Washington DC – Today, Chairman Rand Paul (R-KY), Chairman of the Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee, convened an oversight hearing where he examined the level of cooperation between federal, state, and local officials to enforce immigration law.
During his opening remarks, Dr. Paul emphasized that effective immigration enforcement depends on clear coordination and honest communication between all levels of government. While reaffirming his support for U.S Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s mission to remove dangerous criminals, Dr. Paul stressed that restoring the confidence of the American people in their government requires transparency, clear standards for use of force, and accountability at every level of government.
You can watch the hearing here.
Remarks as prepared:
Today we will examine how immigration policy is carried out at the federal, state, and local levels in Minnesota, and whether failures of coordination or communication contributed to the events that followed. Any time an American citizen is shot in the streets of this country, it is a tragedy. That is true whether the individual is a private citizen exercising constitutional rights or a law enforcement officer performing official duties. Loss of life demands scrutiny, not spin.
In Minnesota, sharply conflicting accounts have emerged. State and local officials tell one story. Federal officials tell another. Depending on the media source, the public may hear only one side. This hearing exists to evaluate the facts, not to defend a narrative.
We will hear from two panels. First, leaders from Minnesota will describe conditions on the ground, the level of cooperation with federal authorities, and how tensions escalated. Second, leaders from CBP and ICE to explain the challenges of conducting enforcement operations under intense public scrutiny. We have also heard repeated claims that Minnesota, or Minneapolis in particular, is a so-called “sanctuary” jurisdiction.
That term is often used loosely and means different things to different people. State and local officials dispute that characterization, while federal officials cite limits on cooperation. Not every state operates the same way. We need to understand what cooperation actually looked like in Minnesota. We need to know whether communication failed. And we need to determine whether this was a failure of policy, coordination, or leadership on one side or both.
In a free society, filming government officials in public is a constitutional right. It is not an act of aggression. If Americans are led to believe that exercising that right places them at risk of lethal force, public trust collapses. At the same time, federal officials made public statements implying that firearms are prohibited at protests. Those statements were later clarified.
The First and Second Amendments are not suspended during periods of unrest. When officials speak imprecisely about constitutional limits, especially in volatile moments, they risk inflaming situations rather than stabilizing them. Law enforcement officers perform difficult and dangerous work, and the vast majority do so honorably. But when a shooting occurs, the proper response is not to dismiss concerns or rush to judgment.
Traditionally, officers are removed from the line while an independent review examines the facts. That process protects both the public and law enforcement. What we must avoid, on all sides, is inflammatory rhetoric. Declaring “nothing to see here,” or rushing to label a U.S. citizen a domestic terrorist before the evidence is established, undermines trust and escalates already volatile situations. Both parties have weaponized the term “domestic terrorist” to target those with opposing views and it must end.
Many Americans have seen the videos. Many see an individual retreating. Many see someone attempting to assist a woman on the ground before being seized from behind. Reasonable people may disagree about what those videos show, but the truth must be determined by evidence, not narrative.
I support Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and I believe dangerous criminals should be removed from our communities. In order for ICE to be successful they must restore public trust. We must acknowledge when federal agents are placed in chaotic crowd-control situations, the risk of tragedy increases.
At the same time, state and local decisions that limit cooperation affect how and where federal enforcement is carried out. Escalatory statements from any level of government only make matters worse. Reports that cooperation in Minnesota is improving and that agents will return to their normal assignments are encouraging.
Restoring trust, however, requires more than assurances. It requires independent review, clear standards for the use of force, and honest accountability. A government that values liberty must be willing to examine its own actions. That is how we protect civil liberties. That is how we support law enforcement. And that is how we prevent future loss of life.
###