Is the ICE Crackdown Finally Backfiring on Trump?

Summary

---

Podcast Summary: The Opinions

Episode: Is the ICE Crackdown Finally Backfiring on Trump?
Host: Michelle Cottle, with columnists Jamelle Bouie and David French
Date: January 31, 2026
Source: The New York Times Opinion

---

Overview

This episode examines the political fallout from the Trump administration’s aggressive ICE and immigration enforcement crackdowns, specifically after the high-profile deaths of Alex Preddy and Renee Good in Minnesota. The panel discusses whether the administration’s approach is finally backfiring, how public and political opposition is shifting, and what meaningful action (if any) Democrats or Republicans might take. The discussion also explores the tension between policy, public sentiment, and political maneuvering on immigration enforcement.

---

Key Discussion Points & Insights

1. The Political Fallout After Minnesota’s Tragedies

• (01:44) Michelle sets the stage: The Trump administration is scrambling after the deaths of Alex Preddy and Renee Good during an ICE operation in Minnesota.
• Jamelle Bouie (02:34): On the ground, little has changed—ICE is still operating with maximal aggression. But politically, the administration is surprised by the massive public backlash and is on the defensive.
  • "They're still using ICE less as immigration enforcement and more as sort of a secret police harassing people."
  • Unexpected calls for accountability from some Republican senators.
  • Suggests the administration is experiencing a real political defeat.

2. Tactical Retreats vs. Real Change

• David French (04:02): Compares “Trumpist authoritarianism” to a river—pressure can temporarily dam it, but it finds new outlets.

  • "In some ways, [this] is sort of a cosmetic tactical retreat. ... So long as Stephen Miller is the man behind the curtain ... you're going to be dealing with that authoritarian wave."
  • Warns against seeing individual setbacks as signs of lasting change; the underlying forces remain.

• Jamelle Bouie (06:00): Looks at long-term strategic goals:

  • Trump’s administration aims to stamp out dissent and opposition.
  • The Minnesota events have hardened and broadened public opposition, exposing the administration’s “authoritarian designs.”

3. The Minnesota Moment: Flashback to January 6th?

• David French (08:03): Draws parallels to the aftermath of January 6th.
  • "I'm haunted by the fact that after January 6th ... people thought [Trump] had absorbed this tremendous defeat. And instead ... the momentum wasn't seized."
  • Warns Democrats not to let this be another missed moment; urges doubling down while the administration is vulnerable.

4. The Democratic Response: Practical Policy or Political Pitfall?

• Michelle (12:27): Outlines the Democrats’ plan to block DHS funding unless guardrails are put on ICE.

• David (12:53): Suggests focusing on:

  • Banning masks and home invasions by ICE
  • Forcing Republicans to defend “grossly unconstitutional” practices
  • Administrative warrants for arrests to slow enforcement

• Jamelle (14:30): Adds that more training requirements could slow enforcement and limit harm, but:

  • Ultimately thinks ICE’s character can’t be changed with training.
  • "Looking five years down the road, [my goal is] that ICE doesn't exist anymore."

5. The Politics of “Abolish ICE”

• Michelle (19:20): Considers “abolish ICE” as politically risky.

  • "That just seems like it's a disaster politically because it lacks the nuance."

• Jamelle (19:54): Pushes back, saying politicians should respond to real public sentiment as it evolves.

  • "If the public...is embracing this slogan as something to represent their feelings about the agency, then that's something to take very seriously."
  • Rejects the assumption that Democrats must always react to Republican framing.

6. Republican Reactions & MAGA's Radicalization

• David (22:48): Distinguishes between “MAGA” and “normie” conservatives:

  • MAGA base grows more radicalized in response to backlash; uses outrage to keep the rest in line.
  • Moderate Republicans fear social and political isolation if they break ranks.
  • "When are you going to stop having the wide eyes in response to the MAGA backlash and stop backing into the bushes?"

• Jamelle (25:01): Notes visible fractures: finger pointing, blame-shifting (Noem blaming Miller; Miller blaming protocol).

  • Predicts that sustained pressure could cause more public splits and scrambling.

7. ICE Operations & Ethnic Targeting

• Michelle (26:18): Notes the administration has pulled ICE out of similar operations in Maine, likely for political reasons (protecting vulnerable Republican seats).

• Jamelle (27:02): Points out the administration's targeting of Somali and Haitian communities constitutes ethnic cleansing.

  • "They're sending militarized paramilitaries after them in specific places to remove them from the country—even if they're legal."

• David (28:40): Criticizes the administration’s policy as being led by “Twitter influencers” (or, per Jamelle, “Twitter Nazis”), and reinforcing their base’s prejudices.

