WASHINGTON, D.C. – A fresh clash over federal immigration enforcement is brewing after U.S. President Donald Trump accused Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey of breaking the law by not having city officials help enforce federal immigration rules.

Trump claimed in a Truth Social post on January 28, 2026, adding more pressure to the ongoing dispute between the administration and cities with sanctuary-style policies.

Trump’s post came after Mayor Frey repeated that Minneapolis won’t take on federal immigration enforcement. Trump wrote: “Surprisingly, Mayor Jacob Frey just stated that, ‘Minneapolis does not, and will not, enforce Federal Immigration Laws.’

This is after having had a very good conversation with him. Could somebody in his inner sanctum please explain that this statement is a very serious violation of the Law, and that he is PLAYING WITH FIRE!”

Frey’s comments reflect Minneapolis’ long-standing approach. Under city policy, local police don’t take part in federal immigration enforcement unless it connects to a criminal matter. Frey made his remarks after meeting with Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, who has been leading expanded ICE activity in the Minneapolis area.

On X (formerly Twitter), Frey argued that city officers should focus on public safety, like stopping homicides, instead of “hunting down a working dad who contributes to MPLS & is from Ecuador.”

Trump hinted there could be consequences if Minneapolis didn’t cooperate, but he didn’t list any specific steps. Still, the message lines up with his broader push to target sanctuary cities and other places that limit help for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).

Trump and Minneapolis’s Sanctuary-Style Policies

Minneapolis has used sanctuary-leaning rules for years, and they’ve been reinforced under Frey and the city council. In most cases, city workers can’t ask about immigration status. The city also limits when local jails can hold someone for ICE through detainers, unless there’s a judicial warrant.

Supporters say these rules build trust with immigrant communities. They believe people are more likely to report crimes or talk to police when they don’t fear deportation.

Tensions grew in early 2026 as the Trump administration increased ICE deployments in Minnesota, with a focus on the Twin Cities. Reports describe multiple incidents tied to these operations, including fatal shootings involving ICE personnel. Those events sparked protests and lawsuits that claim excessive force and constitutional violations.

Frey has said the federal actions are hurting community safety and wants the operations to end quickly. He has also said he’s open to continued talks with Homan, but he won’t change the city’s core policy of not helping with routine immigration enforcement.

The Legal Fight: Can the Federal Government Force Local Help?

Legal experts have challenged Trump’s claim that Frey is violating federal law. They point to the anti-commandeering doctrine, which says the federal government can’t force state or local officials to carry out federal programs.

The Supreme Court backed that idea in Printz v. United States (1997). In that case, Justice Antonin Scalia wrote that Washington can’t compel state and local officers to enforce federal regulatory schemes.

Under that view, Minneapolis doesn’t have to commit its own staff or funding to support ICE in civil immigration cases. The city’s policies don’t block federal agents from acting on their own. They mainly say the city won’t provide extra help.

Critics of the administration say Trump’s post ignores settled constitutional limits. Supporters argue that refusing to cooperate weakens public safety and national security.

Vice President JD Vance and other allies have echoed the criticism online, also targeting Minnesota Governor Tim Walz for resisting the federal push. Frey pushed back on social media, comparing his position to policies once supported by former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani.

What This Means for the Wider Immigration Debate

The dispute shows the deep divide between Trump’s aggressive deportation agenda and Democratic-led cities that support protective local rules. As ICE operations continue, along with town halls, protests, and court fights, the situation highlights how hard it is to run nationwide immigration enforcement without strong local support.

Some observers say Trump has sometimes signaled he wants to cool things down, including after talks with Frey and Walz. His latest post suggests that tone may not last if Minneapolis doesn’t shift course.

For many Minneapolis residents, especially in neighborhoods with large immigrant populations, the issue goes beyond enforcement. It also affects trust in law enforcement and the sense of stability in daily life.

As this plays out, the struggle between federal power and local control remains a central political fight, and Minneapolis is now a major testing ground.

Related News:

President Trump Addresses ICE Actions Amid Minnesota Unrest

SACRAMENTO – California Governor Gavin Newsom is facing a new round of pushback after a state appellate court ruling that pauses parts of local rent control enforcement. Housing advocates, tenant groups, and political rivals say the decision adds more confusion to California’s housing affordability crisis; at the same time, rents keep climbing in major cities like Los Angeles, San Francisco, and San Diego.

The ruling comes out of a long-running case brought by the California Apartment Association (CAA) against Pasadena’s rent stabilization ordinance. At the center is a set of landlord duties tied to rent increases, including required relocation assistance in certain cases.

The court order blocks some of those requirements when they apply to units that are exempt from local rent limits. Critics say that it undercuts tenant protections when many renters already feel squeezed.

In late December 2025, the California Court of Appeals agreed with the CAA on key issues. The court said a city can’t require relocation payments that are triggered by lawful rent increases on housing that is exempt from those rent controls under state law. That includes certain newer buildings and many single-family homes.

Even though this case focuses on Pasadena, the impact could spread. Other cities, including Los Angeles, have rules that connect relocation benefits to rent increases. The decision puts those policies under pressure and brings the ongoing tension into focus, local tenant protections on one side and state preemption rules on the other.

