Minneapolis Protests and the Role of State-Controlled National Guard

The recent shootings of Alex Pretti and Renée Good by federal law enforcement agents in Minneapolis have sparked widespread protests and reopened a critical debate over how the United States manages civil unrest while preserving constitutional governance and federalism. As demonstrations continue across the Twin Cities, Governor Tim Walz has deployed the Minnesota National Guard under state authority—a choice that reflects a deliberate constitutional and operational judgment rather than a symbolic political response.

Good, a 37-year-old mother and U.S. citizen, was shot by an ICE agent during a federal immigration enforcement operation in south Minneapolis. Her death has become a focal point for public concern over federal enforcement tactics and their downstream effects on local communities. Demonstrations have escalated in both size and intensity, placing sustained pressure on Minneapolis’s already-limited public safety resources.

Minneapolis police have activated mutual aid agreements with surrounding jurisdictions, while the city’s 911 system has been overwhelmed by calls connected to immigration-related incidents. This strain illustrates a recurring operational problem: local law enforcement agencies are routinely required to manage the public safety consequences of federal actions.

Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara has warned that this dynamic places local officers in an untenable position—tasked with absorbing public anger tied to federal activity while maintaining everyday policing. As he observed in a recent interview, “As soon as we show up, we become the target of people’s frustration.” That burden is magnified by the department’s staffing reality, with roughly 600 sworn officers serving a major metropolitan area during a period of sustained unrest.

The Constitutional Framework: Why State Control Matters

The distinction between state-controlled National Guard deployment and federalized military intervention is foundational to the American constitutional system. That distinction has taken on heightened urgency as approximately 1,500 active-duty Army soldiers from the 11th Airborne Division were placed on standby following President Trump’s public consideration of invoking the Insurrection Act.

When National Guard forces operate under State Active Duty (SAD) or Title 32 status, they remain under gubernatorial command and accountable to state leadership. This structure preserves local political accountability, responsiveness to community conditions, and legitimacy during volatile events. Governor Walz reinforced this framework by signing Executive Order 26-01 on January 8, 2026, authorizing Guard personnel to protect critical infrastructure and support local law enforcement while maintaining state command authority.

Federalization under Title 10 fundamentally alters this dynamic. Command shifts from state executives accountable to local voters to federal authorities pursuing national priorities. In communities already sensitive to federal enforcement activity, that shift risks escalating tensions rather than stabilizing conditions—particularly when the unrest itself is a reaction to federal action. That constitutional boundary was reinforced when the U.S. Supreme Court rejected the Trump administration’s attempt to deploy the National Guard in Illinois over state objections, underscoring that domestic troop deployments require clear statutory authority and respect for state control.

Specialized Training and Resource Allocation

The central policy question in Minneapolis is not whether force should be used, but how public safety resources should be deployed in a manner consistent with constitutional policing. Local law enforcement agencies and state-controlled National Guard units possess training in crowd management, de-escalation, and First Amendment protection—capabilities essential for managing large-scale demonstrations involving lawful protest activity alongside potential public safety threats.

Sustained protests involving thousands of participants across multiple locations impose demands that exceed the capacity of even well-managed departments. Fatigue accumulates, response times degrade, and the risk of operational error increases. State-controlled Guard forces are specifically designed to offset these pressures by performing non-enforcement functions such as securing perimeters, protecting government facilities, and managing traffic flows. This allows sworn officers to concentrate on crowd engagement, violence prevention, and constitutional policing.

Recognizing these constraints, Mayor Jacob Frey formally requested Guard assistance, citing strained local resources. The Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office similarly requested Guard support at the Whipple Federal Building to allow deputies to be reallocated amid ongoing tensions.

Community Trust and Institutional Legitimacy

For policymakers, the most consequential factor in choosing state-controlled Guard deployment over federal military involvement is legitimacy. When federal actions generate backlash, the resulting erosion of trust is borne disproportionately by local departments responsible for long-term public safety.

Chief O’Hara has emphasized that rebuilding legitimacy in Minneapolis after George Floyd’s murder required years of disciplined leadership, training, and accountability. He noted that “professional, accountable policing does not weaken crime fighting; it strengthens it.” That progress is inherently fragile and easily undermined when enforcement actions are perceived as disconnected from local norms and accountability structures.

Governor Walz’s insistence on maintaining state control over the Guard reflects an understanding that legitimacy is not merely symbolic—it is operational. Guard members are Minnesotans, accountable to state leadership and embedded in the communities they serve. As Walz stated, they are “our neighbors,” a distinction that matters when public trust is already strained.

Federal-State Tensions and the Path Forward

The dual posture of state Guard readiness alongside federal troop preparation has intensified debates over jurisdiction and constitutional limits. When asked whether the National Guard would ever be deployed against federal agents, Walz said the deployment would be for protecting Minnesotans: “Whatever it is: if it’s an act of nature, if it’s a global pandemic, or in this case, if it is a rogue federal agent.”

Some federal lawmakers have responded with calls for federal intervention. Representative Mary Miller called for the governor’s arrest, writing: “A sitting governor threatening to deploy the National Guard against federal law enforcement is an open act of defiance. The Insurrection Act exists for moments exactly like this.”

These reactions underscore deep and unresolved disagreements about the proper balance of federal and state power during domestic crises. Yet rhetoric does little to address the realities on the ground. As Minneapolis continues managing these protests, the focus should remain on smart, constitutionally grounded resource deployment, ensuring adequate resources for sustained response, and protecting peaceful protesters’ constitutional rights while addressing genuine public safety threats.

Governor Walz’s quick action is informed by experience. During the unrest following George Floyd’s murder in 2020, critics said Walz was slow to marshal state resources.

A Policy Framework for Managing Civil Unrest

For policymakers, the situation in Minneapolis offers a clear lesson: managing civil unrest in a constitutional democracy requires more than rapid force deployment—it requires disciplined governance, clarity of authority, and respect for institutional boundaries.

State-controlled activation of the National Guard represents a practical and constitutionally sound middle ground. It provides immediate capacity relief to strained law enforcement agencies while preserving local accountability, protecting civil liberties, and maintaining the federal-state balance embedded in American governance. Federalizing military force may offer speed and scale, but it carries significant risks to legitimacy, coordination, and long-term public safety outcomes.

The policy implications are straightforward. States should maintain clear protocols for Guard activation under gubernatorial control; federal agencies conducting enforcement operations should anticipate and mitigate downstream public safety impacts on local jurisdictions; and civil unrest planning must prioritize coordination, constitutional policing, and resource sustainability rather than escalation. Public order sustained through legitimacy is more durable than order imposed through force alone. Policymakers would do well to internalize that distinction before the next flashpoint arrives.