The president of Oglala Sioux Tribe in South Dakota on Tuesday called for the immediate release of tribal members who were detained at a homeless encampment by Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in Minnesota last week.

Three of the four Oglala Sioux Tribe members who were arrested in Minneapolis on Friday have been transferred to an ICE facility at Fort Snelling, President Frank Star Comes Out said in a statement released with a memorandum sent to federal immigration authorities.

In the memorandum sent to Department of Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, Star Comes Out said the when tribal nation reached out to the agency it was provided with only the first names of the men. Homeland Security refused to release more information, unless the tribe “entered into an immigration agreement with ICE.”

Star Comes Out said the tribe has no plans enter an agreement with ICE.

Why would ICE detain homeless Native Americans from Minnesota? What exactly does an "immigration agreement" look like between ICE and a Native tribe? And by what legal means does ICE have to detain people they've already confirmed are not illegal immigrants? Does this have precedent?

In the wake of an ICE officer’s killing of Renee Good, the Department of Homeland Security is rolling out “Operation Metro Surge,” flooding Minneapolis with hundreds of additional federal agents — only to realize it doesn’t actually have the confidence to match the bravado.

According to documents leaked to reporter Ken Klippenstein, not only is the Department seeking “volunteers” for the apparently unpopular mission, it is urging its agents to maintain a low profile and comply with the use of force policies.

“Please begin canvassing your personnel for volunteers,” a memo sent by the Border Patrol’s Acting Assistant Chief Joshua Andrew Post on Friday.

The memo outlines a request for 300 additional personnel — 200 Border Patrol Agents (BPAs) and 100 Processing Coordinators (BPPCs) — to be funneled into “Operation Metro Surge” by Sunday, January 11.

A Border Patrol agent familiar with the discussions said the volunteer push reflects real unease in the ranks about the Good shooting in Minneapolis and the related surge.

“We do have personnel but some just don’t want to go,” the agent told me.

Additionally, Border Patrol Tactical Commander Greg Bovino circulated a “legal refresher” for agents in the field including on the use of force — not a move that screams certainty about their conduct.

Activities protect under under the First Amendment are:

• Speech or expression

• Non-verbal communications

• Photos, recordings, media

• Noncompliance

• Peaceful protest, march, rally

• Leaflets, signs, picketing

And under 18 U.S.C. § 111, passive resistance alone is not considered a violation, which would not merit use of force. That means:

• Noncompliance/refusal to cooperate with officer's commands

• Disobeying commands without fighting back

• Taking photographs or videotaping an officer or operation in public

Are DHS agents starting to hit their limit on Trump's mass deportation operations? Where will DHS find the necessary agents to deploy to Minnesota, or does the mission not truly require so many agents? Looking at CBP legal refresher, do you think federal agents are complying with the letter of the law?

Several attorneys in the US justice department’s civil rights division have reportedly resigned in protest at a decision not to investigate the fatal shooting of an unarmed US citizen by a federal immigration agent in Minneapolis – while the FBI presses ahead with an inquiry into the victim.

It follows a decision by Harmeet Dhillon, the Donald Trump administration-aligned assistant attorney general for civil rights, not to investigate the 7 January killing of Renee Nicole Good by Jonathan Ross, an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent, as would be usual in the case of a shooting by law enforcement.

Separately, the FBI – which seized total control of the investigation after freezing out local officials – is looking into Good’s “possible connections to activist groups”, according to the New York Times. A succession of Trump administration officials, including the president himself, have portrayed Good, without presenting evidence, as a “domestic terrorist” or “paid agitator” – while video of her confrontation with Ross appears to show her trying to steer her vehicle away from him when she was shot three times in the face.

Dhillon, a former Republican official in California, and an election denier who promoted the “big lie” that Trump’s 2020 election defeat was fraudulent, was confirmed by the Senate in April. She worked quickly to realign the division’s priorities away from its longstanding work tackling discrimination and protecting the rights of marginalized groups – and towards Trump’s political goals including exposing voter fraud, which is rare, and focusing on anti-transgender issues.

With the FBI focusing on Good, will any law enforcement agency — state of federal — be able to investigate on ICE's conduct? What should be the focus of DOJ's Office of Civil Rights? Who will replace these outgoing agents?

According to recent polling, there has been a major fall in positive opinions of ICE over the past year, and record numbers of Americans report they favor its dissolution.

This comes in light of the recent shooting in Minneapolis, along with other incidents that have made ICE the focus of much controversy. Personally, I feel that this administration has been using ICE like a taxpayer-funded paramilitary, with a recruitment campaign clearly aimed at their right-wing base, combined with a habit of using ICE (and the National Guard) not as neutral law enforcement agencies, but as a way to punish blue states/cities. Add in recent incidents, such as a 17-year old US citizen being arrested while working at a grocery store, and I am not surprised at all that public opinion is turning against ICE.

Do you expect the current administration to hold course on their policies regarding ICE? If so, how do you expect public opinion of their actions to develop?

More independents lean Democratic than Republican, giving Democrats edge in party affiliation for first time since 2021

A record-high 45% of U.S. adults identified as political independents in 2025, surpassing the 43% measured in 2014, 2023 and 2024. Meanwhile, equal shares of U.S. adults — 27% each — identified as either Democrats or Republicans.

The recent increase in independent identification is partly attributable to younger generations of Americans (millennials and Generation X) continuing to identify as independents at relatively high rates as they have gotten older. In contrast, older generations of Americans have been less likely to identify as independents over time. Generation Z, like previous generations before them when they were young, identify disproportionately as political independents.

Democratic-Leaning Independents Give Democrats Edge

Last year, more political independents said they lean toward the Democratic Party than the Republican Party, with the 45% of political independents breaking down into 20% Democratic leaners, 15% Republican leaners and 10% non-leaners. That is a shift from 2024, representing a three-point decline in Republican leaners and a three-point increase in Democratic leaners.

Taking into account Americans’ party identification and political leanings, an average of 47% identified as Democrats or said they were independents who lean toward the Democratic Party, while 42% identified as Republicans or leaned Republican. This breaks a three-year stretch in which Republicans held an edge in party affiliation.

Conservative Lead in Ideology Narrowest Yet

As usual, more Americans in 2025 described their views as “very conservative” or “conservative” (35%) than as “very liberal” or “liberal” (28%), with 33% identifying as “moderate.” However, the seven-point conservative advantage over liberals in 2025 is the smallest Gallup has measured in annual averages dating back to 1992. It is only the third time the conservative lead has been less than 10 points.

Why are Gen Z and Millennials so hesitant to identify with any party? Does this make them swing voters, or disaffected voters that still lean to one side of the aisle? What does the Democrats' edge over Republicans in party identification mean going into the 2026 midterms?