U.S. Elections and Politics Archives

MINNEAPOLIS DRESS REHEARSAL FOR AUTHORITARIANISM

January 28, 2026 Massimo Bergamini Comments 0 comment

The deaths, in rapid succession, of Renée Good and Alex Pretti at the hands of federal agents in Minneapolis may be altering the political calculus in Washington.

Greg Bovino, the strutting public face of federal repression in the Twin Cities, is out and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has been sidelined in favour of border czar Tom Homan.

But if this reshuffling of roles is meant to change the channel it is not likely to change anything on the ground.

What is unfolding in Minneapolis is not simply enforcement overreach compounded by inadequate training and bad recruiting. Of course, it is all of those things. But increasingly it resembles something more deliberate and frightening: a dress rehearsal for an authoritarian takeover of America.

Let’s look at the facts.

Under Operation Metro Surge, deployments by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Customs and Border Protection (CBP) in the Twin Cities have reportedly exceeded 2,000 agents, outnumbering local police by roughly five to one.

ICE Agents Conducting Operations in Minneapolis

And these forces are not operating discreetly. They are conducting enforcement surges using military tactics: establishing visible perimeters, targeting selected neighbourhoods, parking lots, places of worship and even schools; confronting protesters and bystanders alike, and projecting federal power in spaces traditionally governed by civilian norms.

Taken individually, and under a clear legal predicate, some of these tactics could be defensible. Taken together — and justified by increasingly thin rationales– they signal something more troubling: a deliberate effort to normalize federal paramilitary involvement in civil life.

This matters because it collides and seeks to test the resilience of the First and Fourth Amendments — two foundational pillars of American constitutional order:

The First Amendment protects freedom of speech, assembly, and protest. The Fourth Amendment guards against unreasonable search and seizure — prohibiting the state from stopping, detaining, or entering homes without individualized suspicion and proper judicial authorization.

Recent immigration enforcement practices — randomized police-style sweeps, the use of “administrative” rather than court-issued warrants, confrontations near places of worship, and routine demands for identification absent reasonable suspicion — run directly up against settled constitutional doctrine. None of this is permitted under a robust reading of the Fourth Amendment. Yet these practices are increasingly normalized.

What we are witnessing is an effort to condition public opinion to the visible deployment of federal force in civilian life; while at the same time probing and testing how courts, local governments, and civil society respond when constitutional boundaries are breached.

The endgame is no longer difficult to discern.

The abuses of Donald Trump’s first term are well documented, as is the unresolved legal exposure that still surrounds him and several figures in his inner circle.

Trump understands this. He also understands that his historically weak approval ratings cast a long shadow over the November midterm elections. The stakes could not be clearer. Speaking to House Republicans last month, he put it bluntly: “You gotta win the midterms, because if we don’t win the midterms, it’s just gonna be — I mean, they’ll find a reason to impeach me. I’ll get impeached.”

For Donald Trump, surviving the midterms is not merely a political imperative. It is a personal one. What Minneapolis, Chicago, Los Angeles and Portland have in common is not that they are blue cities — it’s that they have been chosen as proving grounds for what may be the largest voter-suppression exercise in American history.

For years, Trump and leading voices in the MAGA movement have insisted that American elections are being “rigged” through undocumented immigration — that “illegals” were invited into the country by Democratic administrations to fix the vote.

Within that narrative, an expanded federal presence around elections can be reframed not as intimidation, but as protection for the electoral process.

Now cast your mind forward to November 3, 2026.

Voters line up at polling stations. Federal agents establish a conspicuous presence nearby. In some cases, questions are asked and papers are demanded. Word spreads. Fear does the rest.

None of this would be lawful under a constitutional order that still takes the Fourth Amendment seriously.

This is why Minneapolis matters, just as Chicago, Portland and Los Angeles mattered.

What is being rehearsed there is not aggressive immigration enforcement. It is the deployment of federal power to test constitutional tolerance and institutional resistance.

The deaths of Alex Pretti and Renée Good must never be minimized. But neither should they obscure the larger danger.

Dress rehearsals exist for a reason. The only remaining question is whether this one will be recognized for what it is before its November premiere.

Mr. Carney’s Narrow Path

January 21, 2026 Massimo Bergamini Comments 0 comment

Mark Carney’s Davos speech drew a standing ovation from an audience of heads of state, business leaders, and global elites. It was an ambitious speech: carefully constructed, intellectually confident, and rhetorically effective. But it was also revealing of the tensions and contradictions embedded in Mr. Carney’s own worldview.

Mark Carney addressing the World Economic Forum in Davos

From the outset, he framed his argument around a blunt premise: that responsible leaders must see the world as it is, not as they would like it to be. And yet, it is precisely here that the tension begins. Because seeing the world clearly does not inevitably lead to a single conclusion or a unitary vision.

Mark Carney’s speech laid out a stark vision of the post-war world order: The rules-based international order is fraying; rivalry among great powers is intensifying; multilateral institutions on which middle powers have long relied are weakening. Drawing on Václav Havel’s sign in the window metaphor, he condemned the rituals and false assurances of a system that many states continue to praise publicly while privately acknowledging that it no longer functions as advertised.

The diagnosis itself is neither false nor naïve. Few serious observers would argue today that the postwar international order was a model of enlightened governance or moral consistency. It was unequal, often hypocritical, and applied unevenly. But it did possess a critical virtue: it maintained a strategic balance.

For the West, this imperfect order long served as a practical framework for defending values deemed fundamental — the primacy of law, restraint in the use of force, predictability in trade, and the legitimacy of common institutions. These values were not always respected but violating them carried costs.

It is precisely this system of constraints and counterweights that Donald Trump is helping dismantle. Not by exposing the system’s hypocrisy but by openly rejecting its limits, norms, and guardrails. By replacing the language of rules with the language of raw power, he is shattering a tacit pact that, for all its flaws, has continued to govern international behaviour for the last 80 years.

This is where Mr. Carney’s analysis becomes more problematic.

By dismissing the rules-based order as a “fiction” and urging states to stop “living a lie,” he risks conflating a legitimate critique of state hypocrisy with the abandonment of the fragile equilibrium that hypocrisy itself helped sustain. Under the banner of realism, he calls for a rapid reconfiguration of alliances, an enhanced reliance on bilateral and plurilateral deals, a sharp expansion of military capacity and an assertive pursuit of strategic autonomy.

Each of these moves can be defended on its own. Taken together, however, they point toward a more openly transactional world — precisely the outcome Mr. Carney claims to want to avoid.

The contrast with several European leaders is instructive. The pragmatism of Emmanuel Macron or Friedrich Merz is shaped by a far more immediate reality: Russian nuclear missiles aimed at their capitals and a hot war being fought on their doorstep. They, too, see the world as it is — not as they would like it to be. But confronted with direct existential risks, they draw a different conclusion: not to discard the rules-based order, but to reinforce it and adapt it to the new circumstances precisely because its erosion carries costs they cannot afford to ignore.

Mr. Carney’s realism is also shaped by Canada’s own historical experience — that of a country that has not seen a foreign war fought on its territory for more than two centuries. That distance confers analytical freedom, but it also creates a blind spot. What may appear from Ottawa as clear-eyed realism can look elsewhere like an unacceptable strategic gamble.

This is the narrow path Mr. Carney must now navigate.

In rejecting nostalgia and preaching realism, he must take care not to become Donald Trump’s unwitting partner in dismantling the postwar international order, contributing through technocratic adaptation to what Trump pursues through disruption and contempt.

Threading this needle will require prudence and the recognition that certain fictions, however imperfect, have at times prevented far more brutal realities from taking hold.