---

Notable Quotes & Moments

• On ICE Redux:

  • "They're still using ICE less as immigration enforcement and more as sort of a secret police harassing people." – Jamelle (02:34)

• On Political Opportunity:

  • "After January 6th ... there was a sense that the work had been done ... Instead ... people thought, well, now we see, now we know. And I just don't want to get into that mindset in Minnesota." – David (08:03)

• On Targeting Specific Communities:

  • "They want to ethnically cleanse the country of Somali Americans ... That is ethnic cleansing. That's all that is." – Jamelle (27:02)

• On Republican Dynamics:

  • "The core folks are further radicalized by this and then they use that ferocity to try to keep everybody else in line ... you do the Homer Simpson gif thing where you walk slowly back into the bushes." – David (22:48)

• On Protest Music as a Cultural Marker:

  • "When I see things like this [Springsteen’s protest song], from somebody who’s a classic American artist ... this shows that this stuff is resonating around the country. People know, people are aware." – David (31:29)

---

Segment Timestamps

• 00:44 – Scene set: Aftermath of ICE killings in Minnesota and Trump admin’s damage control
• 02:34 – On-the-ground reality vs. political costs
• 04:00-08:00 – Is administration genuinely retreating or just regrouping?
• 08:03 – Lessons from January 6th & missing moments of political opportunity
• 12:27 – Democrats’ plans in Congress and efficacy of proposed restrictions
• 14:30-16:36 – Debate: Can training or procedural changes actually reform ICE?
• 19:20-21:51 – Arguments over the impact and wisdom of “abolish ICE” sloganeering
• 22:48 – MAGA vs. moderate Republican responses, intra-party pressure tactics
• 26:18 – ICE pullback in Maine; calculations behind targeted crackdowns
• 27:02 – Direct labeling of operations as ethnic cleansing
• 28:40 – Administration’s policy shaped by online culture warriors
• 30:05-34:58 – Cultural impact: Bruce Springsteen’s protest song and political solidarity in music
• 35:28-38:44 – Panel’s pop culture recommendations for coping with the grim news cycle

---

Memorable Cultural Moment

• Bruce Springsteen drops "Streets of Minneapolis," a protest song inspired by the ICE killings (30:05)
  • The panel discusses the role of music in political movements, cultural solidarity, and whether protest songs connect with average Americans.
  • "This shows that this stuff is resonating around the country. People know, people are aware." – David (31:29)

---

Final Thoughts

The panel is united in viewing the administration’s actions as a political overreach but divided on strategy and messaging for the opposition. The episode underscores the interplay of policy, public sentiment, and cultural responses in an era of escalating state action and political polarization.

---

Panel’s Recommendations (36:09–38:44)

• Jamelle: Watch the new F1 racing movie, especially the final race sequence.
• David: Anticipates the adaptation of Sanderson’s "Mistborn" and "Stormlight Archive" fantasy series; recommends the upcoming James S.A. Corey novel.
• Michelle: Recommends "The Morning Star" by Karl Ove Knausgård, a psychologically gripping Norwegian novel.

---

For listeners wanting to keep up with mainstream political, policy, and cultural conversations about the Trump era’s immigration enforcement, this episode is essential.

Transcript

[A]

My name is Thomas Gibbonsnev. I'm a journalist at the New York Times. I served in the Marine Corps as an infantryman. When it comes to reporting on the front line, I think nothing is more important than talking to the people involved, hearing their stories, and being able to connect that with people thousands of miles away. Anything that can make something like this more personal, I think is well worth the risk. New York Times subscribers make it possible for us to keep doing this vital coverage. If you'd like to subscribe, you can do [e-mail] sl subscribe.

[B]

This is the Opinions, a show that brings you a mix of voices from New York Times Opinion. You've heard the news. Here's what to make of it. I'm Michelle Cottle. I cover national politics for New York Times Opinion. And this week I am joined by the usual suspects, columnists Jamelle Bouie and David French. Guys, good to see you. I trust you're staying warm in all of this.

[A]

Well, Michelle, I am in New Hampshire, where, as we record, is a balmy six degrees.

[B]

Oh, dear.

[A]

Which, believe it or not, is warmer than it was in parts of the time when I was in Nashville and warmer than it's been in parts of Chicago. So I'm enjoying the weather.

[B]

Woo. Jamel, what about you? How's Virginia?

[C]

It's like 20 degrees. It's a little warmer, but it's icy.

[B]

Oh, you should be spent. You should be in short sleeves outside.

[C]

I don't, you know, even in the summer, I don't wear short sleeves. I spent two hours yesterday with an ice pick trying to get the ice off of my driveway. So very exciting.

[B]

Oh, well done. All right. But today we are going to look at the icy confrontation in Minnesota where, you know, looking at the wake of the shooting deaths of Alex Preddy and Renee.

[A]

Good.

