Walz fends off GOP attacks over ICE, ‘Gestapo' remark, immigration in fiery D.C. hearing
Walz fends off GOP attacks over ICE, 'Gestapo' remark, immigration in fiery D.C. hearing originally appeared on Bring Me The News.
Alongside Democratic Governors J.B. Pritzker of Illinois and Kathy Hochul of New York, Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz appeared in an hours-long hearing before the House Committee on Oversight and Government Reform, focused on states with sanctuary policies.
The hearing was led by Republican Rep. James Comer of Kentucky, who has accused the Democratic governors of running states with sanctuary policies that "shield criminal illegal aliens from immigration enforcement."
In his opening remarks, Walz said, 'We have a broken immigration system in this country. I think everyone in this room agrees with that, but nothing Minnesota has done to serve its own people stands in the way of the federal government managing border security and policies.'
He went on to say Minnesota cooperates with federal authorities in a number of ways, but that enforcing immigration law is not the role of local and state governments. He also noted that Minnesota is not a sanctuary state and that he supports illegal immigration enforcement so long as "due process" is provided to everyone.
Minnesota is not a sanctuary state by definition, which would require a state law prohibiting law enforcement from cooperating with federal immigration enforcement. Minneapolis, however, is a known sanctuary city, and the Department of Homeland Security has identified 20 sanctuary jurisdictions across Minnesota, including Anoka, Hennepin, Ramsey, and Wright counties. Minnesota does have several statewide policies in place, such as Driver's License For All and free college tuition for undocumented students.
Several Republican representatives lashed out at Walz over comments he made during the University of Minnesota Law School's graduation ceremony in May, when he said 'Donald Trump's modern-day Gestapo is scooping folks up off the streets.'
At one point during the hearing, Minnesota Rep. Tom Emmer demanded an apology from Walz to all ICE agents for the remarks, calling his rhetoric 'dangerous and inflammatory" and saying it put a 'target on the backs' of immigration officials.
"Given the attacks on ICE agents that took place in Los Angeles over the weekend, don't you regard your dangerous inflammatory rhetoric as a problem?" Emmer said.
During a portion of his testimony, Walz was critical of ICE agents wearing masks while on duty, calling it a 'dangerous situation for everyone."
"You wear the badge for a reason, you wear the name for a reason. You make sure that you're coordinated with those other law enforcement agencies that are there,' he said.
Walz was also criticized by Rep. Eli Crane (R-AZ) for a past comment he made on CNN about investing in a "30-foot ladder factory" to help unauthorized immigrants over Trump's border wall. Walz responded to the criticism by asking, "When did I say that?"
The theatrics continued when Rep. Nancy Mace (R-SC) attempted to bury Walz for five minutes. She mocked Walz's ability to answer 'yes' or 'no' questions, mocked him when he said he never spoke with Kamala Harris about former President Joe Biden's "cognitive decline," and asked if he's "still friends with school shooters" — a clear attack on a comment that Walz made during a debate last year and later said he "misspoke."
The hearing began at 9 a.m. CST and lasted the entire day.
This story was originally reported by Bring Me The News on Jun 12, 2025, where it first appeared.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Hill
23 minutes ago
- The Hill
New Jersey AG ‘confident' in battle against Trump birthright citizenship order
New Jersey Attorney General Matt Platkin, one of the plaintiffs in a 22-state lawsuit against President Trump's executive order curbing birthright citizenship, said Saturday he was 'confident' the order could still be blocked nationwide following a Friday Supreme Court ruling that broadly restricted the ability of the court system to halt the president's policies. 'There's a whole range of administrative challenges that would make this completely unworkable, which is why I'm confident we'll get the nationwide relief we've sought when we go back to the lower courts,' Platkin said in an MSNBC appearance. The nation's highest court ruled Friday that Trump's executive order could be partially enforced because lower-court judges had exceeded their authority in issuing nationwide injunctions that blocked the policy. The ruling did not address the underlying constitutionality of Trump's order, but still drastically limited a judicial tool that has been used for decades, including to block federal policies from multiple presidential administrations. New Jersey is one of 22 Democratic-led states, along with a group of expectant mothers and immigration organizations, that sued to block the executive order almost immediately after it was issued in January. The injunctions issued by three federal judges in Washington, Maryland and Massachusetts in the ensuing months granted relief not just to those plaintiffs, but everyone in the country. That move, the Supreme Court majority said Friday, was unconstitutional. Instead, injunctions should be narrowly tailored to provide 'complete relief to each plaintiff with standing to sue.' The lower courts will now get the first attempt at tailoring injunctions to comply with the ruling. On MSNBC, Platkin contended that 'complete relief' to the states harmed by the executive order would still involve blocking the executive order across the country. 'It would be impossible to administer a system of citizenship based on which state you live in,' he said. The suits of the non-state plaintiffs, meanwhile, were quickly refashioned into class-action lawsuits, a legal route that Justice Amy Coney Barrett noted could provide broader relief against the birthright citizenship order in her majority opinion. The executive order remains blocked for at least 30 days while the courts and parties sort out the next steps.
