nights of unrest, there were chaos, agents that were driving into that, those neighborhoods, white nationalist biker gangs coming from suburban Minneapolis and scaring people of color who lived in that area. And so people were realizing that they couldn't rely on police to keep them safe. They had to create their own safety. And so for some, that included learning about and buying firearms. So that was a huge shift that took about, you know, took place five or six years ago.

A (3:55)

Well, do we have any idea of whether this is a national trend? One thing we've seen in the past is that after Barack Obama was elected, all of a sudden gun sales in red states shot up as if Obama was coming for their guns. And I'm wondering if now what you're seeing, at least in Minneapolis, where people leaning more left are arming themselves, does that mean that this country, which is the most heavily privately armed country in the world, is getting even more armed and potentially dangerous, or do you think this is a one off thing in.

C (4:28)

Minnesota, I think we've seen reporting that indicates that things such as the reelection of Donald Trump, you know, has caused more people from the left to, to learn how to use firearms and so on. I just don't know if I can say that the growth in interest among people on the left in other parts of the country equals what happened in Minneapolis as a result of, you know, the George Floyd killing.

B (4:57)

So we've talked a little bit about who is deciding to arm themselves, but can we talk a little bit about why? What are people telling you?

C (5:07)

Right? I mean, so when I was there last year, you know, I went to a firing range with Kimmy Hall. She's the founder of that group Security, that I was profiling and basically observed while she was doing training with one of her clients. And I spoke with that client afterward. This was a trans individual who never imagined that they would be training to own a firearm, that they have children at home and don't like the idea of having a firearm at home. But because of the rhetoric that surrounded trans identity and so on in the run up to the 2024 election, they felt that it was actually imprudent to not have a firearm and know how to use it. And so that, that's been kind of an interesting thing about this is, you know, that individual and the other individuals that Kimmy's told me she's been basically working with more recently are people that are reluctant gun owners. They do not want to have to take their safety to that degree upon themselves. But because they have lost faith in institutions of law enforcement. You know, five years ago, local law enforcement, and now with federal agents on the streets there, they have felt pushed to do this. Yeah.

B (6:34)

I want to get back to President Trump's response here when he was asked about the shooting. Trump. Trump said that Freddy should not have had a firearm at the time of his death. Now we should say that he had a permit to carry, but President Trump said he shouldn't have had it. This is him on the Will Kaine show on Fox News.

A (6:54)

I think the whole thing is terrible. I don't like the fact that he was carrying a gun that was fully loaded and he had two magazines with him. And it's pretty unusual, but nobody knows when they saw the gun, how they saw the gun. Everything else, the bottom line, it was terrible.

B (7:10)

So, Mara, what the President said there, that's not something you'd expect to hear from a president endorsed three times by the nra. And he's not the only one. Many in, in the President's orbit are, have been very focused on Preddy's gun.

A (7:25)

Right. There's no pretense to consistency here. I mean, Kyle Rittenhouse famously, back in 2020, showed up to a protest in Kenosha, Wisconsin with a gun. He, he ended up shooting three people and two of them died. He argued it with self defense. He was ultimately acquitted. But he's become a real cause celeb on the right. But I think that when we live in this political culture of us versus them, everything is domestic terrorist versus patriot. And it really doesn't matter if your side is carrying a gun that's justified and if the other side's guy is carrying a gun, that's unjustified. I think that's really where we're at.

B (7:59)

Oded, do you have a sense of whether the president's statement there and others have been well received among the gun rights community?

C (8:09)

Oh, no, they have not been well received. We've seen statements from the NRA and Gun Owners of America to the effect of if you are lawfully carrying a gun where you have a legal right to be, that's your constitutional right. And the national association for Gun Rights also took issue with the characterization that some administration officials have had around the apparent two loaded magazines that Alex Preddy was apparently carrying. You know, they were saying that that itself is also not incriminating. You know, in fact, they call it standard. So this is kind of remarkable because these are groups where, you know, folks might disagree over whether people should be outside on the streets documenting what ICE is doing, whether that constitutes unlawful interference with activities and so on. But there is no disagreement over this question of whether the fact that Preddy was carrying a weapon was itself an indicator of criminal intent.

B (9:16)

Yeah, I do want to say that yesterday on the pod, we talked about how President Trump's messaging around the shooting was shifting, but his administration's policies are not. And, and that also seems to be the case here. We've got no reason to believe that there will be a policy change around gun laws, right?

A (9:33)

No. And his message shifting, that's par for the course. His message always shifts. And right now he seemed, in the last day or two, he seemed to want to back off a little bit. But we don't know what next week is going to look like.

B (9:46)

All right. Well, we're going to take a quick break and we'll have more in a moment.

C (9:50)

Valentine's Day is coming up, and the perfect gift for the NPR lover in your life is waiting at the NPR shop. From cozy sweaters and mugs made for slow mornings to our tiny desk hoodie, there's something for every NPR fan. Each purchase supports public media and the journalism you love. Find something meaningful@shopnpr.org this is Tonya Moseley.

B (10:14)

Co host of Fresh Air. You'll see your favorite actors, directors and comedians on late night TV shows or YouTube. But what you get with FRESH AIR is a deep dive. Spend some quality time with people like Billie Eilish Questlove, Ariana Grande, Stephen Colbert and so many more. We ask questions you won't hear asked anywhere else. Listen to the Fresh Air podcast from NPR and WHYYY. On NPR's Wildcard podcast author Jennette McCurdy says she understands one emotion best.

C (10:49)

I'm trying to like, literally name any other emotion and anger is the only one coming up. Love it. It's just anger.

A (10:55)

B.