Newsom has long positioned himself as supportive of renters. He signed the Tenant Protection Act (AB 1482) in 2019, which created statewide limits on rent increases for many units and added just-cause eviction rules.

Now critics argue his broader approach, including efforts to boost housing supply near transit, hasn’t kept up with legal challenges and local resistance. Tenant advocates see the ruling as a sign that rent stability tools are getting weaker. Landlord groups call it a needed check on city overreach that can discourage rental housing investment.

Who Gains and Who Gets Hit in California

Winners: Landlords and property owners in strict rent control cities

Landlords, especially in cities with stronger local rent control rules, appear to benefit most. By limiting relocation assistance requirements tied to rent hikes on exempt units, the ruling can lower costs for property owners.

The CAA, which represents apartment owners and managers, praised the decision as a win for property rights. Small and mid-sized landlords may also see it as relief, after years of COVID-era restrictions and rising costs for insurance, repairs, and maintenance.

Losers: Renters facing higher rents and fewer relocation supports

Renters in affected cities could lose an important safety net. In Los Angeles, where average rents have risen in recent months, and vacancies remain tight, tenants may see fewer relocation benefits when rent increases push them out of a unit that’s exempt from local limits.

Tenant groups say the decision chips away at protections shaped by the Costa-Hawkins Rental Housing Act and AB 1482. AB 1482 limits annual rent increases for covered units to 5 percent plus local inflation, up to a maximum of 10 percent.

Many homes are already exempt, including newer construction and many single-family properties. Critics worry the ruling invites more legal attacks on local tenant safeguards.

Why Critics Say This Could Make Housing Less Affordable

Progressive housing groups and some Democratic lawmakers argue the ruling could speed up displacement in places where rents already outpace wage growth. They point to research and local experience that weaker tenant protections often line up with more forced moves and higher rent burdens.

They also argue that without strong relocation requirements, landlords may have an easier path to move out long-term tenants and reset rents closer to market rates. Over time, that can shrink the supply of lower-cost rentals.

The timing adds to the concern. Efforts to expand statewide rent protections have struggled. Assembly Bill 1157, which would have lowered the rent cap to 5 percent total (2 percent plus inflation), extended protections to more single-family homes and accessory dwelling units, and removed AB 1482’s 2030 sunset, did not move forward in early 2026 after earlier setbacks.

Voters have also rejected broader rent control expansions through Proposition 10 (2018), Proposition 21 (2020), and Proposition 33 (2024), making major changes harder to pass.

Rents Keep Climbing in Los Angeles, San Francisco, and Beyond

Rent pressure hasn’t eased. In Los Angeles, some local adjustments are set to lower caps to 4 percent in certain cases starting February 2026, but in many counties, rent increases are still approaching AB 1482 limits. San Francisco and Oakland have also reported higher rents, tied to limited new construction, a rebound in parts of the tech economy, and continued investor activity.

Newsom highlighted some of those issues in his January 2026 State of the State address. He proposed steps aimed at corporate landlords and large investor purchases of single-family homes, including possible new rules to curb institutional buying.

Critics say the court ruling lands in the middle of a tough cycle. If investor rules tighten, some argue that new supply could slow. If local protections weaken at the same time, renters could be exposed to more risk.

What Could Happen Next in the Pasadena Case

The Pasadena dispute may not be over. While the appellate court ruled for the CAA on major points, the case could still move to the California Supreme Court. As of now, no further appeal has been filed.

The bigger story may be what follows in other cities. The ruling may encourage landlord groups to challenge local ordinances that collide with state law. Tenant organizations may respond with their own legal efforts or push lawmakers to clarify what cities can require around relocation assistance.

Possible Policy Paths for Newsom and State Lawmakers

Newsom and the Legislature still have options to support renters without inviting more legal setbacks. Possible approaches include:

• Tougher enforcement of AB 1482, backed by clearer rules and more funding for tenant legal aid.
• New limits on large corporate ownership, including tax changes or restrictions aimed at entities that own thousands of homes.
• Faster housing production near transit, including policies tied to SB 79, which expands transit-oriented development allowances starting mid-2026, even as some local leaders push back.
• Local incentives for affordable housing, using targeted exemptions or funding to help add below-market units and reduce rent pressure.

Big changes remain difficult in a divided political environment, especially after multiple statewide votes rejected rent control expansion.

What Renters and Landlords Should Track in the Next Few Weeks

For renters

Pay close attention to rent increase notices, especially in February and March 2026, when many annual adjustments take effect. Watch for changes to relocation benefits in places like Pasadena and Los Angeles. Tenant groups recommend keeping records of landlord messages and getting legal help if rent increases appear to exceed AB 1482 limits or if an eviction looks improper. It’s also smart to follow any emergency action from the governor tied to corporate ownership.

For landlords

Continue to follow AB 1482 rules and any new 2026 requirements, including updates tied to habitability and property standards such as working appliances (AB 628) and disaster cleanup responsibilities (SB 610). Track any appeals in the Pasadena case and watch for copycat challenges that could affect relocation obligations across California. Property managers should also stay alert for new proposals tied to rent cap extensions or corporate landlord rules.

