Many observers see this as a sign of confusion, but Myers cautions against jumping to conclusions. “I think many people often underestimate Trump’s political instincts,” he points out. According to him, Trump sensed that the story about the “killer” would not hold after the release of the video, so he allowed his subordinates to change course while he himself remained in the background.
And so while Stephen Miller and Kristi Noem, the secretary of homeland security, were the most vocal in the first hours, they are now trying to shift responsibility for the botched response elsewhere. Miller claims he received bad information from Customs and Border Protection (CBP), Noem defends herself by saying she was just following orders, and the White House points the finger at Agent Commander Greg Bovin.
Loyalty over competence
According to Myers, Kristi Noem’s defense – “I was only doing what the president and Stephen Miller told me to do” – reveals a key change in the structure of the Republican Party. In the Trump era, loyalty has become more important than competence or truth.
“In the first Trump administration, we still saw people who were there for their technical skills, even though they might not agree with the president on everything. But those people didn’t last long,” analyzes Myers. “Today, the number one criterion is loyalty. We see it across the bureaucracy – people who are clearly unqualified for their positions are put in place simply because they are loyal,” he says.
But this shift has serious consequences for the functioning of the state. Institutions like the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), once considered relatively apolitical and technocratic, are turning into tools of partisan warfare. When DHS issues a statement about a “massacre” that turns out to be a lie within an hour, institutional trust is dealt a blow that may take years to recover from.
Many are therefore wondering whether someone will have to bear responsibility after such a fiasco. But Myers is skeptical and points to another dimension of Trump’s political psychology. “Getting rid of a member of the administration would be a sign of weakness and a form of apology. And Trump is not apologizing,” he explains.
Therefore, even if Republicans in Congress are calling for Noema’s resignation, for the president her dismissal would mean admitting that he himself made a mistake in choosing her. “I think if these challenges continue, it could become a big challenge for the party, but Trump’s instinct is to never back down,” adds Myers. In this system, loyalty is not only a ticket to get in, but also the best insurance against dismissal.
Myers therefore fears that this is the beginning of a long-term erosion of American institutions. “When the Democrats take power in the future, it will be very tempting for them to use the same tools against their opponents because the norm of neutrality has already been violated,” warns Myers.
According to Myers, the exception in this trend of unqualified loyalists is, paradoxically, the Border Patrol. Since this is a profession that naturally attracts people with a right-wing worldview, Trump manages to find people there who are both technically proficient and ideologically loyal to him. This also explains why field operations are so effective – and at the same time so controversial.
Minnesota under siege: Walz, Frey, and the silent resistance
Back in Minnesota, high politics translates into everyday fear. Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey found themselves in an unenviable situation. On the one hand, they face pressure from the public and their own Democratic base to crack down more forcefully against federal agents. On the other hand, their options are limited and the risk of further escalation is huge.
So the question is whether Walz or Frey should do more. “But they simply don’t have the resources to physically prevent federal agents from operating. Plus, any attempt at direct confrontation could lead to a dangerous escalation of the conflict,” Myers explains of the situation on the ground.
The atmosphere in the state is therefore tense. Parents are afraid to send their children to school, lest they become witnesses or victims of attacks. Communities create their own defense mechanisms – neighborhood patrols, warning systems. “There’s an occupation going on to some extent,” Myers says.
Despite this, or perhaps because of this, according to Myers, this crisis has a unifying effect on Democrats in the state. While Minnesota’s GOP hoped the urban chaos would help them in the upcoming midterms, the effect may be the opposite.
Myers points to Republican gubernatorial candidate Chris Madel, who has dropped out of the race, citing the party’s national policies as making it impossible to win in Minnesota. Moderate voters, whom the party desperately needs, however, are discouraged by brutality and chaos. Madel declared after his resignation that “he cannot support the declared retaliation of the national republicans against the citizens of our state”.
The Paradox of the Second Amendment
One of the most bizarre moments of the whole affair is the attitude of the Republican Party towards Alex Pretti’s gun. Pretti, who carried a gun legally, surprisingly also became the target of criticism from among supporters of the Second Amendment. At other times, they defend the right to bear arms to the last breath.
Why this sudden change? Myers attributes this to Donald Trump’s absolute control over the party. “Trump controls the Republican Party in a way that’s hard to describe. It allows him to maneuver on issues where other presidents would encounter resistance,” he explains.
According to him, a parallel exists in recent history – namely, during the administration of Barack Obama. “It may be an odd comparison, but the level of control that Trump has is reminiscent of Obama’s popularity among Democrats,” Myers says.
Many groups that were part of the Democratic coalition at the time were not happy with what Obama was doing on immigration. “Immigrant rights groups called Obama the ‘deporter-in-chief,’ but they didn’t dare to openly oppose him because he was too popular,” he describes. The same is true of pro-gun organizations and the anti-abortion movement, which have also not gotten everything they wanted from Trump. But now they are also silent, because going against Trump means political suicide.
What’s next?
The White House is trying to calm the situation by changing commanders – the controversial Bovin is being replaced by the “border tsar” Tom Homan. The administration presents it as a shift from blanket raids to targeted arrests. But Myers is skeptical: “So far we haven’t seen a real change in what’s happening on the streets. We’re waiting to see if the change in leadership will bring about a change in tactics, but for now it’s just rhetoric.”
The future thus remains uncertain. Myers sees two possible scenarios. At worst, there will be another escalation – another protester shot, or, conversely, an attack on a federal agent. “If one of these happens, the situation will get out of control,” he thinks.
However, a more likely scenario is a slow and silent withdrawal. “I think we’re going to see a gradual withdrawal of federal agents, probably as part of some kind of deal that the Trump administration can sell as a victory,” Myers concludes.
Until that happens, Minnesota remains in limbo. And America is watching the rules of politics change live, where truth is just another optional opinion and loyalty to the leader is the supreme law of the land.