[B]

And we're gonna talk about specifically how the Trump administration is scrambling to do some damage control. Now, of course, we were recording this on Thursday morning. Some things are almost certain to have changed, gone sideways, I don't know, flipped, inverted. By the time you hear this, the last week has been especially fraught in the country, and folks are feeling like there's a tipping point coming for the Trump administration. Administration's maximalist immigration plans. So first I want to know, what do you guys think? Is there actually change in the air?

[C]

I think you got to look at this two ways. First, on the ground. On the ground, it's clear that the administration isn't really pulling back. Like, there's been this talk of A new tone of a new approach. But they're still snatching people off the street. They're still using intimidating tactics, like they're still doing this stuff. They're still using ICE less as immigration enforcement and more as sort of a secret police harassing people. So that hasn't changed. But the other way, the other kind of perspective to look at is just a larger political perspective. And looking at things in Washington, I think it is quite clear that the administration is on the back foot. That the response, especially to the killing of Alex Preddy, but really both good and pretty and them happening so close together, I think really surprised the administration. I don't think they quite understood the level of discontent and anger there is in the public. And I that we're witnessing an administration trying to recover its ground politically, and it has lost real ground politically. You have a handful of Republican senators talking about how Krissi Noem has to resign. I mean, there is a real push to get some accountability from the administration that I don't think they were anticipating and I think represents kind of a real political defeat and the failure of this operation in Minnesota, even if they're still kind of doing what they've been doing.

[A]

David, you know, I'm going to take a little bit of a bleak and cynical approach to what we're witnessing. How unusual.

[B]

How unusual for you.

[A]

Yeah, well, this isn't my first rodeo. I mean, we've been watching these guys for 10 years now. So when I think about what's happening, I think of the Trumpist authoritarianism as a big stream or current of water. And what happens is that water always finds a way. It always finds the weak point. But you, if you erect a dam or if you erect sort of a barrier, it will kind of back up in one area, but then it flows where it's weak. And so I think what you're seeing is that you have this big authoritarian river of Trumpism, and at different places and at different times, different people can sort of throw up a barrier, they throw up a dam. And I think the people of Minnesota have responded in a way that I think is heroically peaceful. And that when you do that, it does create a dynamic that puts the administration temporarily on a bit of a back foot. And so what you see, I think, in some ways is sort of a cosmetic tactical retreat. And why do I say cosmetic? Because as Jamel was saying, like on the ground, not a whole lot has changed, but sort of in the air, in the public, there's sort of this sense that he took a Blow, you know, when Bovino, Gregory Bovino is reassigned or maybe about to retire, depending on the various kinds of reporting here. That's a largely cosmetic. If Kristi Noem comes in for a two hour scolding in the Oval Office, that's mainly cosmetic. But so long as Stephen Miller is the man behind the curtain, so to speak, and he and Trump are simpatico, you're going to be dealing with that authoritarian wave. And in Minnesota, they put up a little bit of a dam there, right. And it was able to sort of re channel Trump. But what I'm concerned about is we keep looking at these things, what happened in Minnesota, what happened here, what happened here, and view them too discreetly on occasion when they're really all part of a larger whole.

[C]

So I don't think I'm looking at them discreetly. I think I'm trying to take a larger sense. You mentioned a tactical retreat. I'm asking myself, what is the strategic goals for both the opposition to Trump and for the administration itself? For the administration itself, the strategic goal, I think the reason why they're doing these operations, the reason why they've taken such a draconian and harsh and violent line against opposition, is that they want to establish, they want to get rid of dissent, right. They want to pacify the public. They want to sort of make sure that there's no meaningful opposition to their authoritarian designs. And then for the opposition, obviously, there's the, you know, for the people of Minnesota, it's quite narrow. The strategic goal, like get them get ICE and customs and border protection out of Minnesota. But like, broadly speaking, for the opposition to Trump, it's to as much as possible neutralize Trump's ability to, to achieve his, like, authoritarian designs. If you look at this from a strategic perspective, I actually think this is a real defeat. Right. Like, authoritarian states are quite brittle, right. That's part of the consequence of them not having any kind of like, pressure release for public discontent. And authoritarian regimes are actually quite reliant on maintaining its standing with the entire public and not just small segments of it. And so when you look at it from that larger picture, the result of the Alex Preddy killing has been broad public discontent with the administration. Right. Like people who aren't ordinarily involved in politics via their platforms or whatever, make giving clear statements about what their political views of the administration are. And I think that the extent to which Freddy's killing in particular has basically both revealed for large portions of the public what the administration's designs are and hardened opposition to the administration, even if they still have these authoritarian designs, even if they still want to, I think, create the perception of a wave. I think the fact of the matter is, is that they've, like, suffered a serious setback in terms of accomplishing their strategic goal.

