I survived a February 2024 assassination attempt with an IED outside my attorney general’s office, and that moment taught me how fragile public safety becomes when political passion tips into violence. This piece examines a growing culture that treats intimidation as expression, how local leaders in Minneapolis reacted to federal immigration enforcement, and why the rule of law must come first to protect churches, neighborhoods and everyday Americans.
An Antifa radical packed that device with nails and metal shrapnel meant to maim and kill, and if it had been placed a few feet closer the outcome would have been fatal. No one was injured, the perpetrator was caught, and still the attack revealed a terrifying tolerance for political violence that we cannot normalize. This is not just about one bomb; it is about a mindset that excuses terror when it serves an agenda.
We see the same instinct in political rhetoric that frames law enforcement as the enemy instead of the people who uphold the law. When leaders applaud or shrug at lawbreaking, they gift cover to agitators who escalate from chants to chaos. That escalation hits the vulnerable first: small business owners, worshippers and hard-working families who just want to live in peace.
In Minneapolis, a federal probe into widespread taxpayer fraud touched off enforcement actions, and the response from some civic leaders was to attack the agents doing the job. Mayor Frey reportedly told ICE to “get the f— out of Minneapolis.” On ABC’s “This Week,” Sen. Amy Klobuchar said, “My message is simple: [Immigration and Customs Enforcement] is making us not more safe, they’re making us less safe, and they need to get out of our state.” Those lines send a dangerous signal.
Angry rhetoric does not occur in a vacuum; it conditions behavior. When officials demonize enforcement, they give activists moral cover to confront, harass and sometimes terrorize people who are simply trying to do their jobs. This isn’t theory — it is a pattern that has already produced tragic outcomes and near-misses like the attack on my office.
Last month an unruly crowd stormed Cities Church during worship and terrorized families as the congregation tried to protect crying children. The incident was announced by participants as “Operation Pull-Up,” a planned tactic to confront Christians and disrupt religious practice. This was not civil dissent — it was targeted intimidation inside a house of worship, and it deserved swift condemnation and accountability.
Too often the media and some officials label these events “peaceful protest” and downplay the criminal acts that follow. That legal minimization matters because the FACE Act exists to address force used to “injure, intimidate or interfere” with religious freedom, and the law should be applied evenly. Selective enforcement erodes trust and fuels the belief among radicals that they can act without consequence.
The pattern stretches back to the civil unrest after George Floyd’s death, when incendiary language helped turn protests into riots that burned neighborhoods and destroyed livelihoods. The most harmed were ordinary people and small business owners, many of them immigrants and minorities, who watched their investments go up in smoke while chaos reigned. We cannot let history repeat itself under a different banner.
President Trump ran on a promise to restore commonsense immigration enforcement, and that promise includes holding accountable those who exploit federal programs. When fraud and corruption are uncovered, enforcement must proceed without political theater or moral grandstanding. That kind of resolve protects taxpayers and preserves the integrity of public programs.
Law-abiding citizens deserve leaders who will defend their rights and their safety, not leaders who curry favor with activists by excusing criminal behavior. The embrace of radical tactics never helps the most vulnerable; it only amplifies fear and drives away investment from neighborhoods that desperately need support. Sound governance requires consistent application of the law.
Having been targeted by politically motivated violence, I speak from personal experience when I say deterrence matters. Violent extremists will only change their calculations when they understand wrongdoing carries consequences, and that means prosecution, firm policing and political leadership that refuses to romanticize intimidation. The choice is stark: enable chaos or uphold the rule of law.
Those in positions of authority must decide whether they will enable mobs or stand with citizens who want peace and order. The stakes are real: more bombings, more stormed churches and more ruined communities if we let permissive rhetoric slide. I know which side I’m on.
