The Trump administration has managed to seize defeat from the jaws of victory.
This is the way the administration’s handling of immigration, the major issue that secured them the White House in 2024, has been described for months. And it’s an even more apt descriptor in the wake of the killing of VA nurse Alex Pretti this weekend. Pretti’s shooting marked the second time ICE Agents in Minnesota gunned down a peaceful protestor on the street in a matter of weeks. The first was another Minneapolis resident, poet and mother of three, Renee Good.
Setting aside the constitutional, legal, humanitarian, and policy questions, from a political perspective none of this makes sense. Even a political novice would recognize this and the Trump administration is not headed by a neophyte. All of which begs the question why?
Why is the White House pursing a strategy that is costing the president and his party support with key aspects of its base on an issue that won them the election? These losses are well documented in the public polling, with the latest Realclearpolling average showing the president is 6% underwater on immigration. As a recent headline from Axios showed, it is also evident in the White House’s private polling as well: “Trump’s immigration erosion worries his team.”
Why in the hours after the Pretti killing did seasoned officials from Department of Homeland Security (DHS) Secretary Kristi Noem to FBI Director Kash Patel, Border Chief Greg Bovino, Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent, and more go on the air and blame the victim, describe him as an assassin, a domestic terrorist, call into question his legal possession of a firearm, and more? It is impossible to imagine they are not schooled in the appropriate response to such a tragedy which is some version of, ‘what happened was horrific, we are very sorry for the loss of life and will withhold judgment while we await results of a thorough and transparent investigation.’
Why, just days before government funding runs out and a deal is ready to move through the Senate, would the White House risk another government shutdown? A shutdown that was all but off-the table last Friday? And while it still may be averted, it looks increasingly likely as most Democrats have now said they will not fund DHS without significant changes to ICE’s operations.
Why would the White House continue to pursue a path on immigration that has alienated so many of their supporters? Even before the killings polls showed the administration was losing support among key constituents and individuals, including stalwarts such as Joe Rogan, who not long ago equated ICE’s tactics to those of the gestapo. Now, in the wake of the killings, we have seen other prominent members of the GOP call for a reevaluation of ICE’s operations, investigation and deescalation, including Sen. Bill Cassidy (LA), Rep. James Comer, Gov. Kevin Stitt (OK), Sen. Dave McCormick (PA), Sen. Tom Tillis (NC), and many others. The same is true of prominent companies and organizations, from the National Rifle Association (NRA) and National Basketball Association (NBA) Players Association to CEOs from major Minnesota companies, including Target.
It gave some people solace when, speaking with theWall Street Journal late Sunday, President Trump took a slightly less vitriolic tone than most of his aides and Cabinet members. Likewise, Monday when he took to Truth Social to announce he had a “good call” with Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz, they were “on a similar wavelength” and he was sending Tom Homan to Minnesota.
Yet not minutes later, speaking to reporters in the White House, his Spokeswoman Karoline Leavitt, defended ICE operations, criticized anti-ICE protesters, and blamed Democrats for incitement.
In the decade since Trump took to the national stage one thing has become clear, he understands politics. That is why if he or his team does something that does not appear on its face to be in his political interests there must be a reason. And generally, there are only two potential reasons for this.
First, a member of his team has gone off the reservation, at which point he will fire, remove or replace them. This has not happened yet in the case of DHS/ICE but it still may, particularly as it pertains to Noem. Regardless, what does not track here is that this is not just one White House official who has gone rogue, this is a team effort.
A far more likely reason is that members of his staff are doing his bidding. And while the president understands how politically detrimental this is (and he tries to take steps to mitigate the damage, hence the Wall Street Journal interview, call with Walz, etc) he is doing it serve another critical interest.
What interest could he have in normalizing the deployment of armed, masked, federal agents on the streets of major, particularly blue cities and purple/blue states serve? It's a classic authoritarian move that we have seen in the playbook of almost every autocrat in history concerned about an impending loss of power.
In ten months Trump is facing an election that even he is saying is not likely to go in his favor. The president, never shy about speaking his mind, has been making this clear since he assumed office last year, but here are just a few recent examples:
In a January 6 speech to Republican members of Congress, he made clear if he loses the midterm he will likely be impeached
Speaking to the New York Times on January 11 the president mused that he should have had the National Guard seize voting machines in the 2020 election
During a January 16 interview with Reuters Trump said he thinks the US should not even have an election; something which Leavitt later said was just a joke
These are just three recent examples showing that no one is more aware of the potential losses he is facing in the midterms and the stakes for him and his legacy if he does. Of course, we hardly needed him to verbalize that after the administration spent so much time last year trying to convince red states from Texas to Indiana to engage in mid-decade redistricting for the sole purpose of staving off major losses in November and keeping the GOP in charge of Washington.
Politicians seldom act against their own interests. And when they do, there is almost always a reason and that reason is usually that they are serving another, even more critical, interest. This is especially true in the case of a shrewd politician like Trump.
