What is unfolding in Minneapolis is no longer only about illegal immigration. It is a stress test of American democracy, with consequences that reach far beyond a single city, a single state, or even a single country.

Two American citizens were killed following encounters with federal agents during protests that witnesses and video recordings show to have been peaceful. Neither had a criminal record. In both cases, senior federal officials applied the label “domestic terrorists” almost immediately, before any independent investigation had taken place and without presenting evidence to the public. In both cases as well, mobile phone footage tells a story that differs fundamentally from the official version.

As seen recently in the pressure exerted by the United States on Denmark over Greenland, American political stability is not a purely domestic matter. When democratic norms are weakened in Washington, the effects are felt near and far. Countries depend on the international system functioning properly and on major powers meeting their obligations. For countries such as Ireland, whose economic and security interests are closely tied to American stability, this erosion represents a practical and real risk.

Peaceful Protests

The streets of Minneapolis saw peaceful protests. The crowd chanted slogans. They criticised agents of the United States Border Patrol (CBP) and Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). They recorded events on their phones. These are all lawful activities protected under the First Amendment of the US Constitution.

Despite this, the video footage clearly shows federal agents responding with force. Pepper spray and tear gas were used. Batons were used. People were pushed to the ground, restrained with plastic ties, and taken into custody against their will, even though there was no evidence of physical attacks by the crowd.

The Killing of Alex Pretti

Federal officials initially claimed that Alex Pretti attacked federal agents while armed with a gun. The video evidence does not support this claim in any way.

Pretti was legally carrying a concealed firearm and had the required permits. He did not draw the weapon.

Pretti saw a woman in distress after an agent pushed her to the ground and sprayed her with pepper spray. He attempted to help her. Pretti himself was sprayed, forced to the ground by six or seven agents, struck by one agent, and had his firearm taken by another. Then, while lying defenceless on the ground, one agent fired shots at him, followed by another agent. He was hit ten times and died.

After the shooting, the scene was not secured in accordance with standard investigative procedures. The agents left without preserving the site or securing evidence.

Pretti was participating in a peaceful protest, activity protected under the First Amendment. He was lawfully armed under state law and under what he reasonably understood to be lawful under the Second Amendment. On that basis, the video footage raises serious questions about the necessity and proportionality of the lethal force used.

The Killing of Nicole Good

The death of Nicole Good followed a similar pattern. She was killed after agents attempted to remove her from her car as she tried to leave. Without any independent investigation, it was officially stated that she was a terrorist, before the facts were publicly examined.

Once again, video footage and eyewitness accounts reveal a clear gap between official statements and what is visible. As in Pretti’s case, federal authorities refused to allow an independent investigation by state agencies or the FBI, asserting that an internal review alone would suffice. As is widely understood, accountability cannot exist when those who use force investigate themselves.

Smartphones

Smartphones have now become one of the most important democratic tools of the modern era. They expose contradictions between official statements and what can be seen in video recordings. They allow the public to witness events for themselves and reach their own conclusions, without relying solely on official accounts.

Minnesota Governor Tim Walz has urged people to carry their phones at all times and to record interactions with federal agents. This is a lawful act. Such recordings create a permanent record that can later be examined by courts, legislators, journalists, and the public.

Authority Without Accountability

In both deaths, federal authorities refused to permit independent investigations. At the same time, Governor Walz and the Mayor of Minneapolis are under investigation after declining to cooperate with CBP and ICE, arguing that state authority and civil rights were being violated.

If these practices continue without challenge, they are likely to expand. Other cities could be affected. Federal agents could be deployed during election periods, placing pressure on voters under the pretext of security. The erosion of civil liberties rarely remains confined to one location.

Authoritarian regimes in Germany, the Soviet Union, and China did not begin with mass killings. They began by portraying dissenters as enemies and demanding obedience in the name of order.

Response

The American public is not powerless. Peaceful protests can be organised. Votes can be cast in elections. Phones can record events. Pressure can be applied to elected representatives, and accountability demanded.

The international community also has a role. Recent US attempts at geopolitical coercion, including pressure related to Greenland, showed that coordinated resistance can work. Unified responses from the European Union and Canada demonstrated what democratic solidarity looks like, without resorting to threats or escalation.

It is now clear that the international system is changing. In light of these developments, it is reasonable for smaller countries to reassess their dependencies and future strategies, while keeping a close watch on the defence of democratic norms.

At daybreak on January 3, 2026, in Caracas, Venezuela, the operation came to a rapid end. The helicopters lifted off. Nicolás Maduro was taken into custody in the United States (USA).

Various explanations emerged over the weekend.

First, on television, Marco Rubio argued that the morning raid was not a war, but an operation specifically aimed at executing an arrest warrant. In this version of the story, the US army merely provided protection to Department of Justice officials as they went about their work.

A few hours later, aboard Air Force One, President Donald Trump gave another explanation. He said that the United States would be "running" Venezuela for a while. American oil companies would move in. The infrastructure would be repaired. Elections would come later.

Rubio’s story and Trump’s story were contradicting each other.

