How Rhetoric, Accountability, and the Use of Force Intersect from Maine to Minnesota

As a Maine resident, my stance on the current administration has only strengthened. There is a constitutional need to uphold the law while holding the Department of Homeland Security and President Donald Trump’s Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents accountable for actions that raise serious constitutional concerns.

Support for Accountability

I stand with Maine Gov. Janet Mills in support of expelling ICE from the state. State leaders’ responses to ICE activity and statements made by the Department of Homeland Security on Wednesday, Jan. 21, have focused on requests for lawful action, including the removal of ICE from Maine. Mills requested documentation supporting federal claims. “Let’s see the docs. I’d be shocked if they found 1,400 people with criminal charges against them,” she said.

In response, Mills has pressed for the end of what she views as private policing, framing her stance as one rooted in accountability. Following the request for documentation, Mills also demanded a meeting with President Trump after ICE agents fatally shot a 37-year-old man in Minneapolis.

U.S. Rep. Chellie Pingree echoed those concerns in an open letter to Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem. “Referring to human beings as something to be caught in a net reflects a disconcerting disregard for human dignity and reinforces the perception that this operation was designed to intimidate and degrade rather than to uphold the law responsibly,” Pingree wrote.

The language used by the administration and the Department of Homeland Security has drawn scrutiny. Headlines such as “ICE Launches ‘Operation Catch of the Day’ Targeting the Worst of the Worst Criminal Illegal Aliens Across Maine” have been criticized for framing enforcement in sweeping terms. In the same reporting, Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin was quoted as saying, “Governor Mills and her fellow sanctuary politicians in Maine have made it abundantly clear that they would rather stand with criminal illegal aliens than protect law-abiding American citizens.”

Discrepancies and Concerns

NBC Boston reported that ICE cited the case of Elmara Correia, an Angolan native, stating she was “arrested previously for endangering the welfare of a child.” The outlet also reported that Maine court records showed a person with the same name was charged in 2023 with violating a law related to learner’s permits for new drivers, a case that was later dismissed. Those discrepancies have contributed to questions raised by Maine officials and residents regarding the accuracy and proportionality of federal claims.

On Wednesday, Correia challenged her detention and was granted a temporary emergency order barring authorities from transferring her from Massachusetts, where she is currently detained. Portland Mayor Mark Dion expressed concern that ICE has failed to distinguish arrests from convictions or to clarify whether sentences have been served. “Was she found not guilty, or are we just going to be satisfied that she was arrested?” Dion said.

Broader Implications in Minnesota

Those concerns are not limited to Maine. Mills is not the only state official to say, “We’ve reached out, we’ve asked questions. We have no answers.” Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz has posed similar questions to the Trump administration. “What’s the plan, Donald Trump? What is the plan?” Walz said. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem has maintained that ICE agents involved in the Minneapolis shooting acted in self-defense, while criticizing Democrats for what she described as a lack of cooperation with federal authorities.

Following the fatal shootings of Minnesota residents Renee Nicole Good, a mother of three and award-winning poet, and Alex Pretti, an ICU nurse, ICE operations have faced heightened scrutiny. Protests have accompanied recent ICE appearances across the United States. Walz disputed the federal account of Pretti’s shooting, citing video evidence that he said contradicts those claims. “We believe in law and order in this state; we believe in peace,” Walz said. “And we believe that Donald Trump needs to pull these 3,000 untrained agents out of Minnesota before they kill another person.”

Democratic strategist Arshad Hasan also weighed in, saying, “I don’t know why a government agency should get particular exemptions from due process when somebody is burdened. Homicide is a crime for which state and local law enforcement have jurisdiction.”

The Call for Justice

As Minnesota officials respond to a second killing in the state, CNN reported that federal officials have declined to answer key questions regarding the agent’s actions in the Minneapolis case. In a press conference, Walz urged the public to “put politics aside” and speak out against what he described as injustice. “You are allowed to decide that you aren’t with this anymore,” Walz said. “If you voted for this administration, even if you thought Operation Metro Surge was a good idea, you are still allowed to look at what’s happening here in Minnesota and say, ‘This isn’t what I voted for, and this isn’t what I want.’”

Rather than accepting any single narrative at face value, it is necessary to understand the legal standard governing when federal agents may use deadly force. In a recent CNN interview, senior legal analyst Elie Honig explained that lethal force should be used only as a last resort. Using the example of obstruction, Honig said, “If a person is obstructing, they can be physically moved using the least amount of force necessary. They can be charged with obstruction. It does not, however, open the door to assault or the use of lethal force.”

Honig also noted uncertainty surrounding the investigative process. “They’ve been unclear thus far about what investigation is happening, but what’s happening here is highly abnormal,” he said. Those concerns have prompted calls for caution when federal agents decline to cooperate with state authorities.

The Weight of Language in Enforcement

Viewed through this legal framework, the language used to describe enforcement operations takes on new weight. Campaigns such as “Operation Catch of the Day” do more than name an initiative—they signal how authority is exercised and how those targeted by it are perceived.

When the language of enforcement favors force over restraint, what remains is not a political debate, but a constitutional one.

In this context, I reflect on the importance of empathy and understanding in our discussions about law enforcement. The phrase "the use of force" resonates deeply with me, as it highlights the need for a careful balance between maintaining order and respecting human dignity.

-Destany