NOTE: VIDEO AT THE END OF ARTICLE
Several Democratic governors, including Minnesota’s Tim Walz, appeared before the House Oversight Committee on Thursday to testify about their states’ immigration policies—particularly in relation to so-called “sanctuary state” designations. Walz, who was former Vice President Kamala Harris’s running mate in the 2024 presidential election, found himself in a contentious exchange with fellow Minnesotan, Rep. Tom Emmer (R-MN).
During his testimony, Walz asserted that Minnesota is not officially a sanctuary state, noting that no legislation or executive order has formally conferred such a status. However, Rep. Emmer challenged that claim, citing past remarks and social media posts that suggest otherwise.
“On May 23, 2018, you tweeted, ‘I support policies that keep law enforcement from enforcing federal laws,’” Emmer said, referencing what he argued were clear signals of sanctuary-style governance. He also pointed to a controversial comment made by Walz earlier this year during a commencement address at the University of Minnesota Law School.
“You said, ‘Donald Trump’s modern-day Gestapo is scooping folks up off the streets,’” Emmer recalled. “You were referring to ICE agents. The Gestapo, as you well know, was the official secret police of Nazi Germany. Don’t you think comparing federal law enforcement officers to Nazis is dangerous rhetoric—especially after the violence directed at ICE agents in Los Angeles this past weekend?”
Emmer continued, pressing Walz to apologize: “ICE agents are brave Americans who risk their lives every day. Your inflammatory language puts targets on their backs. At the very least, you owe them an apology.”
The exchange underscored the growing political tension surrounding immigration enforcement and federal-state relations. Emmer also criticized Walz’s broader immigration platform, saying, “Your agenda is clear: free healthcare, free college, and driver’s licenses for illegal immigrants—while restricting law enforcement from doing their jobs. If that doesn’t qualify as sanctuary policy, you shouldn’t be governor.”
The hearing, intended to review state-level policies related to undocumented immigrants, quickly became a battleground for broader ideological disputes over federal authority, public safety, and the limits of state autonomy.
