Give 5 examples of escalating rhetroic against ICE agents by Tim Walz and Jacob Frey

1. Walz’s “end this occupation” demand — framing ICE as an occupying force

In a rare primetime address and subsequent statements, Gov. Walz publicly demanded that the federal government withdraw ICE from Minnesota, calling on President Trump and DHS to “end this occupation,” language that casts a law enforcement deployment as an invading force rather than a federal operation and sharply escalates the stakes of routine criticism ^{[1] [2]}.

2. Walz labeling ICE tactics “horrific cruelty” and an “absolute abomination” — moral condemnation

Walz intensified his rhetoric by telling Americans to “see the decency” of Minnesotans contrasted with what he called the “horrific cruelty, unprofessional, absolute abomination” of ICE agents’ behavior on Minnesota streets, a moral denunciation intended to mobilize public outrage and to delegitimize federal tactics ^[2].

3. Walz and Frey calling federal accounts “bullshit” and “totally predictable, totally avoidable” — direct repudiation of federal narratives

After a fatal shooting by an ICE agent, both leaders publicly dismissed federal justifications: Mayor Frey said the federal self-defense claim was “bullshit,” and Walz called the killing “totally predictable, totally avoidable,” language that goes beyond critique to directly reject official accounts and to suggest systemic wrongdoing by agents ^{[6] [7]}.

4. Frey urging ICE to leave and warning of local pressure to “fight ICE agents” — escalation toward confrontation

Frey repeatedly called for ICE to leave Minneapolis and warned that the city’s limited police resources were being asked by residents to “fight ICE agents on the street,” a statement that signals a possible shift from protest to direct confrontation and that federal officials have cited as evidence of rhetoric encouraging obstruction ^{[4] [1]}.

5. Walz’s “modern-day Gestapo” charge and calls to bear witness — delegitimization and mobilization

Reports and coverage note that members of the administration accused Walz of using inflammatory analogies such as describing ICE as a “modern-day Gestapo,” while Walz himself urged Minnesotans to “bear witness” and document federal activity — a combination of delegitimizing language and organizing civic oversight that federal leaders interpret as dehumanizing and possibly inciting ^{[8] [9]}.

Context, counterclaims and political theater

Federal officials from DHS and the Justice Department have responded to these statements by publicly accusing Walz and Frey of encouraging obstruction and even “terrorism,” and the DOJ has opened a criminal investigation and issued subpoenas to both leaders and other Minnesota officials — steps that transform rhetorical clashes into legal confrontation and raise questions about political motives on both sides ^{[3] [5] [10]}. Supporters of Walz and Frey argue their statements are defensive, aimed at protecting communities after deadly encounters with federal agents and documenting potential abuses, while critics — including DHS leadership and the White House — argue the rhetoric dehumanizes officers and inflames protesters, creating a factual dispute over cause and culpability ^{[4] [11]}.

What this escalation means for the public record

The public record shows discrete, attributable examples of emphatic language by Walz and Frey — public demands to remove ICE, moral denunciations, outright rejections of federal narratives, calls for civic documentation, and warnings of local confrontations — and it shows the federal government treating such rhetoric as a basis for investigation; reporting does not settle whether the leaders’ words legally amount to obstruction or whether the DOJ action is politically motivated, only that both rhetorical escalation and federal pushback are documented and consequential ^{[1] [3] [5]}.