[A]

I, I agree. I do think that they have suffered a setback. I, I don't think there's much question. But I, I will tell you that I'm haunted by the fact that after January 6th, if you'd surveyed an awful lot of people, they would have said, look, right there in front of all of our eyes, is the true nature of MAGA aggression revealed to the extent that they have invaded our Capitol to try to overturn an election and they lost. Many Republicans broke ranks on that day. And there was a sense, and you know, Mitch McConnell's fateful mistake is rooted in this, that the work had been done, that Trump itself had sort of shown his true colors, and now the political, sort of the, the process of politics was going to run its course against him. I think what we've realized is that doesn't work with him. And in hindsight, if you're looking with that 30,000 foot view, what so many people made a mistake about on January 7th and 8th and 9th and 10th was thinking he'd absorbed this really tremendous defeat. His true colors had been displayed to the whole world. And instead of pouring into the breach and MAGA lines, so to speak, and moving with extreme ferocity to exploit the weakness that was so obvious in the Trump administration at that point. A lot of time it was sort of like, aha, now politics is going to work. And I'm still upset that, for example, when the momentum was there, the impeachment drive still was not pushed with the speed and the necessary vigor. The slow, slow, slow criminal investigations, a lot of it was because people had thought, well, now, now we see, now we know. And I just don't want to get into that mindset in Minnesota where we think, now we see, now we know. It's much more like there's a weakness here. They have overreached, they have overstretched, and now is the time to redouble efforts.

[B]

So let me just jump in and ask if there is a difference this time because of the political landscape right now. So post January 6th, Trump was out of office. The Republicans were feeling like, well, maybe we just humor him right now, and then he goes away. Nobody thinks that anymore. And for the longest, Republicans have been operating on the assumption that their only risk politically to their fortunes is if they don't back Trump enough. In this case, they are seeing from this public reaction the potential downsides to having hitched their wagon to this authoritarian nightmare. And so you do see people in Congress pushing back. So I'm just wondering if, because the kind of landscape is so different this time, people are kind of approaching it more cautiously, but with more seriousness.

[C]

I think that is the question. I agree with David very much that there was this moment of opportunity after January 6th to put the stake in the heart of Maga to really knock out Trump as a viable political figure. But it required sort of a quick, aggressive action. Right. And they didn't do it for, I think, for exactly the reasons that David described. That there is, like, this sense that, oh, well, this is so egregious that we know. So we know how American politics works, and so egregious that, like, he'll just fade away. And there was a real lack of understanding. I think that that's actually not how American politics works. It's not how it's ever worked. And if you want to defeat someone, you actually have to defeat them in a proactive way. And the question, I think, for this moment is whether or not Trump's opponents, and especially Trump's opponents in the Democratic Party understand this. And I think that there are prominent and important voices in the Democratic Party, especially in Congress, who are still wedded to this. This old model of what they think American politics is, where something terrible happens and everyone agrees that the other side is bad or is in the wrong, and that's just not the case. And so that's like the big question of the political moment. Like, do people actually understand what David is describing in terms of what needs to be done?

[B]

All right, so let's talk about the Democrats reaction in Congress, which is where they have a little bit of leverage right now. The immediate plan seems to be to block DHS funding and if necessary, even forcing a partial shutdown unless and until some guardrails are put on ice. I mean, do you guys think this is practical, sensible, ridiculous? What?

[A]

I mean, I think if the Democrats don't take strong action, it's a. It's a big problem for them. Look, and it needs to be strong, but it also needs to be something that can really reach and persuade sort of the normie voters who are tuning in right now and not liking what they're seeing. And so I think a very direct. No masks, no immunities, no home invasions. In other words, like, if you're looking at all of these things that are the Real hallmarks of, you know, what are the things that are tyrannizing our communities and just saying no to each one of these things, in a way. And make the Republican Party come out there and defend masked police. Make the Republican Party go out there and defend administrative warrants that are not.

[B]

Shooting somebody because they show up at a protest with a gun. Come on.

[A]

Right.

[B]

The right's going to defend.

[A]

They might say, oh, well, I don't defend that shooting, but. But I want ICE to have full freedom. No, no, make them defend all of these things that are grossly unconstitutional. Make them defend, for example, shackling and detaining lawful refugees who have done nothing wrong and sending them down for detention in Texas for a reexamination of their case. So I think it's you. You have your list of the most reasonable demands which in any constitutional republic should be completely acceptable. And then make the Republicans defend the indefensible.

