Moderated by John C. Yang, President and Executive Director of Asian Americans Advancing Justice, the webinar convened experts from five major civil rights organizations to examine voter purges, polling place intimidation, landmark Supreme Court cases, and the erosion of the federal Voting Rights Act.

Yang opened by saying, “At its core, this is about whether all of us as eligible voters, regardless of who they are and regardless of where they live, have a fair and equal opportunity to have their voices heard.” For the Asian American community specifically, the threat is concrete: roughly two in five Asian American voters rely on mail and early voting options now under legal attack, and face language barriers that make polling place assistance an essential lifeline.

Voter Purges and the Attack on the Rolls

Taifa Smith Butler, President of Demos, organized systemic barriers into three categories she called “roles, polls, and trolls.” On voter rolls, she described aggressive and inconsistently applied purges disproportionately harming voters of color, young people, and low-income voters. Georgia conducted one of the largest voter purges in its history last August, removing nearly half a million people due to inactivity. Alabama and Florida have similarly purged voters dangerously close to election cycles.

Butler flagged an emerging federal threat: the government’s efforts to obtain unredacted voter registration files from states to build a national database. “This, I believe, is another effort that we have to watch, that the federal government might try to use the rolls to actually do mass purges,” she warned, while crediting states like California for successfully pushing back in court.

Intimidation at the Polls and the Right to an Assistor

Tom Saenz, President and General Counsel of MALDEF, addressed the threat of voter intimidation, including the possibility of federal agents being deployed near polling places. “We cannot dismiss the possibility that even the federal government through executive order or otherwise may engage in activities including deploying immigration agents or other federal agents at or near polling places,” he said. Private individuals, potentially encouraged by White House rhetoric, could also appear at polling sites in security uniforms or openly carrying firearms.

Saenz also defended Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act, which guarantees every voter not literate in English the right to bring an assistor of their choice to the polls, pushing back on any suggestion that the administration’s executive order making English the official language could override it. “Section 208 of the Voting Rights Act, as duly enacted congressional legislation, cannot be overruled by an executive order of any kind from the president,” he said flatly.

His organization’s own case, Arkansas United, illustrates how thoroughly that right is being dismantled. MALDEF challenged an Arkansas law limiting any single assistor to helping no more than six voters. The Eighth Circuit rejected every legal vehicle available to enforce Section 208. “Every avenue is foreclosed to guarantee and protect the rights granted under the Voting Rights Act,” Saenz said. The case now awaits Supreme Court review.

The Supreme Court and the Future of the VRA

Adriel Cepeda Derieux, Deputy Director of the ACLU’s Voting Rights Project, delivered the briefing’s most urgent news: the Supreme Court may be days away from issuing one of the most consequential voting rights rulings since the civil rights era in Louisiana v. Callais. At the heart of the case is whether remedying racial discrimination under Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act is itself discriminatory.

“If the court rules against voters, it would be a profound setback for multi-racial democracy. It could roll back protections and strip voters of one of their core and meaningful legal defenses for over 60 years,” Cepeda Derieux said. She urged voters not to be deterred regardless of the outcome, noting that electoral maps for November have largely already been set.

On ICE presence at polling places, a fear growing in AAPI and immigrant communities, she drew a firm legal line. “Any deployment of ICE or any law enforcement officers for the purpose of intimidating voters or interfering with the right to vote would be unlawful,” she said, encouraging voters to remain calm and know their rights.

Native Voters and the Threat to Mail Ballots

Jacqueline De León, Senior Staff Attorney at the Native American Rights Fund, described two cases with potentially devastating consequences for Native voters. In Turtle Mountain v. Howe, the Eighth Circuit ruled that private plaintiffs have no right of action under the Voting Rights Act, meaning individuals harmed by racial discrimination could not bring their own cases. “If affirmed, Turtle Mountain would effectively leave the Voting Rights Act an empty shell,” DeLeon said.

A companion case, Watson v. Republican National Committee, threatens the ability to count mail ballots received after Election Day in over a dozen states. For Native voters in remote Alaskan villages, the consequences could be total disenfranchisement. “In some villages, the number of ballots that arrived after election day was over 50%,” DeLeon said. She also dissected the SAVE Act’s nominal inclusion of tribal IDs as a “disingenuous attempt at inclusion when really it’s about exclusion” — tribal IDs lack the place of birth and expiration date the law requires. For remote Native voters, presenting documents in person could require a thousand-mile journey. “Native voters that are disproportionately impoverished, that lack access to roadworthy vehicles, are just certainly not going to be able to make this trip,” she said.

State Voting Rights Acts: Going on Offense

Lordes Rousado, President and General Counsel of Latino Justice PRLDEF, offered the most forward-looking perspective, describing a push to pass state-level voting rights acts as an offensive strategy against federal erosion. Her organization collaborated with the Legal Defense Fund, the Asian American Legal Defense and Education Fund (AALDEF), the Campaign Legal Center, and the Harvard Election Law Clinic to develop model state voting rights legislation released in January.

“The states can, and I would say, must be laboratories for democracy and create rights that go beyond the federal minimums,” Rousado said. The model act includes pre-clearance provisions, protections against vote dilution and wrongful purges, translated materials for language minority voters, and remedies for voters facing intimidation. Rousado pointed to a recent New York victory as proof of concept, where a successful challenge under the state VRA resulted in redrawn maps that restored the voting power of Black, Latino, and Asian voters in Nassau County. Voting rights laws are now on the books in at least eight states, with active legislation in nine others.

The SAVE Act and the Myth of Voter Fraud

The SAVE Act, requiring documentary proof of citizenship to register or vote, drew sustained criticism as a solution in search of a problem. Rousado offered a personal example: her 83-year-old Cuban American mother, a citizen and dedicated voter since the 1960s, currently lacks a valid passport and cannot locate her citizenship papers. “My mother could be disenfranchised by this act when she’s been a citizen and voting since the 1960s,” she said. More than 21 million Americans currently lack ready access to a passport or birth certificate.

Saenz went further, calling the voter fraud narrative driving such legislation a “canard.” “Voter fraud is non-existent in this country and has been for 50 years,” he said, pointing to the first Trump administration’s quietly disbanded voter fraud commission that “could not prove anything.” He reframed the real problem: “The fact is the problem in this country is not over-participation of ineligible folks in voting. It is under-participation of fully eligible voters.”

A Message to Reporters

Closing the briefing, panelists converged on a unified message to journalists on the call: see the full scope of what is happening and name it accurately. Butler urged the media to resist false election security narratives. Cepeda Derieux asked reporters to connect the dots. “This is a broad, very far-reaching, multifront effort to shrink who can participate in our democracy,” she said. DeLeon kept the focus on race. “The shrinking of the electorate is often along racial lines, and I think too often we lose that narrative,” she said. Rousado called for human storytelling: “Uplift the individual stories of people who encounter difficulties in voting. The more those stories are told, the more people will understand that it is a big deal.”

Yang offered a closing summary that distilled the morning’s message: “Restrictions to voting is literally anti-democratic. The purpose of a democracy is to be able to vote, and anytime you are disallowing voting on the basis of imagined problems, that should be called out.”

On March 28, the Minnesota State Capitol in St. Paul was transformed into a sea of voices, signs, and songs as the latest No Kings rally drew an estimated 150,000 participants to the Capitol Mall and surrounding streets. This third rally, now expanded to include No War and No ICE themes, was part of a nationwide movement that has grown exponentially over the past year, from 2 to 3 million participants in March 2025, to 4 million in October, and now an estimated 8 million across the country. The discontent is swelling, even if the impact on federal policies remains minimal.

