Did gov Walz say we are at war with the federal government

1. What Walz actually said — two contradictory lines in the record

On the one hand, Walz used stark, combative phrasing in public statements and news conferences, telling reporters that he “didn’t think any governor in history has had to fight a war against the federal government every single day,” language picked up and quoted by several outlets ^{[1] [2]}. On the other hand, a verbatim transcript of a speech or remarks published by Rev records the governor saying plainly, “We’ve never been at war with our federal government,” while describing the National Guard’s dual mission and insisting the state would protect Minnesotans ^[3].

2. Context: why the rhetoric escalated

Those remarks came amid a fraught sequence of events: two fatal shootings involving federal immigration agents, Walz’s demand that federal officers vacate the state and his assertion that federal agencies “cannot be trusted to lead this investigation,” and the governor’s move to mobilize the Minnesota National Guard to support state patrols ^{[4] [5]}. The White House and federal officials, including Attorney General Pam Bondi, pushed back with letters and subpoenas, framing the issue as federal enforcement and rule-of-law concerns and escalating the political standoff ^{[6] [7]}.

3. How opponents and allies have framed his words

Critics seized the “fight a war” phrasing as evidence Walz was openly hostile to federal authority and even “at war” with the federal government, using that language to demand his resignation and argue he was obstructing federal law enforcement ^{[8] [9]}. Conservative outlets and commentators amplified the combative quotes and produced commentary alleging political motives behind Walz’s rhetoric ^{[10] [8]}. Supporters and some mainstream outlets noted his simultaneous insistence that the state would “follow all the laws” and his explicit statement denying an actual war with the federal government, using those words to argue his rhetoric was protective, not secessionist ^{[3] [5]}.

4. What the record supports and what it does not

The factual record in the provided reporting supports that Walz used both formulations: an admission that he has had to “fight a war against the federal government every single day” ^{[1] [2]} and an explicit denial—“We’ve never been at war with our federal government”—in a separate transcript ^[3]. The sources also document his concrete actions—calling for federal agents to leave, mobilizing the National Guard, and pledging state-led investigations—which contextualize the rhetoric but do not prove an intent to wage literal war ^{[4] [5]}. The reporting does not contain evidence that Walz formally declared a state of war against the federal government; it does show heated political language and operational steps taken amid a confrontation over federal agents ^{[6] [4]}.

5. Why interpretations diverge — rhetoric, tactics and political theater

Interpretations split because powerful, militaristic metaphors (“fight a war”) were uttered in the same news cycle as categorical denials of being “at war”; opponents highlight the combative metaphors to portray Walz as defiant or obstructive, while allies point to his denials and legalistic assurances to argue he was defending Minnesotans and law enforcement oversight rather than seeking a constitutional rupture ^{[1] [3] [9]}. Opinion outlets and advocacy groups have predictably layered partisan narratives onto the same quotes, intensifying the dispute ^{[10] [8]}.