TEHRAN — Recent events in the US state of Minnesota have exposed the deep tensions created by President Donald Trump’s immigration strategy. The mass protests on Friday, the widespread business shutdowns, and the willingness of thousands to gather in dangerous cold weather show a community reacting forcefully to a federal operation it sees as excessive and harmful.

The Trump administration maintains that the operation of the Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) is a targeted public-safety effort aimed at undocumented immigrants with criminal records. Yet the reality on the ground has been far broader. Residents, local officials, and business owners report that people with no criminal history — and even US citizens — have been detained. When enforcement expands this far beyond its stated purpose, it raises serious questions about accuracy, proportionality, and respect for civil rights. Critics argue that a policy cannot be defended as “public safety” when it sweeps up children, lawful residents, and entire families who pose no threat.

The human consequences have been severe. Reports of detained schoolchildren, including a two-year-old, have shaken communities and intensified public anger. Families are afraid to leave their homes, students are missing from classrooms, and neighborhoods that once felt stable now operate under a sense of fear. Analysts note that when a federal operation causes even citizens to stay indoors, the policy has drifted far from its intended purpose.

The economic impact has been equally damaging. In the weeks leading up to the Friday demonstrations, businesses across Minneapolis saw sales collapse as customers stayed home and workers feared being stopped on their way to work. Some restaurants reported losses of more than thirty percent. On Friday, hundreds of businesses closed their doors in protest. Many owners admitted that shutting down was financially painful, yet they felt compelled to take a stand against a policy they believed was harming their community.

The death of Renee Good has intensified the crisis. The resignations of FBI agents and federal prosecutors involved in the case suggest internal disagreement and concern about political pressure. When lawenforcement professionals themselves step away from an investigation, it signals a breakdown in institutional trust. Critics argue that this reflects a broader pattern in which aggressive federal tactics are paired with limited oversight and little transparency.

Political tensions have also escalated. Vice President JD Vance’s call for Minnesota law enforcement to cooperate more closely with ICE highlights the administration’s willingness to pressure local governments to abandon their own policies. Minnesota’s sanctuary-style rules exist to maintain trust between communities and local law enforcement. Federal demands to override these policies risk damaging that trust and making residents less willing to report crimes or seek help. Analysts point out that public safety depends on cooperation, not fear.

Taken together, the Friday shutdowns, the large-scale protests, and the widespread public resistance illustrate the broader failure of the White House’s approach. The policy is broad where it should be precise, forceful where it should be measured, and disruptive in ways that extend far beyond immigration enforcement. It has created fear among citizens, harmed local economies, strained relationships between federal and local authorities, and raised serious concerns about accountability within federal agencies.

A policy producing this level of social, economic, and institutional damage cannot be defended as effective governance. Instead, it reflects a strategy that prioritizes force over judgment and political messaging over the well-being of the communities it affects.