My husband and I began our journey at the U.S. Bank Stadium Green Line station in Minneapolis, joined by a friend attending his first rally. The train was already buzzing with anticipation, packed with people carrying homemade signs directed at the president. By the third stop, the train was so full that no additional passengers could board. I felt a pang of sympathy for those left behind, unable to join the collective march toward the Capitol.

When we arrived at the station closest to the Capitol, we stepped into a throng of humanity. Marchers had been converging for hours from multiple directions, and the Mall itself was overflowing, more than 60,000 packed shoulder to shoulder, with tens of thousands more filling the fringes. The sheer scale was breathtaking, a testament to the urgency felt across Minnesota and beyond.

On March 28, 150,000 people protested in St. Paul, MN. Nationwide, more than 8 million people took to the streets, marking one of the largest single-day protests in US history. Photo by SK Lo

As latecomers, we remained at the edges of the gathering. From there, the speeches were difficult to hear clearly, but the presence of national figures was undeniable. Senator Bernie Sanders, Representative Ilhan Omar, and others addressed the crowd, while Bruce Springsteen’s performance added cultural resonance. Even from the margins, the spirit of the rally was unmistakable: peaceful resistance, collective defiance, and a shared determination to stand against authoritarianism, war, and ICE enforcement.

For me, the rally carried profound personal meaning. It was the second No Kings rally I had attended. The first was in October in our suburban neighborhood, but this one felt different. The sheer scale, the unity of purpose, and the energy of the crowd rekindled a pride in being Minnesotan that I had not felt in over fifty years. Standing alongside my husband and our friend, I felt part of something larger, something historic.

We left before the rally concluded, unable to push closer to the center of the Mall. Instead, we found respite in a local restaurant, one of many affected by the surge in activity across the Twin Cities. Conversations there reflected the day’s themes: frustration with federal policies, concern for immigrant communities, and hope that collective action could bring change.

Indivisible Twin Cities was the main organizer in Minnapolis-St. Paul. They will be speaking at the AAUC Unity Summit on June 28, 2026. Visit the Unity Summit event page for more information.

Yet, the rally also revealed a sobering reality. While mainstream populations dominated the crowd, minority ethnic groups were noticeably underrepresented. Many expressed fear of surveillance, worried that cameras capturing their presence could later be used against them. This absence was striking, given that minority communities often bear the brunt of discriminatory federal policies. Their hesitation underscores the challenges of building truly inclusive movements in an era of heightened scrutiny.

The No Kings, No War, No ICE rally was more than a protest; it was a declaration of values. It reminded us that democracy thrives when ordinary people take to the streets, raise their voices, and demand accountability. For Minnesota, it was a moment of unity and defiance, a reaffirmation that civic pride and resistance can coexist. And for me personally, it was a day that rekindled pride in my state, my community, and the power of collective action.

Host Michael German, a former FBI agent turned civil liberties advocate explained that since 2015, APA Justice has been “raising public attention and organizing opposition to biased national security and law enforcement programs that unfairly target people based on race, ethnicity, and national origin rather than individualized evidence of wrongdoing.”

German traced the organization’s work from its 2020 webinar series on the China Initiative, a Justice Department program that brought false espionage allegations against prominent Asian American scientists, through its 2024 examination of Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. He reminded attendees that the NSA’s warrantless surveillance program began in the immediate aftermath of the 9/11 terrorist attacks and in direct violation of the FISA law, and that rather than being curtailed, it has been repeatedly expanded. He said, “Today, we’re seeing masked ICE agents engaging in abusive tactics against undocumented immigrants, as well as permanent residents, refugees, and asylum seekers, and even U.S. citizens.” He reminded attendees that ICE and border patrol agents killed Renee Good and Alex Pretti for monitoring and documenting their activities, and that agents had dragged Hmong American Chong Lee Tao from his home handcuffed in his underwear.

St. Paul Mayor Kaohly Her, born in the mountains of Laos and resettled in the United States as a refugee at age three, opened with a ground-level account of what her city endured, making clear it predated the national conversation. “What we saw here happening in Minnesota was happening to our AAPI community long before everyone else. The rest of the country, the world started seeing what was happening here,” she said. As a state legislator, she had convened meetings with ICE as early as the prior April, receiving almost no information about where operations were occurring or who was being targeted. “I remember distinctly asking them, are you sure you’re only going after people with criminal records? Because we’re hearing from our community that you’re just targeting anybody now.” By summer, community members with removal orders were refusing to attend their check-ins. “We had already heard that too many people were getting taken,” she said.

Her described a sophisticated community response that included constitutional observer training, growing from 30 or 40 attendees to hundreds per session, as well as Signal-based underground alert networks and volunteers who tracked ICE vehicle license plates from the Whipple Federal Building and maintained a database to warn neighborhoods in real time. Businesses saw revenues drop 60 to 70 percent. Her administration worked to quantify the full cost of what she called “the ICE occupation,” from school shutdowns and remote learning to patients too frightened to seek medical care. “What is the health impact of that,” she asked, “and the cost to the healthcare system when people are waiting until they’re really sick in order to go see a doctor because they’re afraid to leave?” The data was marshaled to support a proposed $40 million state relief package currently before the Minnesota legislature. “The aftermath,” she said, “is really rebuilding and supporting our communities.”

Saira Hussain, senior staff attorney at the Electronic Frontier Foundation, laid out the surveillance architecture enabling ICE enforcement. She highlighted Section 702 of the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act, set to expire April 20th, which allows warrantless sweeping of Americans’ communications when they contact people abroad. She flagged the Trump administration’s “catch and revoke” program, a social media surveillance initiative targeting what she called “disfavored speech,” ranging from pro-Palestinian expression to anything deemed “anti-American.” She also described the breakdown of federal data silos, including IRS, DMV, and utility records now accessible to ICE. “When you break down these data silos, it means that ICE is able to build up profiles of people and identify targets for deportation,” she warned. On the question of protecting oneself at the border, Hussain was direct: border agents can demand your device passcode, you can refuse, and as a U.S. citizen you must still be admitted, though your device can be detained for weeks or months. She directed attendees to Surveillance Self-Defense, ssd.eff.org, for practical self-protection guidance and urged people to disable biometric phone locks before crossing. “Privacy,” she said, “is a team sport.”

Temple University physicist Xiaoxing Xi offered the webinar’s most searing personal testimony, a detailed account of what government overreach looks like when it lands on an innocent man’s doorstep. In May 2015, approximately a dozen armed FBI agents raided his home, rounded up his wife and daughters at gunpoint, and took Xi away in handcuffs. The charge: wire fraud, based on four emails he had sent to scientific colleagues in China as part of university-encouraged international research collaboration. “They charged me for sharing U.S. company technology with China, with my collaborators, which was not true,” he said. “All four emails had nothing to do with that technology at all.” The agents, Xi said, simply did not understand the science, and did not consult experts before making the arrest. “They should have done their due diligence and figured out whether they really had evidence to charge me for the crime.”

The government dropped its case four months later. But the damage, personal, professional, psychological, was permanent. “That changed my life and the life of my family forever,” Xi said. “When you are charged by the federal government for crimes — I’ve seen many cases after mine — people cannot think, they cannot eat, they cannot sleep. It’s just a huge pressure.” He described the disorienting experience of facing the full weight of federal prosecution while knowing he was innocent. “When you look at the indictment, it says very clearly — the United States of America versus — such a pressure on you.” Even exoneration brought no full relief. “Even today we are afraid that they are still listening to all my phone calls and looking at all my emails,” he said. “They told us that FISA was used in my case. They had all my emails. They tapped our phone and listened to conversations between myself and my family.”

