MINNEAPOLIS, MINNESOTA — former acting ice director John Sandweg accused the trump administration of “using ICE as a political football” after a fatal Minneapolis shooting involving an ICE agent, arguing that politics is driving enforcement tactics and public messaging rather than public safety or sound law enforcement practice.
John Sandweg said in a TV interview that “The situation needs to be de-politicized,” adding that it “begins with first de-politicizing the situation” and that the administration is “using ICE as a political football.”
“The situation needs to be de-politicized,”
Sandweg spoke after the fatal shooting of 37‑year‑old Renee Nicole Good by an ICE agent in Minneapolis, an incident that quickly became a flashpoint in the administration’s broader immigration narrative.
In the interview, Sandweg criticized the way the administration immediately framed the minneapolis case as “domestic terrorism”, saying the label was folded into a political storyline rather than handled as a law enforcement matter on its own terms.
He warned that politicized framing can shape public perception of enforcement and push the agency toward decisions designed to send a message, rather than actions anchored in public safety priorities.
Sandweg, who previously led the agency in an acting capacity, said the administration has pushed immigration enforcement into a high-profile spectacle that he contrasted with more targeted and lower-profile approaches.
He pointed to “helicopters, flash-bangs, and heavily publicized raids” as examples of what he described as optics-first enforcement, where the visible show of force becomes part of the strategy and the public messaging.
Sandweg also said ICE officers are under “incredible pressure” to carry out deportations “at any cost,” describing an “all hands on deck” environment that he argued heightens tensions and raises the risk of mistakes.
The Minneapolis shooting has drawn intense attention because it involved an ICE agent and because the victim, Renee Nicole Good, was identified publicly and repeatedly as the case ricocheted through political debate about immigration enforcement.
Sandweg’s criticism focused less on the immediate facts of the incident than on how quickly it was characterized and elevated, arguing that the “domestic terrorism” label became a tool in political narratives rather than a careful description tied to a standard investigative process.
His comments also landed amid a wider debate over how ICE conducts operations and how the agency communicates about those operations, including how announcements, visuals and tactical choices affect the way the public interprets enforcement.
Sandweg said the administration’s approach has put publicity at the center of immigration enforcement, with raids carried out in ways that generate attention and reinforce a political message about toughness.
He contrasted that with earlier practice he described as more targeted and lower-profile, without presenting those past methods as uniform or universal, but as a baseline for how enforcement often tried to avoid spectacle.
The former acting director connected what he called optics-first tactics to a broader climate where agents feel their work has become more controversial and politicized than ever.
Sandweg tied those operational choices to money and oversight, arguing that a surge in resources paired with reduced internal checks can magnify the effects of political pressure.
“handed DHS and its components, including ICE, the biggest paycheck they’ve ever seen, giving them $175 billion for immigration enforcement.”
Sandweg also said three internal DHS oversight offices were eliminated early in the administration, a shift he linked to a reduced ability to scrutinize how enforcement is conducted and how decisions are made.
He connected the combination of expanded power, reduced oversight, and politicized rhetoric to increasingly aggressive enforcement tactics, arguing that the environment encourages actions that look forceful and decisive while weakening internal accountability.
Supporters of a hard-line enforcement posture have long argued for visible operations as a deterrent and a signal of control, but Sandweg’s critique was that spectacle can become the goal, or at least an overriding consideration, when politics drives decisions.
In a separate Politico Q&A, Sandweg said the Trump team has “revved up the agency’s raid strategy,” warning that expanding activity at speed can produce operational failures if staffing standards do not keep pace.
“a recipe for problems down the line,”
Rushing to expand ICE operations and personnel without sufficient training or background checks is “a recipe for problems down the line,” he said.
Sandweg framed the concern as a risk-based warning rather than a conclusion about any single event, arguing that an aggressive tempo can strain hiring, vetting, training and supervision.
When training and screening lag behind rapid growth, he warned, the pressure to deliver results can increase the odds of errors, escalations, and inconsistent application of policy.
His comments described an agency pushed to move faster and do more, while also being pulled into the political spotlight, a combination he argued can erode public trust and make routine enforcement feel like partisan conflict.
The debate over tactics and rhetoric, he said, is not only about operational outcomes but also about legitimacy, including whether communities view enforcement as fair and whether people are willing to cooperate with law enforcement when immigration actions are seen as politicized.
Sandweg’s prescription in the TV interview began with rhetoric, calling for enforcement to be discussed and conducted in a way that lowers the political temperature around incidents like the Minneapolis shooting.
He argued that credibility depends on dialing back the political framing and returning the focus to safety and sound practice, including how raids are conducted and how agency leadership communicates about them.
Sandweg also pointed to oversight as part of restoring confidence, linking internal accountability to public trust and arguing that enforcement conducted under intense political pressure needs stronger, not weaker, review.
With Minneapolis still at the center of the latest dispute, Sandweg’s blunt assessment remained his starting point: the administration, he said, is “using ICE as a political football.”
Former ICE official John Sandweg claims the current administration prioritizes political optics over sound law enforcement. Citing a recent Minneapolis shooting and high-profile raids, he argues that increased funding coupled with decreased oversight leads to aggressive, error-prone tactics. He warns that treating immigration enforcement as a political tool undermines agency credibility and community cooperation, calling for a return to targeted, low-profile safety priorities.
