Democrats Use Civil Disobedience as SOP

The Democratic Party increasingly treats civil disobedience as a standard operating procedure, using it as a substitute for competent federal-level governance. A recent example can be seen in the anti-Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) protests and riots in Minnesota.

In an effort to prevent ICE officials from enforcing federal law, activists and political allies engaged in direct confrontation with federal agents, including sound-based harassment, physical obstruction of streets, and attacks on hotels where ICE personnel were staying. As a result of these confrontations and the broader breakdown of public order, two Minnesotans were shot and killed by Border Patrol or ICE officers.

According to federal accounts, one individual struck a law-enforcement officer with a vehicle, while another was reportedly in possession of a semi-automatic handgun, which—amid the confusion of the confrontation—contributed to the fatal shooting. Investigations into these incidents are ongoing.

At the same time, Democrats in Congress are refusing to pass a federal budget that fully funds ICE and Border Patrol without imposing additional conditions. This approach amounts to holding essential federal law-enforcement functions hostage for ideological purposes rather than engaging in serious legislative governance.

Calls to defund or disarm police and federal law-enforcement agencies reflect a departure from political and social reality. The world is not composed solely of law-abiding, God-fearing citizens, and effective governance requires the maintenance of public order. Encouraging or excusing riots—particularly those that follow inflammatory rhetoric from political leaders—undermines good citizenship and erodes public trust in democratic institutions.

A nation can endure politicians who manufacture their own political crises and still survive, but it cannot move forward constructively under such conditions. When political leaders encourage confrontation with federal law enforcement and then leverage the resulting chaos for budgetary or ideological gain, they are not practicing civil disobedience—they are practicing abdication. A republic cannot function when law enforcement becomes negotiable and disorder becomes a political tool.