Xi was emphatic that his case is not an anomaly. Because AAPI communities maintain connections to family and colleagues abroad, they are disproportionately exposed to Section 702 surveillance. “We came from China. We became naturalized citizens. We have families and friends back where we came from. And so, we are disproportionately targeted just for this.” He described the China Initiative’s broader toll: professors investigated by the NIH, researchers who resigned or returned to China, and one Northwestern University professor who took her own life under the pressure of federal scrutiny. His own lawsuit against the government, which was filed with ACLU representation, dismissed at the district level, and won on appeal, reflects how long the struggle for accountability can take. “What happened to me,” Xi said, “could happen to anybody who has done nothing wrong.”

John Yang, Executive Director of Asian Americans Advancing Justice, connected the current moment to a long pattern of using national security as a pretext to scapegoat AAPI communities. “No matter how long we have been in this country, we are perceived as foreigners,” he said. “You couple that with this notion of so-called national security — and historically that has always caused the Asian American community to be scapegoated.” He drew a direct line from Japanese American incarceration during World War II to the post-9/11 racial profiling of Arab, Middle Eastern, Muslim, and South Asian Americans, to the China Initiative and today’s ICE crackdown. A recent poll, he noted, found that about 56 percent of Asian Americans oppose the mass deportation of undocumented immigrants, and that four times as many Asian Americans have been arrested under the current administration compared to the Biden administration. “Behind each of these statistics,” he said, “are individual instances that we also have to care about and lift up.”

Yang urged a three-part framework for community response: advocate, educate, and empower. He called on community members to contact their congressional representatives about Section 702, warning against the assumption that individual voices don’t matter. “What they do in congressional offices is — when they get a call from a constituent, they have a little tally sheet,” he said. “That does make a difference.” He closed with a call to vote in the upcoming midterms and to hold elected officials accountable on the specific issues shaping AAPI lives. “This is about privacy,” he said. “This is about individual liberty. And those are issues that resonate across the board.”

The webinar was co-sponsored by Asian Americans Advancing Justice, the Asian American Scholars Forum, and the Committee of 100.

The honor acknowledges residents who risked their lives to protect their neighbors and immigrant community members from an unprecedented federal law enforcement operation, peacefully defending the human rights and values that serve as the foundation of constitutional democracy.

Beginning in 2025, a sharp escalation in federal immigration enforcement swept cities across the country, disrupting workplaces and neighborhoods and stoking fear among immigrant families. In the Twin Cities, the surge was especially intense: more than 3,000 federal agents from ICE and Border Patrol were deployed to the metro area, in an operation the Department of Homeland Security described as the largest federal immigration enforcement action in U.S. history.

Tens of thousands of residents took to the streets to peacefully protest federal overreach and threats to immigrant families and constitutional protections. Others documented enforcement activity and alerted neighbors to federal agents’ presence, including two community members, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, who were killed by enforcement agents.

Faith leaders organized demonstrations, community groups built rapid-response networks, labor leaders and small businesses defended workers, and volunteers provided critical support and resources. Across religious, racial, and political lines, a broad coalition of residents of the Twin Cities and surrounding suburbs united in peaceful resistance despite violent confrontation and real personal risk, defending their neighbors’ rights and strengthening what the foundation called the national movement to protect American democracy.

The JFK Library Foundation described the community’s response as a defining act of civic courage. “The people of the Twin Cities responded with extraordinary courage and resolve,” the foundation said in its announcement.

Caroline Kennedy and her son Jack Schlossberg issued a joint statement saying, “Without public servants of integrity committed to maintaining the highest standards of institutional excellence and independence, and citizens willing to put their lives on the line to hold America to its promises, our democracy can’t survive.”

U.S. Sen. Amy Klobuchar (D-Minnesota) praised the recognition. “This winter, Minnesotans showed the world what courage looks like,” she said. “Our state was the center of America’s heartbreak, but we were also the center of America’s hope. This award is a recognition not just of how our state persevered, but of how Minnesotans led the way in defending the freedoms that define our democracy and the rule of law.”

The deaths of Good and Pretti galvanized thousands of demonstrators to take to the streets in frigid temperatures to demand that ICE and related agencies stand down. The protests drew national attention, with Bruce Springsteen and British folk rocker Billy Bragg each releasing songs in solidarity with the Twin Cities community.

The Twin Cities’ award was announced alongside recognition for Federal Reserve Chair Jerome Powell, who is being honored for protecting the independence of the Federal Reserve despite political pressure and personal attacks from the highest levels of government.

Caroline Kennedy and Schlossberg will present the awards via livestream on May 31, 2026, at the John F. Kennedy Presidential Library and Museum in Boston.

The original program had been designed to celebrate AANHPI contributors to the U.S., a fitting theme as the nation approaches its 250th anniversary. But the U.S. and Israeli military strikes on Iran changed that. AAUC Executive Director Ted Fong acknowledged, “We would have been remiss if we conducted this without even talking about the war, because the war sets the stage for a lot of issues, not just globally, but locally.”

Before diving in, Fong asked participants to describe the current global climate in one or two words. The responses came quickly, and they were unsparing: dystopian, dysfunctional, chaotic, divisive, disappointment, uncertain, and crazy times.

Why Are We at War?

Jack Hanna, a retired attorney, AAUC’s vice president, and a man of Arab American heritage, gave the sharpest legal framing to the war discussion. Drawing directly on the Constitution, he noted that the power to declare war rests with Congress, and that this foundational check had once again been bypassed. “This is an erosion of what the intent of the founders of our country established,” Hanna said, “in order to prevent ambitious, improper military actions against foreign countries, which is what I think we have exactly here today.”

He went further, questioning not just the legality of the war but its strategic coherence. “The reasons for the war are changing moment by moment,” he said. “Is it because of ballistic missiles? Is it because of suppression of civil rights of the Iranian people? Does it have to do with nuclear materials? Is it regime change? This is a reflection of a government that’s making it up on the spur of the moment.”

Voices from the Community

The discussion that followed was wide-ranging and deeply personal.

Benny Lee, a veteran of local politics, reflected on the collapse of the political center and what it has cost the country. “When I got into politics, there was always 20 percent on the left, 20 percent on the right, and 60 percent in the middle, and that has eroded significantly,” he said. Where that middle once held, he argued, the country has drifted toward the extremes, making the kind of deliberate, consensus-driven governance the founders envisioned increasingly difficult to achieve. “We’ve taken three steps forward and four steps back.” Lee returned, as Hanna had, to the Constitution, “It begins with ‘We the People,’ and it’s no longer about the people.”

Sing Lo, who has lived in the United States for 60 years, was succinct and cutting: “I’m not too sure it’s the country that I knew when I was here 60 years ago.”

Kim Sin, a leader in the Cambodian community in Rochester, Minnesota, said the war in Iran has already driven up gas prices and everyday costs, hitting Asian American seniors on fixed incomes especially hard. The federal freeze on Medicare and Medicaid programs has cut off services for the elderly and people with disabilities, with no clear end in sight. “There’s money for war,” he said, “but there’s no money for the people living in the U.S.” Kim also explained why Cambodian and Laotian Americans are often less vocal about advocating for themselves. “In Cambodia, it was the Khmer Rouge. Anything you say or anything you do, they’ll execute you. So, they learned to be silent.” That silence, he made clear, is a generational wound and one the community is now working to overcome.

Fong connected with Sin’s comments by saying he had just returned from the Southeast Asian Freedom Network’s Uniti Fest in Sacramento, held on the 50th anniversary of the end of the War in Southeast Asia. “Most of the attendees were young Hmong, Cambodian, and Laotians who were still deal with their families’ escape from these countries. “The thing that you heard was, ‘We escaped the very thing that’s happening to us now. Our families came to a country with a dream that seems to be forsaken.’”