New York Post
an hour ago
- New York Post
CNN's Scott Jennings rips liberal Supreme Court Justice Elena Kagan for nationwide injunction hypocrisy: ‘Some of these folks really are hacks'
New York Post may be compensated and/or receive an affiliate commission if you click or buy through our links. Featured pricing is subject to change. Conservative CNN pundit Scott Jennings ripped liberal Supreme Court Justice Elena Kegan as a partisan hack for opposing the elimination of nationwide injunctions – despite wanting to end the practice when President Biden was in power. Jennings called out Kagan – one of three dissenters in Friday's historic Supreme Court ruling that prevents district court judges from interfering with a president's agenda – for previously and publicly slamming the widespread abuse of nationwide injunctions during a Democratic presidency. 'I was trying to sort out my feelings on this matter, and I came up with a quote from a very smart lawyer, and I just want to quote it, because I think she was right when she said it,' the political commentator quipped on CNN's 'Saturday Morning Table for Five.' Advertisement 3 Scott Jennings on CNN discussing a Supreme Court decision. mediaite ''It just can't be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks.' Justice Elena Kagan in 2022 said that, of course, when we had a democratic president. Now she voted against the decision on Friday. 'Just goes to show you that some of these folks really are hacks.' The lefty justice made the comment at a Northwestern University law school talk three years ago. Advertisement 3 CNN's 'Table for Five' panel discussion. mediaite Does anyone remember Justice Kagan being against nationwide injunctions when we had a DEMOCRAT President? Pepperidge Farms remembers. — Scott Jennings (@ScottJenningsKY) June 28, 2025 Kagan told the audience that 'It just can't be right that one district judge can stop a nationwide policy in its tracks and leave it stopped for the years that it takes to go through the normal process.' Advertisement Jennings called the 6-3 ruling a 'great day' for Trump after host Abby Phillips remarked how nationwide injunctions have 'been sort of the bane of existence' for both Democratic and Republican presidents. 3 President Trump at a White House press conference. / MEGA 'I'm glad they went ahead and fixed it because it's not right that one of these individual district court judges can act like a king or a monarch and stop the elected president from acting,' Jennings added. Advertisement President Trump has been slapped with at least 25 national injunctions on everything from spending reforms to education policy and deportation policies in the first five months of his second term in the White House. Kagan's liberal peers, Justices Sonia Sotomayor and Ketanji Brown Jackson, also voted along ideological lines to reject the high court decision.
Politico
an hour ago
- Politico
‘Kill shot:' GOP megabill targets solar, wind projects with new tax
Senate Republicans stepped up their attacks on U.S. solar and wind energy projects by quietly adding a provision to their megabill that would penalize future developments with a new tax. That new tax measure was tucked into the more than 900-page document released late Friday that also would sharply cut the tax credits in the Inflation Reduction Act for solar and wind projects. Those cuts to the IRA credits were added after a late-stage push by President Donald Trump to crack down further on the incentives by requiring generation projects be placed in service by the end of 2027 to qualify. The new excise tax is another blow to the fastest-growing sources of power production in the United States, and would be a massive setback to the wind and solar energy industries since it would apply even to projects not receiving any credits. 'It's a kill shot. This new excise tax on wind and solar is designed to fully kill the industry,' said Adrian Deveny, founder and president of policy advisory firm Climate Vision, who helped craft the climate law as a former policy director for Democratic Senate Leader Chuck Schumer. Analysts at the Rhodium Group said in an email the new tax would push up the costs of wind and solar projects by 10 to 20 percent — on top of the cost increases from losing the credits. 'Combined with the likely onerous administrative reporting burden this provision puts in place, these cost increases will lead to even lower wind and solar installations. The impacts of this tax would also flow through to consumers in the form of higher electricity rates,' Rhodium said. The provision as written appears to add an additional tax for any wind and solar project placed into service after 2027 — when its eligibility for the investment and production tax credits ends — if a certain percentage of the value of the project's components are sourced from prohibited foreign entities, like China. It would apply to all projects that began construction after June 16 of this year. The language would require wind and solar projects, even those not receiving credits, to navigate complex and potentially unworkable requirements that prohibit sourcing from foreign entities of concern — a move designed to promote domestic production and crack down on Chinese materials. In keeping with GOP support for the fossil fuel industry, the updated bill creates a new production tax credit for metallurgical coal, which is used in steelmaking.