[C]

Yeah, I agree completely. I think the political task is. Yeah. To make Republicans defend masked agents, mass paramilitaries, really, and the use of administrative. Administrative warrants, I think. I'm glad you pointed that out, David. That's. That is forcing ICE to. Or CBB to get actual judicial warrants to conduct arrests may seem minor, but first of all, it puts like a real limit on what they can do because that takes time. And second of all, it. It helps. It helps ordinary Americans defend their rights on the left. There is real ridicule for the idea that you should, like, impose any new training requirements, but I think you can actually use training requirements to again, reduce the speed at which ICE can operate. If you acquire. If you require them to double the length of training, make it like 180 days. Right. You need half a year to get properly trained to do this work. Then you can just reduce their manpower and reduce the rate at which they can deploy new people. I think those things are popular and they would serve to at least again reduce the amount of harm being done. Not from my perspective, from my politics, not a solution to. I think the basic problem of having this kind of agency. I don't think this kind of agency should exist. But given the political situation, these are achievable things you can do that can weaken the agency until it can be dealt with in a more appropriate manner.

[B]

So let me jump in here and say, in the interest of not letting the perfect be the enemy of the good, I do think that the training should not be pooh, pooh, because if you watch these things, these ICE agents look like they've Been sent out in the field with this. Like, they've been jacked up to believe they're going into some incredibly dangerous war zone. They look like they're on a hair trigger. You know, they would do well to spend more time. And you'd have to, of course, make sure the training was, you know, appropriate. But I think that part of the problem is these guys are just not equipped for this.

[A]

Oh, I'm just so with you on this training point. And the other thing I want to say, just for those listeners who might be saying, oh, these three New York Times elitists sitting in their comfy chairs opining about street tactics. Guys, I've been in far more dangerous situations when I was in Iraq than have happened on the streets of Minneapolis. I know what it's like when young, very disciplined Americans are exposed to extreme violence. And we didn't act like that. So, you know, this sort of idea that ICE has no choice but to be so aggressive when all of these people are blowing whistles and blocking them in the road and. Spare me, spare me. I mean, I have seen younger Americans in far more dangerous situations, infinitely more dangerous situations, exercise far more restraint and compassion and discipline than we're seeing. So this is not just. Oh, pundits. Divorced from reality. No, no, no, no. I want everyone to realize you can deal with far more dangerous situations with far less force than we're seeing. I know this. I've seen this with my own eyes. And so, yeah, it's just when you see these videos and you have experience dealing with more dangerous situations, trust me, it's more shocking.

[C]

I want to say one more thing about the training thing, just to, I think, clarify my position here, which is that I actually do not think it is possible to do any kind of training that will change the character of this agency. ISIS always had this kind of reputation for brutality. ICE has always been the subject of real criticism about its operations. I think that when you look at what Miller and Trump want out of the agency, even with new training requirements, they're still gonna be looking for basically, goonis men to participate in this processes. So for me, I think the goal here, the end point, looking five years down the road, is that ICE doesn't exist anymore, that we find some other way to do immigration enforcement that does not rely on paramilitaries, that does not rely on these, like, staged raids, that does not rely on this construct of undocumented immigrants are a existential threat to the United States. And so any force we use to get rid of them is Acceptable. No, none of that. And so for me, all of this stuff is really kind of like. It's like a holding maneuver while you try to get the political power necessary to, again, do something fundamental about this agency, fundamental about the department with Homeland Security, fundamental about Customs and Border Protection.

[B]

Okay, But I think we're all in agreement. We're not gonna come out in support of the whole. Abolish ICE as a mantra. That just seems like it's a disaster politically because it lacks the nuance.

[C]

Are we all in agreement?

[B]

You think that's great?

[A]

I mean, I love that. I don't want to abolish ice.

[B]

Even if you want to remake the agency, the idea of that being anything other than catnip for the right, who is then going to pitch it as well. They don't want any kind of infringement. No borders, no non bombers.

[C]

Two things. First is that I'm not a political strategist. I don't have a sense of how effective a slogan abolish isis. If a Democrat says that, says they don't want to say it, whatever, they don't want to say it. But I think that. But if you are following public sentiment, if you are looking at where the public is, and if the public. If, like ordinary people are embracing this slogan as a. As something to represent their feelings about the agency, then that's something to take very seriously. This is something to take extremely seriously. And if Republicans want to say, oh, look, they want to get rid of border security, look, I think you can. I reject this idea that Republicans are like, the prime movers of American politics and that, like, you know, they.

[B]

Well, Democrats certainly haven't moved American politics in the last few elections.

[C]

I reject this idea that Republicans are sort of the prime movers of American politics, that their rhetorical strategies are the ones everyone needs to respond to. And I think a part of the problem, honestly, is that Democrats, like, take a prone position that, you know, Republicans say, oh, they want to get rid of border security. And the response is, oh, no, no, no, please, we don't want to do that. When the response ought to be, you want to defend an agency that's killed two people, you go ahead and do that, right? You defend. You defend this behavior. We're listening to people who want to see some fundamental changes. You defend the secret police, Right? I think that's the response to that.