Carla Mays, from #SmartCohort based in California, drew a sharp contrast between U.S. policy priorities and those of Asian nations like Singapore, Japan, and China. “We’re so distracted by our old way of doing things,” she said. “In Asia, there’s always talk about healthcare, housing, transport — investments that keep people alive. Here, those things aren’t important.” She warned that the current administration’s budget priorities would shred an already thin safety net.

Marsha Golangco, who immigrated from Hong Kong decades ago, reflected on a sense of national fragmentation. “Each of us has our freedoms including, our own opinions. But as a people, we are not together,” she said. “I call it a decline of the American empire. It’s not well.”

Hedy Tripp, joining from St. Cloud, Minnesota, offered a reminder of Iran’s ancient civilization and its deep global ties. “Persia is an ancient, ancient civilization,” she said. “Persians and Mediterranean, African communities have all been trading and connecting themselves all over the world, including Asia. We have ties to Iran, globally as well.” She also raised a pointed question: how do we shift America’s narrative to treat people, not weapons systems, as the nation’s primary asset?

Fong added his own blunt perspective, “I just don’t see, given our historical record, how we can bomb other countries into democracy. We failed to do that in Vietnam, Afghanistan and in many other places.”

Champions of Democracy, The AANHPI Legacy

With the weight of the present firmly established, the town hall pivoted to its core program: a review of AANHPI figures who have upheld democracy, rule of law, and governance, from the 19th century to today.

Jack Hanna led with Wong Kim Ark, the San Francisco-born man whose late 19th-century legal battle established the constitutional right to birthright citizenship. The case is newly urgent. President Trump’s executive order challenging birthright citizenship is set for Supreme Court argument on April 1st, with a decision expected by late June. “Tens of millions of immigrants since then have birthright citizenship for their children who were born here,” Hanna noted, adding that despite winning his case, Wong Kim Ark was continuously harassed, and his son was deported years later. “The remnants of prejudice continued.”

Hanna then profiled Fred Korematsu, who in 1942 refused to comply with the executive order incarcerating 120,000 Japanese Americans, was arrested, and fought his case all the way to the Supreme Court and lost, in one of the worst decisions in American judicial history. Decades later, newly discovered military records proved the government had concealed evidence that Japanese Americans posed no security threat. In the early 1980s, Korematsu reopened his case, won, and successfully advocated for reparations. “Now we see that detention camps are already being reconstructed,” Hanna observed. “Fred Korematsu’s legacy is impacting us today.”

Hanna also honored Corky Lee, the self-taught New York photographer who for 50 years documented Asian American communities without profit or fanfare, often borrowing cameras to get the job done. “We must document what’s happening,” Hanna said. “We have to show and expose when wrong and improper actions are being committed. His work is a pathway to protecting ourselves and our communities going into the future.”

Fong spotlighted Kaohly Her, the newly inaugurated mayor of St. Paul, Minnesota, born in a bamboo hut in Laos, raised as part of the Hmong diaspora created by U.S. military operations, and thrust into the national spotlight just three days after taking office when the first ICE-related killing occurred in her city. As she took to the national stage, her response was swift and steady. She passed ordinances prohibiting ICE activity on city property and required masked law enforcement to identify themselves. “Her family described her as a protector, tough, and one who never took crap from anybody.” In person, however, people report that she is cordial. “Her temperament is perfect for a job like that,” Fong said. “She is a good example to all immigrants that they can have a place at the table.”

Hanna reserved some of his deepest admiration for civil rights activist and author Helen Zia, who spoke at the AAUC’s national summit last summer and whose decades of advocacy span virtually every major social justice movement of the modern era. Her activism began at Princeton in the late 1960s, where she was among the first women admitted, connecting immediately with Black and Latino communities and opposing the Vietnam War. In the early 1980s she organized the country around the unlawful killing of autoworker Vincent Chin. He said, “Her coalition-building across communities of color established a model of solidarity that continues to define how AANHPI communities respond to injustice, discrimination, and hate.”

The program also covered Texas State Representative Gene Wu, Congresswoman Pramila Jayapal, Congressman Ted Lieu, John C. Yang of AAJC, and Karthick Ramakrishnan of AAPI Data.

SK Lo’s Closing Word

AAUC Board Chair Dr. SK Lo was given the final word.

“The town hall reminds us of a very simple but powerful truth,” Lo said. “Asian Americans have always played a very essential role in safeguarding the nation and strengthening democracy, especially in times of conflict and uncertainty. Our community has served and led and sacrificed, even when our contributions are overlooked and our loyalty is questioned.”
She called the current moment “a redefining time,” and issued a direct call to action: “We should not be a silent minority. We are a vibrant, engaged, and essential part of America’s story. Our voice matters more than ever. Together, we need to lead, to serve, and to stand for the values that define this country.”

The AAUC will hold its next town hall on April 16, 2026. AAUC’s 2026 Unity Summit, “From Crisis to Coalition: Lessons from the Front Lines,” is scheduled for June 27–28 in Minneapolis, with community visits to Hmong, Latino, and Somali leaders on day one, and presentations and networking at the University of Minnesota Alumni Center on day two. Visit the event page.

A Growing Community, and a Longer History Than People Assume

Asian Americans are a little over 7% of the U.S. population, but we have been present at key turning points for generations. Chinese workers blasted tunnels and laid track for the railroads; Filipino laborers organized in the fields; Japanese Americans served in uniform even as their families were incarcerated; South and Southeast Asian activists pushed civil-rights battles in workplaces, schools, and neighborhoods. Long before we were widely seen, or even counted, we were building and defending the country alongside everyone else.

The past six decades, in particular, reshaped the size and visibility of Asian America. Today our communities show up everywhere: in labs and hospitals, small businesses and startups, classrooms, newsrooms, city halls, and the arts. We are not a single story or a single culture; we are many, and we are increasingly part of the decisions that shape what the country becomes.

What 2026 Can Mean for Us

If the Semiquincentennial is a national mirror, it should reflect Asian Americans too. Here is what’s worth marking:

• Belonging: We’re no longer on the margins of American life; we’re in every industry, every region, and every kind of community.
• Progress: More AANHPI leaders are winning local races, leading schools and agencies, and running community organizations.
• Possibility: A younger generation is organizing, speaking up, and stepping into leadership without asking for permission.
• Pluralism: The country’s diversity is not a footnote; it’s the engine. Asian Americans are part of that engine.

None of this requires pretending the country has lived up to its ideals. A real celebration makes room for both: pride in what people built, and clarity about what still needs fixing.

What Still Has to Change

If we want to be fully present in the country’s next 250 years, we can’t treat citizenship as something that happens to us. It takes choices like these:

• Show up civically: vote, serve on boards, run for local office, and build leadership in our neighborhoods.
• Tell the truth about our past: in schools, museums, family archives, and public memory, so our history doesn’t disappear between chapters.
• Build coalitions that last: partner with Black, Latino, Indigenous, and other communities on shared fights for fairness and safety.
• Defend democratic norms: push back on hate and political violence, and don’t let disinformation set the terms of our debates.

In other words, our place in the story isn’t something we wait for. We claim it by participating, organizing, and leading.

Renewing the Ideals America Claims

Anniversaries can become empty pageantry if they don’t lead to repair. The United States has faced recurring tests, including corruption, polarization, and distrust, and it will face more. Keeping a democracy healthy is not only the job of elected officials; it depends on what ordinary people demand, tolerate, and choose to do together.