In Caracas, Maduro’s inner circle remained in place. The acting President of Venezuela, Delcy Rodríguez, asked the US to collaborate together.

In 2024, it was widely believed that opposition candidate Edmundo González won a contentious election against the incumbent, Maduro. An exit poll published by the American firm Edison Research showed González leading Maduro 65% to 31%. However, Maduro claimed victory, and González was forced to seek exile in Spain.

González stood in the 2024 election because the opposition leader, María Corina Machado, had been banned from being a candidate. Machado earned international acclaim last year when she was awarded the Nobel Peace Prize.

Shortly after the US operation on Saturday, Machado called on González to "immediately assume his constitutional mandate and be recognized as commander-in-chief." In a statement, Machado said her movement would "restore order, free political prisoners, build an exceptional country and bring our children back home."

Ina phreasagallamh féin, áfach, chaith Trump drochmheas ar mhaíomh fhreasúra Veiniséala chun na cumhachta. Nuair a ceistíodh é go díreach faoi Machado, dúirt Trump le tuairisceoirí: “Ceapaim go mbeadh sé an-deacair di a bheith ina ceannaire. Níl an tacaíocht aici, níl meas uirthi laistigh den tír.”

Police operation or armed robbery?

That raises a question: What plan did the Trump administration have in the first place? The same rotten regime is still in place, and Trump is against putting the winners of the 2024 presidential election in charge of the country, as he ought to do. Therefore, it is hard to see a coordinated US government strategy, which is a cause for concern for us all.

Rubio’s "police operation" tried to keep the raid within known legal boundaries. If it was law enforcement, there is no need to consult the US Congress. International law could be bypassed. The action would be unusual but constrained.

Trump’s explanation blew that approach apart. Running another country to reopen its oil wells is not law enforcement; it is occupation by another name, even if troops do not remain on the ground. In the US government, silence reigned, with Democrats who demanded Congressional oversight overruled by Republicans kowtowing to the Trump regime.

For many years, the post-war system relied on the US as an exemplar regarding compliance with international rules. When the United States used force before, it was in cooperation with its allies and yielding to international agreements.

Operation Absolute Resolve went against those long-established norms. In Venezuela, paralysis is the immediate result. A leader removed from office. A regime left behind. An opposition in exile. An occupying power that insists it is not occupying anything.

Cause for concern in other countries

In other countries, analysis followed quickly after the American operations. An attempt was made to explain this sudden change, not only in terms of the impact on themselves, but on the international order that is now clearly being violated by the US.

In Havana, Cuban state media reported that numerous Cuban security personnel were killed during the raid, confirming what Washington had long claimed: that Cuba was supporting the protection of the Maduro regime.

In Bogotá, Colombia, officials watched the increase in US warships and aircraft with worry. Trump has openly threatened Colombian President Gustavo Petro, accusing him of exporting cocaine to the United States.

In Copenhagen, Prime Minister Mette Frederiksen issued a statement urging the United States to "stop the threats" as Trump reiterated that he needs to acquire Greenland, for security reasons. Greenland, she said, was not for sale.

Trump had spoken about Greenland before. But after what he did in Venezuela, Denmark and Greenland realized that a serious threat was now involved. In Nuuk, the Prime Minister of Greenland wrote online that the rhetoric was "completely unacceptable." It was wrong, he wrote, to link Greenland with Venezuela.

In Brussels, European officials emphasized a distinction. Denmark was one of the founding members of NATO in 1949, along with 11 other countries, including the US. Venezuela is not part of that organization. Different rules apply to NATO, as it is an alliance. There would be major problems if the US took possession of a NATO member state, and there is a high chance NATO would not survive such a serious violation.

Canada was also keeping an eye on matters. Trump has already spoken carelessly about Canada as "the 51st state," a statement once accepted as an inconsequential dispute. After Caracas, however, the Canadian government must pay more serious attention to that threat.

Serious implications

This does not mean American troops will be on the ground in Greenland, Colombia, or Canada tomorrow. That is not how these changes work. But this saber-rattling is just the first step down that road. Therefore, weak countries under threat try to protect themselves by establishing new alliances with parties stronger than themselves. Allies re-examine their relationship with any country that violates international rules.

Competitors notice that they have a stronger argument for violating international rules too. With that new outlook, the invasion of Ukraine looks more acceptable. An invasion of Taiwan would be the same as an invasion of Venezuela. When international agreements regarding state sovereignty break down, everything is at risk. World affairs become much more uncertain and dangerous. The risks of war are raised in general, and that is not a good thing.

Big questions to answer

In Washington, there are big questions to answer. What is Operation Absolute Resolve? What are the milestones of the operation? Are other operations coming?

This confusion is part of the international environment. From Caracas to Havana, from Bogotá to Copenhagen, governments are getting used to not just American policy, but the inconsistency associated with multiple policies that are at odds with each other. That can only end badly. Sooner or later, the co-equal branch of the US government known as Congress must exercise its constitutional powers instead of sitting back and yielding all its power to the president and his friends.

The sooner the better.