[B]

No, I mean, I totally get the whole, let's overhaul the agency, rename the agency. What do you do? But I'm just saying there's not. When you found A slogan like decriminalize border crossings or abolish ICE or, you know, defund the police, that has a backlash, a political backlash in the country, like what we've seen. Then maybe you rethink the slogan, not the idea, but like, why go trolling for trouble like that?

[C]

I mean, I'm not, I don't think the, I don't think, I don't want to like bog us down in this. I'll say that the one time defund the police was present in American politics in any kind of significant way, which is like the summer of 2020. Like Democrats didn't lose that election. No.

[B]

When it was tried. Never mind. We're not going to get into the details of like how it failed in Minnesota when they tried to defund the police. But, but I mean, I'm just saying as a mantra, abolish ICE has not been fantastic and could just be tweaked. That's all I'm saying. Tweak the mantra. Okay, we're gonna get step back from the administration and look at the larger kind of Republican conservative response to this. When you're looking around, David, in your right wing corners and from the administration's outside allies, what are you seeing?

[A]

You know, this is one of those areas where you really gotta draw a distinction between MAGA and what you might call sort of more normie conservatives. And what I'm seeing right now, and I wrote about this, was maga. All of this is just radicalizing MAGA more. They don't believe the polls, they don't care about the polls. And what they're looking for and they're spoiling for is this opportunity to impose further control. And so the core folks are further radicalized by this and then they use that ferocity to try to keep everybody else in line. And this is the old playbook. It's the exact same playbook I have seen for 10 years, which is Trump's administration does something horrific that gives decent people an off ramp where you can say, look, I voted for him, but this is too much. And this happens just with regularity. And then the instant somebody puts on their blinker, you know, they're a quarter mile from the exit and they throw on that right turn blinker to exit. It is like they just get swarmed, just swarmed in real time. And all of a sudden you're faced with the loss of your community, you're faced with the loss of your friends, you're faced with the kinds of attacks you've never experienced in your life because you're just a normal American who's not involved in politics all the time and you do the Homer Simpson jiff thing where you walk slowly back into the bushes. And so my question, the issue, the question that I have for my friends, my more normal Republican friends who often express alarm at things that happen in the administration is when are you going to stop having the wide eyes in response to the MAGA backlash and stop backing into the Bushes? That's the moment when I believe that the fever will break when you see the more normie Republicans standing up against this in a way that's not one senator here or one member of Congress there or one pundit over in the corner, but it's more unified and it's more persistent.

[B]

Jamel, now you've written that there is no antidote for the Kool Aid drinkers, right. But you said that you've seen some signs of infighting, finger pointing. We've seen some fractures in Congress. Where do you think this is going?

[C]

I think where this go, I think this is a place that where this goes kind of depends on the level of political pressure that's being sustained in the administration. If there's like a serious effort, right, like a real serious effort to remove Noem, whether that's an impeachment effort in the House, whether that's continuing pressure, I think you'll see continue to see kind of the beginning, more finger pointing like we've seen in the last couple days. Noam reportedly told Axios that she was just working on the command of Stephen Miller. Right. Like which to me is sort of a sign that's like you want to go after that guy, not me. Stephen Miller has been like, oh, well, I don't think they were following protocol. And that's him pointing fingers at.

[B]

Yeah. Classically blaming the frontliners for this horrible development that he's responsible for.

[C]

They all recognize that this is something very serious for their political position. And I think that as long as there is increased pressure that is going to put them in a corridor. And honestly, I mean the extent to which they are continuing to just operate the same on the ground, that's going to continue putting pressure. And if Democrats in Congress in particular can see and utilize this energy and like follow where this energy is going and put more pressure on the administration, I expect to see basically more attempts to scramble and get ahead of it.

[B]

Now, I do think it's worth pointing out we have seen some concrete moves by the administration. For instance, they're short circuiting the anti immigration operation in Maine, right.

[C]

Yeah.

[B]

They've said they're going to pull out of Maine, which I didn't understand that at all.

[C]

That's a Susan Collins thing. Right. She is running for reelection. She's potentially vulnerable and they don't want to give.

[B]

Why is he attacking? No, but I'm saying, oh, why is he going into Maine, Them in there? I mean, even if he's ticked off at Susan Collins, he's always grumbling about that. They can't risk Maine. Like, he can attack Bill Cassidy in Louisiana because a Republican's going to win. You take down Susan Collins in Maine, he's one step closer to a Democratic majority in the Senate.