Asian Americans can contribute to that work in practical ways, including:

• Protecting elections, voting rights, and the rule of law
• Expecting, and practicing, ethical, accountable leadership
• Investing in innovation, from science and technology to climate solutions
• Building cross-cultural understanding and showing solidarity when it matters

Renewal, in the end, looks like people refusing cynicism and then doing the unglamorous work: showing up, staying informed, and holding power to account.

Pride, Dissent, and the World We Live In

In a time of war and humanitarian crisis, from Ukraine to the Middle East, it can feel complicated to take pride in a nation that projects power abroad. But pride doesn’t have to mean endorsing every decision made in our name. It can be grounded in:

• The ideals of liberty, equality, and justice—even when the country fails to deliver them.
• The freedom to dissent, to protest, to organize, and to argue for peace, rights that are not protected everywhere.
• The contributions of our communities, which often reflect the country at its best.

Patriotism, at its healthiest, isn’t blind loyalty. It’s the willingness to insist the country live up to its promises, especially when it’s uncomfortable.

Looking to the Next Chapter

As America turns 250, Asian Americans can help write what comes next through coalition politics, public service, and the everyday work of making communities safer and more fair. Our collective history in the United States may feel recent to some, but it is already deep, and it is stitched into the country’s institutions and culture. The next 250 years will be shaped by who participates; we should be among the people shaping them.

Introduction

Democracy doesn’t die in a single dramatic moment. It erodes through systematic tactics that normalize the abnormal, silence opposition, and concentrate power. Many AANHPI immigrants came to this country to escape the horrors of authoritarianism. And now they find themselves confronting it again.

This guide documents the specific strategies the Trump administration has to advance its agenda. From manufacturing crises to justify illegal actions, to systematically firing government watchdogs, to weaponizing federal agencies against political opponents, these tactics follow a well-worn authoritarian playbook used by would-be dictators worldwide.

But understanding the playbook is only the first step. For every authoritarian tactic, there are proven counteroffensive strategies that communities can deploy. This guide pairs the abuses with concrete actions, including legal challenges, coalition-building, rapid response networks, and sustained organizing that turn outrage into effective opposition. Resistance requires moving beyond shock to strategy, channelling individual anger to collective power.

1. Using False Pretexts to Justify Illegal Actions 

• Claiming that high levels of violent crime and drug smuggling constituted an “invasion,” invoking the 1798 Alien Enemies Act (AEA) to justify mass deportations without due process.
• Using a fraud case in Minnesota involving Somali immigrants as a pretext to send ICE into Minneapolis.
• Declaring that Los Angeles and Washington, D.C., were under siege and in a state of rebellion to justify federalizing and sending in the National Guard.
• Claiming that universities are hotbeds of anti-sematism to justify funding cuts
• Claiming without proof that Venezuelan boats were carrying drugs into the U.S. to justify bombing them.

2. Blaming without Proof

• Accusing Renee Good of being a “domestic terrorist” and Alex Pretti a “would-be assassin” to justify killing them.
• Accusing migrants for driving up housing costs, taking jobs from Americans, “poisoning our country,” and “eating the cats.”
• Calling any news organizations that are critical of it “fake news” and “the enemy of the American people”.
• Blaming the January 6 insurrection on Nancy Pelosi and the Capitol Police.
• Blaming non-citizens, dead people, crooked officials, and mail-in voting for voter fraud.
• Blaming Ukrainian leaders for the war with Russia.

3. Distraction

• Flooding the zone: releasing a stream of outrageous statements, social media posts, and executive actions to exhaust everyone’s attention to focus on one issue
• Creating new controversies: taking over Greenland, annexing Canada, and renaming the Kennedy Center.
• Using ad hominem attacks and nicknames for political opponents to shift focus from policy debates to personal drama.
• Gaslighting: Asserting that basic facts are untrue or fabricating events to create confusion and doubt among the public.
• Us vs. them rhetoric: using culture wars and imagined threats to motivate the base and distract from policy failures.

4. Lying

• The 2020 election was a fraud.
• We have the greatest economy in U.S. history.
• We have the biggest tax cut in U.S. history.
• “I’ve settled eight wars” in 10 months.
• The price of eggs is down 82% since March, and everything else is falling rapidly.
• “Already, I’ve secured a record-breaking $18 trillion of investment into the United States”.

Counter Offensive Strategy: A Rapid Response

A rapid response to false allegations and narratives is critically necessary and should be based upon substantiated and documented facts and possibly include legal action if appropriate. That would entail organizing a rapid-response coalition of community and lawyers when possible organizing groups to publicly debunk false claims with actual statistics and evidence. This could also include creating alternative media amplifying local voices that contradict inaccurate or false federal narratives. As an example, Minneapolis residents must counter the false aspects of the Somali fraud narrative and document every false claim systematically to establish patterns of deception and then amplify it. 

When officials falsely label activists as terrorists, mobilize independent investigations demanding bodycam footage, witness testimony, police records and unfortunately even autopsies when necessary. For anti-immigrant scapegoating, flood media with economic research showing migrants’ actual contributions to communities and economies. Create “truth squads” that follow official lies with documented corrections across all platforms. Center immigrant voices sharing their actual stories. Pressure media to stop amplifying baseless claims without immediate challenge. Organize media literacy sessions teaching propaganda recognition. Never repeat their lies even to debunk them—state truth affirmatively.

Develop organizational discipline to avoid chasing every distraction and outrage. Create focused campaigns around core issues—healthcare access, economic justice, democratic rights, climate action—and maintain and sustain them regardless of daily provocations. 

When Greenland annexation dominates coverage, redirect conversations to actual policy impacts affecting real people. Train activists and spokespeople in message discipline: acknowledge the distraction briefly if necessary, then pivot immediately back to your agenda. Support journalism that analyzes patterns rather than breathless crisis coverage of each outrageous statement. Create communication protocols distinguishing between attention-worthy developments and deliberate distractions. Organize teach-ins on propaganda techniques. Set your own agenda.

5. Firing the Watchdogs and Experts in Government

• The “Friday Night Massacre” dismissal of 17 Inspectors General without the legally required 30-day notice to Congress
• The firing of CDC Director Susan Monarez after she refused to comply with demands from HHS Secretary Robert F. Kennedy Jr. to pre-approve vaccine recommendations without reviewing scientific evidence and to fire career scientists without cause. 
• Erika McEntarfer, commissioner of the Bureau of Labor Statistics was fired in August 2025 after Trump accused her of “rigging” jobs data, following poor economic figures.

Counter Offensive Strategy: Treat and characterize every possible improper or legally questionable firing as a constitutional breach that requires judicial review and immediate mobilization. Support fired inspectors general and scientists who are whistleblowers with legal defense funds and public platforms for their testimony including congressional investigations with subpoena power, especially when legally required procedures like 30-day notices are violated. Build alternative accountability infrastructure through independent watchdog organizations to create public databases tracking all dismissed experts, including their qualifications, and the pending investigations they were conducting. Pressure Congress to strengthen inspector general independence and scientific integrity protections with real enforcement mechanisms. 

6.  Weaponizing the Government Agencies to Seek Retribution

• Investigating FBI Director James Comey, New York Attorney General Letitia James, and Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell
• Launching a criminal investigation and issuing subpoenas to Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey
• Attempting, but failing, to secure federal indictments against six Democratic lawmakers who published a video urging military personnel to refuse “illegal orders”
• Directing the FCC to investigate media outlets that provide negative coverage 
• Investigating, extorting money, and terminating federal contracts of law firms representing Trump’s opponents or challenging his agenda.
  