B (10:56)

Watch or listen to that Wildcard conversation on the NPR app or on YouTube @NPRWildcard. And we're back. And a reminder to hit the follow button in your podcast app of choice to make sure you get our latest episodes as soon as we get them out. Odette, this shooting has prompted discussions about whether there should be changes to the Department of Homeland Security standards for the use of force. So can you just start out here by telling us what those standards. Standards are.

C (11:29)

So you know the department appears to be holding right now, primarily to the constitutional standard which permits deadly force only when an officer believes that they are in imminent danger or threat or somebody else is facing imminent danger or threat. You know, there's something called the reasonableness standard. So it's evaluated based on whether a reasonable officer would assess that to be the case. But the department in 2023, under then Secretary of Homeland Security Alejandro Mayorkas, issued internal guidelines about use of force standards. And it's an interesting document to read because it does appear to really prioritize considerations around the value of human life, the importance of considering a reasonable, safe alternative to using deadly force. But this was an administrative standard that was enacted during President Joe Biden's term and which seems to have kind of gone out the door when President Trump took office again.

B (12:47)

And how does that compare to, say, the use of force policies for local police departments or even the Justice Department?

C (12:56)

So, yeah, I mean, I spoke with a retired FBI agent who started at the FBI just a couple of months after the Department of Justice introduced its first ever department wide use of force policy. And the reason that they had created this was in response to a deadly encounter that federal agents had had three years earlier back in 1992 in northern Idaho, in an event that has come to just be referred to as Ruby Ridge, because that's the name of the location where it took place. It was with a white separatist family. Federal agents were trying to apprehend the patriarch of that family and ended up killing the man's wife and his 14 year old son. A US deputy marshal also was fatally shot. And so it led to this new department wide use of force policy, which said that it was going to go beyond this constitutional standard. And it also required that officers need to have had no safe alternative to deadly force in order for a deadly shooting to be justified. And so that's a standard that has been in place at law enforcement agencies that fall under the Department of Justice. So not just the FBI, but also, for example, the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco and firearms and the U.S. marshals Service. And so it is limited in its reach. And I think at the time there was thinking that use of force policies to could eventually be harmonized across all federal law enforcement agencies. But that hasn't happened. And in fact, the Department of Homeland Security wasn't established until, you know, 2003. And so we have a situation here where you have one standard at the doj, but then a different one at dhs.

B (14:53)

And I think therein lies some of the challenges that are being faced right now where the type of law enforcement that is being conducted by ICE agents and CPB just doesn't look like the type of law enforcement done by other agencies.

A (15:07)

First of all, Ruby Ridge is part of the origin story of the anti government right. And you can draw a pretty direct line from the reaction to Ruby Ridge on the right to MAGA and Donald Trump. Over time, the administration's critics will say that it's not just about changing the policies governing use of force, that causing chaos is part of the program that Donald Trump wants to encourage people to self deport. They want them scared. This is what you hear from his critics. And the big question now, is this rhetorical backing off somehow going to lead to a policy change? We don't know that. That's a big question. And I think as long as the ICE agents and Border Patrol agents are told that they have unlimited immunity, there really is no reason to expect that the rules governing use of force are going to change.

B (16:00)

And that brings us to the government funding fight that is happening literally as we speak over on Capitol Hill, where Democrats are demanding changes and there could be a partial government shutdown as a result. Democrats say that they are united behind holding up the funding for the Department of Homeland Security, which does include ice, to try to extract changes to the way ICE and others operate. Do you think we could see standards change as a result of that?

A (16:32)

Maybe. I mean, that would depend on if the administration feels it's in their political interest to change them and to change the whole optics around ice's presence in these cities. Because we've seen public opinion polls where immigration used to be Donald Trump's best issue. Now majorities of people think ISIS gone too far. They don't like the way this is being carried out. They like the border being secure and undocumented immigrants with criminal records being deported. But they don't like all the chaos. And chaos is the enemy of the party in power in a midterm election.

B (17:06)

Yeah. And we are certainly watching what is happening on the Hill. The understanding is that there are negotiations on some level happening now between the White House and Democrats. We don't know where that is going. But, Odette, I want to go back to where we started today's pod. And you have been taking the long view in your reporting of these issues, how organizing and extremism evolve over time. Can you tell me what you'll be watching for as the situation develops?

C (17:37)

I mean, what, what really concerns me, and I say this also as just a resident of a city where ICE had one of these surge operations. You know, this was was in Chicago back in the fall, Operation Midway Blitz. And so and I did some reporting about that. And what really does concern me is that this approach that increasingly, you know, there's bipartisan agreement that it is heavy handed is further pushing people apart and further radicalizing people. And I'm very worried that we are continuing to see this kind of failure to try to bring people together. And that just creates conditions that could really become dangerous down the road.

B (18:34)

All right. Let's leave it there for today. Odette, thank you so much for sharing your reporting.

C (18:38)

Thanks for having me.

B (18:40)

I'm Tamara Keith. I cover the White House.

A (18:42)

I'm Mara Liasson, senior national political correspondent.

B (18:45)

And thank you for listening to the NPR Politics podcast.

D (18:56)

This message comes from brics. Finance leaders face a brutal truth when managing company spend, control or speed. But not anymore. BREX breaks that trade off. BREX is the intelligent finance platform that helps you spend smarter and move faster. With brex, you get high limit corporate cards with built in expense management plus a team of AI agents that handle manual finance tasks for you. So you're free to focus on the business. Over 30,000 companies run on Brex. Join them@brex.com NPR's podcast Trump's Terms is your source for same day updates on big news about the Trump administration. Administration short, focused episodes, one topic at a time, about five minutes or so. We curate reporting from across all of NPR's coverage so you are always getting the biggest, most urgent stories. Listen to Trump's Terms on the NPR app or wherever you get your podcasts.