Tim Walz didn’t hold back. In a recent campaign speech, the Minnesota governor and former running mate of Kamala Harris accused the Trump administration of preparing to use “Salvadoran gulags” as part of a mass immigration crackdown. He even claimed university students were being “swept up” under the pretext of border security.
The White House fired back immediately — and harshly. Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt reminded reporters that Walz was the governor when Minneapolis “burned to the ground” during the George Floyd riots in 2020. But underneath the verbal firestorm lies something deeper: a constitutional clash over civil liberties, federal authority, and the historical tools of immigration enforcement.
The Rhetoric Behind the Fire: What Walz Actually Said
At the center of the controversy is Trump’s revived proposal to use the Alien Enemies Act of 1798 to detain and deport non-citizens tied to foreign gangs — including those deemed part of terrorist organizations like Tren de Aragua. Walz blasted this plan, calling it a step toward authoritarianism and comparing it to brutal detention practices abroad.
He didn’t stop there. In an emotional appeal, he suggested that under these policies, “even university students” could be targeted, painting a dystopian picture of academic crackdowns and indiscriminate deportations. His phrasing was designed to stir alarm — and it worked.
The White House Hits Back
Not one to let a talking point go unanswered, the White House responded swiftly. Press Secretary Leavitt pointed to Walz’s handling of the 2020 unrest, particularly the burning of the Third Precinct police station in Minneapolis.
She asked rhetorically, “Is this the man we’re supposed to trust on public safety?” The implication: a governor who couldn’t secure his own state has no moral authority to criticize federal enforcement policies.
The administration’s goal is clear — to frame Walz as hypocritical and distract from critiques of the Alien Enemies Act by shifting focus to his past leadership failures.
What’s the Alien Enemies Act?
Signed into law in 1798, the Alien Enemies Act gives the president broad authority to detain or deport nationals of foreign adversaries during wartime. It’s been used during World War II and in other moments of national crisis. But applying it to migrant gang members — especially when no war has been declared — stretches its original scope.
What this means:
- This could test the limits of executive power under old statutes.
- Courts may be asked to determine whether “gang violence” qualifies as grounds for mass detentions.
- There are serious implications for due process — particularly if no individual trial is guaranteed before deportation.
Critics argue that this sets the stage for sweeping executive action with minimal oversight. Supporters claim it’s a necessary national security measure. The Constitution doesn’t settle this easily — which is why it’s likely to end up in court.
The Bigger Constitutional Question: Fear vs. Freedom
As the campaign season intensifies, rhetoric like “gulags” and “swept up” will continue to dominate headlines. But the real issue is whether fear of foreign threats justifies expanding federal enforcement powers at the potential expense of civil liberties.
The Framers designed the Constitution to restrain exactly this kind of tension — between liberty and security, between state powers and federal reach. When candidates invoke emotionally charged imagery, it’s not just theater. It’s a test of how seriously voters — and courts — take constitutional guardrails in turbulent times.