[C]

Well, this, I mean, this is the tension between the politics and the ideological and policy desire. So Maine. Right. Does have a substantial, not like, you know, huge, but like a meaningfully large Somali American population. If you go to Portland, Maine, you'll, you'll, there's Somali American neighborhoods. You'll see Somali Americans, like there was a home for refugee as much in the same way as Minnesota was. And so I think the thing that they want to do is. I'm going to use another inflammatory term, but I think it's, they're going to use. They want to ethnically cleanse the country of Somali Americans. And yes, I mean, listen, they are sending ICE agents to Springfield, Ohio to round up Haitians, Haitians who are legal, legal immigrants. They remove their temporary protected status and they're sending ICE agents to round them up. That is ethnic cleansing. That's all that is. So they want to, I mean, it.

[B]

Is notable that it's, it's not undocumented so much as specific populations.

[C]

Right. It's specific populations of non white immigrants. Right. There, There are, there are plenty of like illegal Polish Americans, illegal Polish immigrants. Right. In New York and Boston. Right. No one cares about them. This is targeted non white, Latino or African people. They're sending militarized paramilitaries after them in specific places to remove them from the country. Even if they're legal. If they're legal, they revoke the status and then they send people out there to detain them in these horrible conditions before they try to remove them from the country. That's the ideological goal. That's what they're trying to do.

[A]

Look, this is an administration that in many ways is run by Twitter influencers. And so you.

[C]

David, I'm gonna let you continue, but I just wanna adjust that and say Twitter Nazis, please continue.

[B]

Because it's that kind of podcast with Jamel today.

[A]

So this is a targeted political attack on a vulnerable community where they are using the language of open borders, et cetera, et cetera, to disguise the motivation. And that's just what this is. Because if you really care about immigration enforcement, if you really care about bringing down the number of undocumented immigrants who are in the United States and who you say are taking American jobs, Minneapolis is not target number one. I mean, what are you doing here? Well, we know what you're doing here. And you're being led around, led around by these influencers. And, you know, and if you doubt it, I mean, and again, we had some great reporting about in the aftermath of the Charlie Kirk assassination, what was one of the big priorities of the FBI team? Coordinating their tweets. Coordinating their tweets because they have to curry favor in this community. It's weird, but it's real. And it's driving American policy. It's driving the administration's brutality, and it's deeply disturbing.

[B]

Okay, now you just made me wanna kill myself.

[A]

I don't wanna do that.

[B]

I do wanna do that. Before we go on to recommendations, I feel like we have to take a minute to note that on Wednesday, Bruce Springsteen entered this fray. He dropped a new song about this whole horrible bloody mess called Streets of Minneapolis. It is an old school protest song against ice and in honor of Preddy and good.

[A]

Oh, I'm in Minneapolis. I hear your voice singing through the bloody mist.

[B]

All right. Sitting here in my home studio, I can already hear the legions of Gen X and boomer men singing along. But what about you guys? Come on, Jamel, you know, start us off.

[C]

Bruce is not for me. That doesn't, you know, I'm not.

[B]

I don't melt your butter.

[C]

Not my cup of tea. I also, I'm also just not. I'm not a big protest song guy. Like, this is, you know, any successful kind of political movement is going to be very cringe. That's just how things go. But, but like, my.

[B]

You are going to get so much hate mail, Jamal.

[A]

Oh, man.

[C]

My, my. My not so inner hipster is sort of like, I, you know, I. I'd rather listen to something else.

[B]

David.

[A]

Well, okay. I love the Boss. I've been listening to him forever. So I. A huge fan of the Boss. I just really have gotten back into the Nebraska album after the recent movie. Great, great album. I've never been a giant protest music guy. You know, maybe that's that sort of my inner conservative. I'm just like, don't know. Sometimes it feels more like virtue signaling than something real. However, I will say this. The thing that I think I keep looking at is what's breaking through into sort of normie land. And I don't use the term normie in a derogatory way at all. I just want to say that we're the strange ones, okay? The ones who are like, every day online. And so often we look at something and we go, where's the outrage in America? Do you remember the. The Bob Dole? Where's the outrage in America? And everyone's looking at it going, I don't know what you're talking about. To be angry at it. I don't know about this. And so when I see things like this song from somebody who's, of course, one of the classic American artists, I think these things are breaking through. Because, honestly, you don't get more mainstream in American music than the Boss. I mean, he's always been on the left, but he's a super, super mainstream American artist. And this shows. And I think, to me, this shows that this stuff is resonating around the country. People know, people are aware.

[B]

So I completely agree that anything that takes these issues out of the realm of cable talk shows and God save us the Twitterati, and puts it into more cultural mainstream sites or discussions is a good thing. Like, the. The way Trump gets away with what he does is that most people don't. They just tune a lot of this stuff out. I'm not gonna go all music critic on this. I'll just say that as somebody who's constantly hectoring people to use their voice in whatever way they can to respond to what's going on in the country, if Bruce wants to do this, good for him. He's got a bigger platform and megaphone than most.