Counter Offensive Strategy: Document every retaliatory investigation to establish clear patterns of political prosecution showing correlations between criticism and targeting. Support targeted individuals with legal defense funds, pro bono representation, and public solidarity campaigns. File ethics complaints and bar association grievances against attorneys participating in politically motivated prosecutions that violate established legal and judicial standards. Pressure Congress to exercise oversight through hearings, document requests, and appropriations restrictions on agencies conducting retaliatory investigations. Demand recusal of political appointees inappropriately attacking administration critics. Build coalitions between targeted lawmakers, governors, attorneys general, and media outlets to present unified resistance and share legal strategies. When law firms lose contracts for representing opponents, organize legal and business community pushback. Support legislative reforms strengthening prosecutorial independence and special counsel protections. Refuse to be silenced by retribution.

7. Using Fear, Intimidation, and Violence to Promote Political Agenda

• Masked ICE agents terrorized and killed Minnesotans to send a message to the rest of the country.
• Mass workplace ICE raids with military-style tactics in meatpacking plants, construction sites have created panic in immigrant communities nationwide.
• Threats against prosecutors and judges: The administration has publicly attacked state prosecutors investigating Trump associates, with supporters subsequently making death threats that forced several officials into protective custody.

Counter Offensive Strategy: Build a protective infrastructure by creating a network of  legal observers, immigration attorneys, and community defenders who can mobilize within minutes of ICE operations beginning. Establish sanctuary spaces—churches, community centers, schools—trained in constitutional rights and prepared to document abuses. Organize comprehensive know-your-rights workshops in multiple languages teaching people to refuse warrantless entry, remain silent, and contact legal help. When violence occurs like the Minnesota killings, demand independent investigations beyond the federal government. Train legal observers to document everything: badge numbers, use of force, statements made. Pressure local officials to refuse ICE cooperation. Counter fear with visible, sustained solidarity.

8. Hypocrisy

• Standing up for the 2nd Amendment while saying it was wrong for Alex Pretti to bring a legally permitted gun to a protest
• Exonerating Pete Hegseth for Signalgate while demonizing Hilary Clinton for having a private email server.
• Kidnapping the president of Venezuela for drug crimes, while pardoning the former president of Honduras, who was serving a 45-year sentence for drug trafficking.

Counter Offensive Strategy: Make every double standard impossible to ignore through relentless documentation and visual comparison. Create side-by-side charts, videos, and social media graphics showing identical behaviors receiving opposite consequences: Pretti’s legal gun versus Second Amendment rhetoric, Honduras pardon versus Venezuela kidnapping. Build media literacy campaigns teaching people to recognize double standards as domination tactics demonstrating “rules for thee but not for me.” Support journalism that systematically tracks hypocrisy rather than treating each instance as isolated. File legal challenges arguing equal protection violations when laws are improperly applied selectively based on political affiliation. Organize coalitions around principle-based positions: if private communication is a security risk, it’s a risk for everyone; if gun rights are protected, they’re protected for all. Refuse “everyone does it” framing.

9. Demonizing Liberal Culture to Dismantle Government and Funding

• Portraying universities, journalists, diversity programs, and public health agencies as ideological enemies. 
• Casting cultural institutions as corrupt elites.
• Pitting multiculturalism against nationalist priorities.

Counter Offensive Strategy: Expose the material stakes and the adverse consequences behind culture war rhetoric by connecting attacks on “woke universities” to actual research funding cuts affecting disease cures, agricultural innovation, and technological advancement benefiting everyone regardless of politics. Engage with and farmers and others how USDA research improves their yields, rural communities, how public broadcasting serves their information needs, how veterans diversity programs improve VA healthcare quality, and how small businesses consumer protection prevents fraud. Force culture warriors to explain why cancer research is “woke” or clean water standards are “elitist.” Support alternative funding while fighting for public investment and reach out and partner with unknown and unexpected allies who benefit from a functional government that protects the interests, health and public safety of the community.

10. Performative Behavior

• The Wolf Persona: Centralizing power through unpredictability and fear
• Relying on spectacle and show of force (ICE) to appeal to base instincts
• Acolytes and members of the inner circle mirror the mob boss’s combative behavior to show their loyalty.

Counter Offensive Strategy: Refuse to amplify or validate the performance—and counter their narrative with documented refutation that denies them the propaganda victory they seek. When ICE conducts televised deportations or stages border photo ops, don’t share the footage or give them free media coverage. Instead, create counter-programming showing real impacts: families separated, communities disrupted, resources wasted on theater while actual problems go unsolved. Organize alternative events demonstrating actual community values—when they stage cruelty, stage massive solidarity actions, respond by asking “What did this actually accomplish?” Build campaigns that make performative governance politically costly by relentlessly highlighting the actual failures and wasted resources that they are attempting to hide. Document officials prioritizing performance over performing the important and critical tasks they are legally charged to perform. Encourage journalism and the public at large to examine gaps between rhetoric and results by make them defend measurable outcomes, not attitude or theater.

Conclusion

Authoritarianism advances when good people feel overwhelmed, isolated, or powerless. But history proves that organized communities can resist even the most determined attacks on democracy. Every tactic in this playbook has been defeated before, when people refused to be silent, built protective networks, demanded accountability, and sustained pressure over time. 

Your resistance matters. Start locally: organize your neighbors, document abuses, support targeted communities, and refuse to normalize cruelty. Connect with established organizations doing this work. Remember that authoritarians rely on our exhaustion and division, so counter it with joy, solidarity, and stubborn persistence. Democracy survives through the daily choices of ordinary people who refuse to surrender it.

Two Fridays ago, my wife and I made a decision we never imagined making in America: Wherever we go, we would carry our U.S. passports.

Not because it’s normal.

Not because it’s required.

But because it feels safer.

Around the same time, many lawyers began offering unsettling advice to U.S. citizens, such as “Say less,” “Follow instructions,” “Don’t argue.” Not because the law demands it, but because a new reality does.

That was the moment it became clear to me: Something fundamental is shifting.

Why Minnesota?

People across the state are asking the same question. Why Minnesota? Why such a heavy presence of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other federal immigration enforcement here? Are we afraid of undocumented immigrants crossing from Canada?

The answer does not lie in the immigration numbers. Minnesota does not have the highest number of undocumented immigrants. There are lots of estimates on percentages of immigrant population per state. The top five are usually named as California, followed by New Jersey, New York, Florida and Nevada. California is at about 27 percent immigrant population; Nevada at about 20 percent. Minnesota is way down the list, at about eight percent.

But it does have one of the highest per-capita concentrations of ICE agents in the nation right now, and the Twin Cities is the main target. No wonder the key question in all our minds is “So why us?”

The more I thought about it, the more it made sense. Minnesota was perhaps thought to be a “soft target.” It’s geographically isolated, culturally polite, with enough first-generation immigrants who tend to keep their heads down. Big cities hold assets. Red states have loyal bases. Places like ours are easier for the federal government to target its military power.

Or so they thought. During January 2026, however, Minnesotans showed how this theory was wrong. Instead of caving under the onslaught of armed thugs, they have put up a persistent and resilient target, repelling ICE troops with righteous anger, unity, self-control and even humor, despite unlawful and often brutal ICE behavior.

Fear in Immigrant Communities

In my community, many people are first-generation immigrants. Their English is accented or limited. They are unfamiliar with American legal culture. They hesitate. They respond slowly. They are not confident, and that makes them vulnerable.

Many are U.S. citizens or legal residents, yet, like people in all non-white immigrant groups, they fear being mistaken for undocumented immigrants. They are not afraid because they have broken the law — but because they believe enforcement will act illegally.