California’s housing crisis isn’t slowing down. With homelessness still high and many families leaving expensive areas, this court ruling highlights the fragile balance between tenant protections and property rights. How Newsom responds, through policy changes, enforcement, or new housing proposals, will shape what affordability looks like for millions of renters in 2026.

Related News:

Tesla’s Strategic Retreat From California Due to Red Tape, Costs, and Taxes 

DAVOS – In a scene that rattled the calm, polished mood of the World Economic Forum, President Donald J. Trump delivered a clear break with the post-Cold War global order. Speaking in Davos in January 2026, he returned to the mountain gathering with a blunt claim: the globalist project didn’t work for the people it promised to serve.

For years, many political and media voices treated borders as outdated, national identity as a problem to solve, and mass migration as proof of progress. Offshoring was sold as harmless, energy reliance was brushed aside, and social unity often came last behind economic theory. Trump’s message pushed back hard, saying the West is done chasing that promise.

The setting made the contrast sharper. Davos, with its luxury chalets and private jets, usually runs on polite talk about shared goals and global cooperation. Trump arrived with an unfiltered America First pitch.

Tariffs are back. Borders are back. Energy independence is back. And the idea that ordinary workers should pay the price for global integration is under open challenge.

The Globalist Promise, and the Backlash

For decades, leaders across much of the West sold globalization as a rising tide. Trade deals spread, supply chains stretched across continents, and borders were treated more like obstacles than protections.

Public officials and policy experts said moving factories to lower-cost countries would lower prices, while immigration would drive innovation and strengthen aging economies. Energy supply was expected to sort itself out through markets. Social strain from fast demographic change was often dismissed as temporary.

Many communities experienced something else. In parts of the American Rust Belt, in Britain’s post-industrial towns, and across Europe, people watched plants shut down and wages stall. Some areas faced growing tension tied to migration levels that outpaced local capacity to absorb change. The biggest wins often landed in large coastal cities, tech corridors, and finance centers. Smaller towns and working-class regions carried more of the disruption.

That gap between promise and daily life helped fuel public anger. Rising populism didn’t appear out of nowhere. It followed years of frustration over lost jobs, weakened local institutions, and a sense that leaders listened more to global conferences than to their own voters.

Trump used his Davos appearance to name that divide in plain terms. GB News reported that he “terrified” the room by saying globalisation is over. His core point was that the globalist experiment failed on multiple fronts.

He tied it to economic damage from hollowed-out industry, social stress from weakened community ties, and cultural strain from eroded national identity. In its place, he argued for basics that governments once treated as normal: protect key jobs, control borders, and stop depending on foreign energy suppliers.

Trump Tariffs, Border Control, and Energy Security

A major part of Trump’s message focused on tariffs as a tool of national policy. For years, free-trade advocates treated tariffs as outdated and harmful. Trump framed them as a way to protect domestic industry, especially when competing nations subsidize production or tilt the field through currency practices.

His approach signals less interest in the old WTO-style mindset and more interest in deals where the United States pushes its own terms.

Border enforcement also took center stage. For a long time, mass migration was described as both inevitable and good. Those who raised concerns about integration, wage pressure, or cultural cohesion were often labeled intolerant and shut down.

Trump’s position puts sovereignty back at the front, saying nations have the right and the duty to decide who enters, how many, and under what rules. He presents it as self-defense, not isolation.

Energy independence formed the third pillar. Trump argued that heavy reliance on foreign oil and gas leaves economies exposed, especially when hostile governments can squeeze supplies or influence prices.

His push for domestic production includes support for drilling, pipelines, and other sources that reduce dependence. The message was simple: energy security comes first, and policy should protect households and businesses from price shocks and foreign pressure.

How Davos Reacted, and What It Could Mean

The crowd in Davos is used to smoother language about “stakeholder capitalism” and broad cooperation. Trump’s tone landed differently. Some European leaders warned about the risks of trade conflict. Others appeared more cautious, as if they recognized the shift but didn’t want to say so publicly.

GB News commentator Matthew Goodwin highlighted the moment by saying Trump “said the quiet part out loud,” pointing to economic, social, and cultural failures tied to the globalist model. That framing captures why the speech drew attention beyond the room.

In the United States, the address reinforced Trump’s support among voters who feel left behind by past trade and immigration policy. It also raised alarms for corporate leaders tied to global supply chains and for political figures who still favor the older consensus.

Abroad, it added pressure on allies who were used to Washington defending the liberal international order as a top priority.

Trump’s Davos message signals a turning point, whether supporters cheer it or critics fear it. It puts more focus on re-shoring industry, tightening immigration rules, and treating energy security as a national interest rather than an afterthought.

The broader direction is still forming, but the speech made one thing clear: the elite agreement that carried globalization for decades is no longer holding.

For many people in struggling regions and overlooked towns, that shift feels overdue. It suggests that leaders may start measuring success less by abstract models and more by real wages, stable communities, and national resilience.

Whether the change brings renewed prosperity or new friction will play out over time. Still, Davos 2026 is likely to be remembered as a moment when the West’s guiding economic story faced a direct challenge.