[C]

I mean, to be clear, this is just an aesthetic thing for me. Like, you know, music is a very important part of building social solidarity, building, you know, connection between people involved in the movement. I'm currently reading this wonderful book, Waging a Good A Military History of the Civil Rights Movement by Tom Ricks. And he observes that in training for, you know, sit ins marches, demonstrations, civil rights participants would. They would sing together. And it was a very important part of kind of like building group cohesion. Just in my own personal experience, doing stuff when I was, like, a student, like, student government stuff or whatnot, you know, we would sing. You know, you think you do chance. You do sing songs on. On sports teams. Like, that's an important part of building connection. And so if music can do that, and I Think music does do that, then like all the more, you know, do it. Go ahead. I'm just saying that for Jamelle Bowie, you know, guy, Guy who cares about aesthetics.

[B]

I understand.

[C]

Not necessarily for me. I've sat down and listened to Springsteen records beginning to end. And this really is a kind of like, not for me. I don't think it's, I don't think.

[B]

It'S bad polarization that is causing discord in the country, guys.

[C]

Not say, not saying it's bad. Just saying that.

[B]

Right?

[C]

It's not for me.

[A]

The podcast hangs by a thread.

[B]

Then let's move to what is culturally in your sweet spot. It's time for Rex, guys. It's been a cold and brutally snowy week on everywhere that we live, come to think of it. So what do you have to keep our souls warm? Jamel, what are you pitching?

[C]

They released the best picture nominees for the Academy Awards. And so I've, you know, I made note of the ones I've seen now making my way through the ones I haven't and I watched over the weekend F1 and because the film is about F1 racing, so this last 15 or 20 minutes is like the final race of the film and it's just sort of so compellingly film, so thrilling, so exciting that the preceding like two hours, which are good, but like it's sort of a, it's a sports movie kind of a little silly. And then this final race and you're just sort of, the character is in the Zen state. You're in a Zen state watching it. It's incredible. And so I highly recommend, I highly recommend half watching the movie and then really locking in for the last chunk of the film.

[B]

David.

[A]

So, Michelle, it's one of those weeks where the world is grim, but in my nerd world, the future is so bright because so two counts. One, Apple TV and Brandon Sanderson just announced that they are going to be developing his Mistborn trilogy and his Stormlight Archive book series into a movie for Mistborn in a series for Stormlight Archive. And I don't have to tell you how exciting that is.

[B]

That is all Greek to me, but I can tell I like your passion.

[A]

It's two of the best fantasy series around and they have this really wonderful character quality that they're far more Tolkien esque than they are George R.R. martin Esque. They're not cynical. Good is good, evil is evil. And they're just beautifully done. They're just wonderfully done. So the other thing is, I got an advanced copy of the second book in a series from James S.A. corey, the Faith of Beasts. And I will tell you that this happened to me. I was enjoying it so much that I intentionally stopped reading so that I wouldn't devour it too quickly.

[B]

That is a tremendous self control, David.

[A]

So Nerd me is just having the week of his life.

[B]

I'm so happy.

[A]

Everything else about me, I'm like looking at the word and going, man, man. But Nerd Me is very, very.

[B]

You have this retreat. I love it.

[A]

I do, I do.

[B]

So I'm gonna recommend a novel, the Morning Star, Karl Ove Nasgaard, which has been out a while. I think the English, it's Norwegian, but they did an English translation in 2021. It's kind of impossible to describe. I don't even know what genre it counts as, but how it's set up is. It's all these. It's like over the course of two days there has been a bright huge star suddenly appear in the sky. So you've got these weird biblical overtones already. And then each chapter is kind of going through the very normal everyday events of very normal people. It's like this banal look at these slice of life, but the end of every chapter something weird happens. So. And it's just a kind of fun, gripping read. And it's the first in a series, so I'm looking forward to this. But I just want to say Morning Star, do it. It'll keep you up at night, but you know, something's going to. And with that, guys, we're done. We have solved the world's problems and you know, we're going to do it again next week. Two too.

[A]

So thank Michelle so much.

[C]

Always a pleasure.

[B]

If you like this show, follow it on YouTube, Spotify or Apple. The opinions is produced by Derek Arthur, Vishaka Darba and Gillian Weinberger. It's edited by Kari Pitkin and Allison Bruzek. Mixing by Carol Sabaro. Original music by Isaac Jones, sonia Herrero, Pat McCusker, Carol Sabaro, Efim Shapiro and Amin Sahota. The fact check team is Kate Sinclair, Mary, Marge Locker and Michelle Harris. The head of operations is Shannon Busta. Audience support by Christina Samuluski. The director of Opinion shows is Annie Rose Strasser.