This fear is not abstract. It is real. The proof is on the ground, and it shapes how people speak, move and live.

The Cost of Standing Up

I’ll be honest, I’m not brave. I’m not like Alex Pretti.

Knowing the risks, he still stood up when he believed the government was acting unjustly. We soon learned that dedication to the public good, and his belief in the ideals of this country played out in his life. He was a U.S. veteran, and became a registered nurse in order to work on behalf of other veterans at the Veterans’ Administration hospital.

In his final moments, he wasn’t thinking about himself — he was trying to protect others. His last words were to ask the woman he was trying to shield from ICE attack “Are you OK?”

“Give me liberty, or give me death” is an American ideal attributed to founding father Patrick Henry in exhorting Virginians to rise up against British rule in 1775. Although all of us, even Alex Pretti, would prefer to show our support for our democracy without being shot dead for it, we can all agree with Patrick Henry that a life spent hiding out of fear of an oppressive and reckless military force is no way to live.

Alex Pretti didn’t get up that morning thinking “Give me liberty or give me death,” but because he was out there, standing up for liberty and helping his neighbors, he was forced to carry it to its brutal conclusion.

He was exercising the most basic constitutional rights: freedom of speech, assembly, petition, and the right to observe authority. For that, he was shot

The American System on Trial

On January 7, Minnesota lost Renee Good. The Bad and the Ugly then showed up. Then on January 24, Minnesota lost Alex Pretti. This time, more Minnesotans stood up. Vast marching crowds, videoed by drones, appeared on social media immediately. The images encouraged Minnesotans and all Americans that we stand together in defiance, resilience, courage, and most of all, unity. These images were proof that there would be no backing down in the face of tyranny.

The U.S. was first called the “Great Experiment” by George Washington. At the time of its founding, the U.S. governance structure was unique. Its original genius was not to confer power only to perfect leaders, but a system designed to restrain power. The three branches of government are designed as co-equal so they can tug one another toward a dynamic middle. Separation of powers, due process, and public accountability were meant to prevent exactly the kind of abuse we are all witnessing in this moment.

America’s strength is not that it never errs. It is that it can correct itself. Recently, that self-correction design has been corrupted and skewed. It is a time where the experiment is being tested. Will it hit a breaking point?

What Patriotism Really Means

Recent events have caused me to reflect about what American patriotism. For me, it is an act: Patriotism means upholding the democratic ideals the country was built upon. It is also a feeling of loyalty to democratic principles and norms: Liberty, justice, and the rule of law.

Citizens in a democracy are not subject of a greater power; they are overseers of a system derived from their own power.

Conflict is not a failure of democracy — it is evidence that democracy still functions. There are accepted principles around government-sanctioned conflict. The media can question the government. Citizens can question law enforcement, including ICE.

I am stating these principles advisedly, since many citizens have been violently dragged from their cars and detained for taking photos or filming on their cell phones, and since recently, two Black journalists were arrested (then released) for reporting on a protest held at a St. Paul church.

And, of course, Alex Pretti and Renee Good were killed by federal immigration authorities for showing up and questioning ICE. As history reflects on this moment, I believe they will be remembered for speaking up, protecting others, and in holding power accountable. To many, those actions reflect the very spirit of patriotism — ordinary citizens standing for what they believe is right.

Now, across the country, Americans of many political views are asking the same question: Are we abandoning the Constitution itself?

Some of the participants during the over 50,000 strong protest march in Minneapolis. Photo by Jing Wei
A brief reminder on the Bill of Rights

The Bill of Rights is a set of 10 amendments to the Constitution. They were intended to guarantee the rights of individuals, check and restrain the power of the government. A few of these amendments are particularly important in this moment:

• First Amendment: The right to speak, freedom of the press, the right of assembly, and petition the government for grievances against it without fear of death.
• Second Amendment: The right to keep and bear arms (as a safeguard against tyranny, not a pastime).
• Fourth Amendment: No searches or seizures of a person’s home or private property without probable cause and a warrant.
• Fifth Amendment: Every person accused of a crime has the right to due process, that is, there is no imprisonment without fair procedures and trials.
• Sixth Amendment: The right to a speedy and public trial by jury in criminal cases, for specific criminal charges. The accused must be able to formally face the accuser, present their own witnesses, and be represented by a lawyer.

How many of these rights are now being violated by ICE? ICE’s oppressions are challenging our First Amendment rights to speak and assemble, and the recent arrests of journalists (for showing up and doing their jobs) are obvious attempts to chill the freedom of the press.

Alex Pretti’s Second Amendment right to bear arms was certainly questioned in the aftermath of his death by the federal authorities.

ICE is also battering down the doors of private homes to arrest and take away the occupants, and dragging people out of their cars, violating their Fourth Amendment rights to unreasonable search and seizure of one’s home and personal property.

Detainees are being flown to holding facilities out of state and often denied representation either because their attorney is denied access or because the attorney cannot even find out where they are, thus violating their Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights.

Demonstrators have also been arrested and taken away under no particular charge, for being too annoying or challenging to ICE authorities, for refusing to follow ICE orders they consider illegal, and/or for looking like an immigrant (i.e., a person of color).

Immigrant detainees and arrested demonstrators are both being denied their Sixth Amendment right, when arrested, to have specific charges against them, with the opportunity to refute the charges in court. This puts them in the untenable position of not knowing how to defend themselves because they don’t know what they are accused of.

How many of our individual rights have to be taken away before we say ”No more”?

A Question of Decency

Most Americans are decent people. Which makes an old question echo loudly again: “Have you no sense decency, sir?” This was asked of Senator Joseph McCarthy in 1954 during proceedings of his House Un-American Activities Committee to upon McCarthy’s harsh accusations that one of attorney Joseph Welch’s staff had ties to a communist organization.

McCarthy’s anti-communist campaign was a personal vendetta to root out suspected “communists” in the U.S. government, along with any LGBTQ-plus government workers or officials, who were labeled as security threats. Its few Democratic members resigned in disgust early on, but hearings rambled on, televised, for months in 1954.

The question about decency reverberated with viewers, ordinary Americans were tired and revolted by his campaign. After that pointed question, McCarthy’s power disintegrated almost overnight. There are many current parallels to this moment of history today.

It was a watershed moment. Have we also just experienced another such reverberating moment?

Blaming the Victim

Upon hearing of Pretti’s death, Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem was quick to describe his actions as “domestic terrorism,” saying Pretti was “attacking” officers and “brandishing” a weapon before he was killed. Other loyal Trump administration staff joined in on the blame.

Right after that announcement, of course, they were walking those comments back, because the video recording, taken by a brave (and law-abiding) bystander, clearly showed what happened. We all saw the video, we know the facts, and we will NOT agree to conclusion that the murders’ higher-ups decided to force-feed to the public. ( “Have you no sense of decency?”) The eyewitness testimony and many videos especially contradict Noem’s accusation about the legally-carried gun, which he never drew.

What We Can Do

In the Chinese American community, many are choosing caution. Safety comes first — protecting family, avoiding unnecessary risk. As immigrants, many of us try to avoid trouble. We focus our energy on protecting and providing for our families — staying safe, staying quiet, and keeping away from conflict.

But there is more we can do even if we cannot or should not be marching in the streets right now. Personally, I have decided to:

Thank neighbors who protest when others are afraid.

• Record events peacefully and lawfully — documentation matters.
• Support community business, particularly minority-owned and immigrant businesses, some of which have to close intermittently for fear of ICE raids.
• Participate in community event such as a Lunar New Year celebration or any other event where the space is safe.

