The Minnesota National Guard, Governor Walz, and the Politics of a Donut

Where the Minnesota National Guard Is Deployed

The Minnesota National Guard has been deployed in Minneapolis following days of protests connected to fatal shootings during federal immigration enforcement operations. The deployment followed demonstrations near federal buildings and along Nicollet Avenue in south Minneapolis after the most recent death of 37-year-old Alex Pretti, who was shot and killed during an encounter with federal agents on January 24. 

The Guard’s activation was authorized by Governor Tim Walz and requested by local officials to support public safety functions during sustained protests and heightened tensions.  

Guard members were stationed near federal facilities and protest sites wearing high-visibility reflective vests, a deliberate choice intended to distinguish them from federal immigration agents. Minneapolis officials stated the Guard’s role was limited to site security, staffing support, and maintaining vehicle perimeters so local police could focus on emergency calls and routine patrols rather than crowd enforcement. 

The Federal Immigration Operation and Protest Context

The protests grew out of a large federal immigration enforcement surge in Minnesota that brought a large number of federal agents into the state in early January. The most recent Pretti shooting intensified public opposition to that operation, particularly after conflicting accounts emerged about what occurred during the encounter. Federal officials stated the agent fired in self-defense, while family members and community advocates disputed that version and called for an independent investigation.  

The Pretti incident was not isolated. Earlier in the month, another fatal encounter involving federal immigration agents and a woman named Renee Good had already drawn criticism from Minnesota officials and community groups. Together, the incidents have triggered sustained demonstrations, vigils, and calls for federal agents to withdraw from the state.  

What Governor Tim Walz Has Said and Done

Governor Walz publicly criticized the federal operation following the Pretti shooting and urged the White House to reduce the federal presence in Minnesota. Walz argued the scale and tactics of the operation escalated tensions and placed residents at risk, while emphasizing Minnesota supports lawful immigration enforcement conducted safely and with accountability.  

Walz confirmed direct conversations with President Trump about the situation, describing discussions focused on de-escalation and cooperation with investigations into the shootings. Subsequent reporting indicated Border Patrol commander Gregory Bovino and some federal agents were expected to leave Minneapolis as part of an effort to reduce tensions. 

At the same time, the Trump administration announced Tom Homan would travel to Minnesota to oversee and coordinate federal immigration operations. Federal officials framed that move as an attempt to improve command and clarity after public backlash.  

How Donuts Became Part of the Story

On January 25, video footage showed Minnesota National Guard members offering coffee, hot chocolate, and donuts to people gathered outside a federal building during protests. The Guard members were in uniform and reflective vests, and the interaction occurred in freezing temperatures one day after Pretti’s death.  

The footage spread nationally and quickly became a focal point of commentary. Guard members present described the refreshments as a safety and morale measure rather than a political gesture or a showing of agreement, which is consistent with the state’s emphasis on de-escalation and visibility rather than enforcement.  

How Supporters Interpret the Guard’s Approach

Supporters of the Guard’s actions argue the posture reflects intentional de-escalation. They point to the clear visual distinction between state troops and federal agents, the absence of enforcement activity, and the focus on maintaining calm during protests as evidence that Minnesota sought to avoid further violence.  

State and local officials have emphasized that the Guard operates under state authority and is not involved in immigration enforcement. From this perspective, distributing refreshments reinforced that the Guard’s mission was limited to public safety support and stabilizing conditions during prolonged demonstrations.  

How Critics View the Same Images

Critics have argued that the optics of uniformed troops handing out donuts during protests undermine a message of law enforcement authority. In this framing, the gesture is seen as political signaling rather than neutral public safety support, especially during a period of unrest tied to federal enforcement actions.  

Others argue the Guard’s posture reflects confusion about mission priorities and risks encouraging further protests by projecting accommodation rather than deterrence. These criticisms often tie directly to broader disagreements over immigration policy and federal-state authority rather than the Guard’s documented orders.  

What the Guard Is Not Documented to Be Doing

Public reporting does not show the Minnesota National Guard conducting arrests, enforcing immigration law, or independently controlling crowds. Its documented activities remain limited to staffing support, perimeter assistance, and visible presence at the request of local authorities.  

While active-duty military units were reportedly placed on standby, no active-duty deployment has occurred so far, leaving the Guard as the only official military presence on the ground under state command.  

What Comes Next

Federal officials have indicated some agents will leave Minneapolis, though a federal presence remains. Governor Walz continues to call for further reductions and independent investigations, while the administration maintains that enforcement operations will continue under revised leadership.  

As protests persist and negotiations continue, the Minnesota National Guard’s limited but highly visible role has become a symbol of how states navigate federal enforcement conflicts without expanding their own use of force.