As federal immigration enforcement expands across Minnesota, a growing number of legal scholars and political scientists are warning that the state now resembles the early stages of civil conflict modeled in recent US civil war simulations. The convergence of mass federal deployments, alleged unlawful violence, threats to invoke extraordinary presidential powers, and preparations by state authorities has prompted experts to argue that the country may be approaching a dangerous and unprecedented threshold.
Central to these warnings is a tabletop exercise conducted in October 2024 by the Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law at the University of Pennsylvania Carey Law School. The exercise explored how a domestic armed conflict could unfold if a US president carried out a deeply unpopular law enforcement operation and attempted to override state authority. Claire Finkelstein, a professor at the law school and director of the center, wrote that the scenario bears striking resemblance to current developments in Minnesota.
“In that exercise, a president carried out a highly unpopular law-enforcement operation in Philadelphia and attempted to federalize the Pennsylvania’s National Guard,” Finkelstein explained. “When the governor resisted and the guard remained loyal to the state, the president deployed active-duty troops, resulting in an armed conflict between state and federal forces.”
Finkelstein warned that Minnesota is now uncomfortably close to that trajectory. Since January 6, roughly 2,000 federal agents from Immigration and Customs Enforcement have been deployed to the state under the stated pretext of responding to a fraud investigation. According to the Guardian column authored by Finkelstein, these agents are “largely untrained and undisciplined” and have engaged in widespread uses of force against Minneapolis residents, including US citizens.
In the past week alone, ICE agents shot and killed Renee Good, a 37-year-old mother of three, shortly after she returned from dropping her child off at school. Federal agents also blinded two protesters by shooting them in the face with so-called “less deadly” weapons. They fired teargas bombs around a car carrying six children, sending one child to the emergency room with breathing problems. Additional incidents described include protesters shot in the legs, a woman violently dragged from her car onto the ground while screaming, and the forcible detention of thousands of people, separating families and placing individuals into legal limbo without regard to their legal status.
Rather than opening an investigation into the killing of Good or the conduct of the officers involved, the Justice Department has opened a criminal investigation into Minnesota Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, accusing them of conspiring to impede federal agents. Good’s widow is also under investigation. According to Finkelstein, six US attorneys in Minnesota resigned in protest over the move.
As outrage has grown, the Trump administration has escalated its posture. One thousand additional ICE agents have been sent to Minnesota, and federal officials have announced what they describe as “absolute immunity” for ICE officers. A federal judge has attempted to place limits on the agency’s actions, but Finkelstein warned that judicial intervention may not be able to halt escalation in time.
“We concluded that in a fast-moving emergency of this magnitude, courts would probably be unable or unwilling to intervene in time, leaving state officials without meaningful judicial relief,” Finkelstein wrote. “State officials might file emergency motions to enjoin the use of federal troops, but judges would either fail to respond quickly enough or decline to rule on what they view as a ‘political question,’ leaving the conflict unresolved.”
Finkelstein identified Judge Menendez’s ruling as potentially the last meaningful opportunity for judicial intervention before the situation spirals beyond civilian control.
Minnesota state officials have taken visible steps in response. Governor Walz has placed the Minnesota National Guard on standby to support local law enforcement. At the same time, President Donald Trump has threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act, an extraordinary step that would grant him sweeping authority to deploy the military on US soil and potentially bypass recent Supreme Court limits on domestic troop use.
The Pentagon has also readied the Army’s 11th Airborne Division, roughly 1,500 active-duty soldiers, in connection with the administration’s threat. Finkelstein warned that this creates a risk of violent confrontation between state and federal forces in a major American city.
Political scientist Steve Saideman of Carleton University in Ottawa argued that the current situation may be even more volatile than the scenario modeled in the simulation. Writing on Bluesky, Saideman warned that the United States is “hours or days away from civil war.”
“This might sound extreme,” he wrote, “but if Walz has the Minnesota National Guard blocking ICE operations, the usual response of the federal government to governors using National Guard against feds is to call out the Army.” He added, “What happens if the Army confronts Minnesota National Guard? We have no idea. But one real possibility is: bam.”
Saideman emphasized that repeated crises increase the likelihood of escalation. “If we keep having these crises, one of them is going to get really ugly,” he said. “Crises under Trump are street cars—there is always another one coming along. We have gotten lucky thus far, but if a citizen shoots at ICE or if the Minnesota National Guard tussles with ICE, things may escalate very quickly.”
Beyond the immediate risk of armed confrontation, Finkelstein’s analysis raised concerns about the legality of potential military orders. She warned that senior military leaders could face directives to use force against state National Guard units and against unarmed civilians. Any domestic deployment of federal troops must comply with the Department of Defense’s Rules for the Use of Force and the Constitution, including the Bill of Rights. Even under the Insurrection Act, federal troops may not lawfully shoot protesters unless they are defending their lives against an imminent threat.
Finkelstein also argued that it is not legal for federal troops to back up ICE agents who are behaving unlawfully, and that US service members are obligated by their oath to refuse patently illegal orders. That obligation, she wrote, is now under pressure. Senator Mark Kelly is currently under investigation by the Pentagon for publicly reminding service members that they may, and in some cases must, refuse illegal orders.
In a separate New York Times column, Lydia Polgreen framed the Minnesota operation as something far more severe than routine enforcement. “It might not yet be a civil war, but what the White House has called Operation Metro Surge is definitely not just—or even primarily—an immigration enforcement operation,” Polgreen wrote. “It is an occupation designed to punish and terrorize anyone who dares defy this incursion and, by extension, Trump’s power to wield limitless force against any enemy he wishes.”
Taken together, the expert assessments describe a rapidly narrowing path away from escalation. Minnesota has become a focal point where federal authority, state resistance, judicial limitations, and military readiness are converging in precisely the manner civil war simulations have long identified as a precursor to broader conflict.
As Finkelstein warned, Minnesota may now be testing whether constitutional limits on domestic military force still hold, or whether the United States is approaching a line from which it cannot easily return.
COMMENTS