Most importantly, Asian Americans must not live in fear. This is a time to believe in the ongoing experiment of America, and remind ourselves that patriotism is an ongoing act. Our great experiment needs our support to succeed.

In the words of Alex Pretti, at a remembrance of a patient who had just died at the Veterans’ Administration Hospital, “Today, we remember that freedom is not free. We have to work at it, nurture it, protect it, and even sacrifice for it.”

And for my fellow Minnesotans coping with a disrupted life in their home cities, we need to persevere. Our community needs its liberty back, and we can all help achieve it.

For many of us who have lived in the United States for decades, this country is not simply where we reside, it is where we built our lives. We arrived as students, pursued higher education, built careers and businesses, raised families, and became part of the fabric of our communities. Over time, we became “Americanized” not by abandoning our heritage, but by embracing the values we believed defined this nation: fairness, opportunity, dignity, and the rule of law.

That is why the recent ICE deployment in Minnesota has shaken so many to the core. What unfolded here was not routine enforcement. It was a display of militarized force that treated peaceful protestors like criminals, left a couple U.S. citizens dead, and tore hundreds of people from their families. Entire neighborhoods were thrown into fear. Workers stayed home. Children were kept from school. Festivity for the Lunar New Year was postponed. The sense of safety that anchors daily life evaporated overnight.

The official justification, that ICE is targeting “illegal immigrants with criminal records,” has collapsed under the weight of reality. When citizens are killed, when bystanders are injured, when families are separated without due process, the narrative no longer holds. What we witnessed went far beyond the stated mission. It was a demonstration of unchecked power, one that disregarded constitutional protections and ignored the humanity of the people affected.

And yet, the impact has reached far beyond those directly targeted. Regardless of immigration status, everyone feels the consequences. Long‑time residents, naturalized citizens, green card holders, and U.S.-born children all share the same fear. This moment has revealed something profound: our society is deeply interdependent. When hundreds of people disappear from workplaces, the effects ripple across industries, schools, hospitals, and neighborhoods. Minnesota’s economy and community life depend on the very people now being treated as disposable.

In the midst of this fear, Minnesotans have responded with remarkable creativity and moral clarity. On Bde Maka Ska, formerly Lake Calhoun, volunteers carved a massive SOS signal into the snow and illuminated it with candles, transforming the frozen lake into a glowing beacon visible even at night. On Lake Nokomis, near the airport, another group created a bold “ICE OUT” message, also lit by candlelight. These installations are more than artistic expressions. They are declarations of unity, distress signals from a community under pressure, and reminders that even in the coldest moments, literally and figuratively, Minnesotans refuse to be silent.

Alongside these visual symbols, something unexpected has emerged: a lighter, hopeful side of resistance. Minneapolis has been nominated for the Nobel Peace Prize, a recognition rooted in the city’s sustained commitment to nonviolent civic engagement and community healing. And at rallies across the Twin Cities, a singing resistance group has become a source of comfort and courage. Their harmonies—sometimes solemn, sometimes playful—cut through the tension and remind people that joy, too, is a form of defiance.

These expressions of solidarity interrupt the narrative of fear. They show that people are not powerless. They show that peaceful resistance can be bold, beautiful, and impossible to overlook. And they show that Minnesotans refuse to let fear define who we are.

So how do we fight the fear that ICE has instilled?

We begin by naming it honestly. Fear is not a sign of weakness. I is a rational response to state actions that violate norms and expectations. But fear cannot be allowed to dictate our future. We fight fear by refusing isolation. Fear grows in silence, but it shrinks when people gather, speak, and support one another. Community meetings, interfaith vigils, neighborhood networks, and cross‑cultural coalitions are not symbolic gestures—they are protective structures.

We also fight fear by insisting on the rule of law. Even when political institutions feel corrupted or overwhelmed, the principles remain: due process, judicial oversight, constitutional limits on state power. These are not abstract ideals; they are the safeguards that protect every person living in this country. When we defend these principles, we defend ourselves.

Most importantly, we fight fear by remembering who we are. Immigrants have always been part of the American story. We have contributed to the economy, enriched the culture, and strengthened the social fabric. We belong here—not because of paperwork, but because of the lives we have built and the communities we sustain.

The SOS and ICE OUT installations, the singing resistance group, and the global recognition of Minneapolis all capture this truth. They are reminders that even in moments of crisis, people can choose solidarity over silence. They are a testament to the resilience of communities who refuse to be intimidated. And they are a promise that we will continue to stand together.

Fear may be powerful, but it is not final. What is final is the courage we choose, the solidarity we build, and the justice we demand. Minnesota has survived many winters. We will survive this one too, not by hiding, but by standing together.

By SK Lo

Minnesota knows winter.

We know the sting of subzero wind, the way the cold settles into your bones, the way silence hangs over frozen streets. But this year, the winter around us is not only in the air. It is in our neighborhoods, workplaces, and collective sense of safety.

This is a different kind of Minnesota Winter.

Over the past several weeks, Minnesota has faced two simultaneous storms: the brutal cold snap that defines our geography, and the sudden, aggressive presence of federal ICE operations in Minneapolis and surrounding communities. ICE arrived under the stated purpose of addressing undocumented immigration and alleged public assistance fraud involving Somali families, a matter that Minnesota state agencies have been investigating for years.

But what has unfolded goes far beyond targeted enforcement.

In just weeks, two U.S. citizens: Renee Good and Alex Pretti were killed during ICE operations, according to local reporting and eyewitness accounts.

Another protester was injured during a confrontation with federal agents. Community organizations and civil rights attorneys have documented reports of:

• Home entries without judicial warrants
• People pulled from vehicles during traffic stops
• Arrests at workplaces and community centers
• Children and elders separated from family members

Across the Twin Cities, residents describe the same atmosphere: fear, confusion, and a sense that the rule of law has been replaced by something unpredictable and unchecked.

It is no surprise that people are afraid to leave their homes.

Local businesses have reported steep drops in foot traffic. Grocery stores and clinics have seen reduced activity.

Even farmers, many of whom traditionally vote Republican, have spoken out publicly against the brutality and lack of coordination they are witnessing.

When Minnesotans across the political spectrum raise the same alarm, something is deeply wrong.

The situation has been further inflamed by a public letter from U.S. Attorney General Pam Bondi accusing Minnesota of failing to uphold federal law.

Meanwhile, state officials including the Governor’s office and the Minnesota Department of Public Safety have stated that ICE has not coordinated operations with local law enforcement and may be violating constitutional protections.

The contradiction is stark. Minnesotans are left asking: Who is upholding the law? Who is protecting our rights?

And yet, in the middle of this fear, something remarkable happened.

On Friday, January 23rd, thousands of Minnesotans stepped out of their homes into the brutal –21°F wind to stand together and say, “ICE out of Minnesota.”

We were among them. Wrapped in scarves, holding signs with frozen fingers, we marched not because it was easy, but because silence felt impossible. The cold was punishing, but the determination was stronger.

Minnesotans have survived many harsh winters.

We have endured blizzards, ice storms, and weeks of temperatures that make the air itself dangerous. But this winter — this Minnesota Winter — is unlike any we have known. It is a winter of fear, of uncertainty, of constitutional questions that cut to the core of who we are as a nation.

And yet, even now, we hold onto something essential: the belief that winter cannot last forever.

Minnesotans know that beneath the ice, the ground remembers spring. We know that communities can come together in moments of crisis. We know that justice, though delayed, can still be demanded. And we know that the Constitution means to protect every person on this soil must not be abandoned in the cold.

This Minnesota Winter is testing us.
But it will not define us.
And it will not last.