Gov. Phil Scott Condemns ICE Agents’ Tactics in Vermont, Target Still at Large

(VERMONT) — Gov. Phil Scott condemned ICE agents on March 11, 2026, after describing a federal immigration enforcement operation in Vermont as “totally unnecessary.”

Speaking at a press conference, Scott criticized how the action was carried out and raised concerns about the tactics used, while emphasizing that the identity and status of the person involved had not been officially confirmed at the time of his remarks.

Scott’s comments drew attention because they placed the Republican governor in direct public conflict with federal immigration enforcement, and because the episode he discussed quickly became part of a wider Vermont debate over how far the state should go in responding to federal operations.

No official announcements confirmed the specific Vermont ICE action on or around March 11, 2026, or the target’s status. A press conference video from ORCA Media, live at 12 PM and posted March 10, recorded and circulated Scott’s remarks.

Scott’s posture did not emerge in isolation. He has a history of opposing or criticizing certain federal immigration enforcement approaches under the Trump administration, and he has framed his objections around transparency, public safety, and how federal officers interact with communities.

Operation Metro Surge, a multi-agency effort involving ICE and CBP agents, has become a central point of reference in Vermont’s political debate. State officials and lawmakers have pointed to the operation as an example of why federal activity matters locally even when it occurs beyond Vermont’s borders.

On January 30, 2026, the Vermont House passed a resolution, 106-25, backing Scott’s call for a “pause” in these operations. The measure did not change federal authority, but it signaled formal support for Scott’s position and amplified pressure for a shift in approach.

Lawmakers cited concerns over arrests and deaths that entered the Vermont discussion as evidence of why heightened scrutiny is warranted. The House resolution referenced arrests “about 3,400 in Minneapolis” and the fatal shootings of U.S. citizens Renee Good on January 7, 2026, and Alex Pretti on January 25, 2026, by federal agents.

Scott’s criticism escalated after Pretti’s death. In a social media statement, he wrote: “Enough. It’s not acceptable for American citizens to be killed by federal agents for exercising their God-given and constitutional rights to protest their government,” and accused the operations of “deliberate federal intimidation and incitement” resulting in “the murder of Americans.”

That language sharpened tensions over accountability and the role of Vermont officials in shaping a response. Scott welcomed Trump’s replacement of Border Patrol commander Greg Bovino with Tom Homan, but he also demanded an investigation into the shootings.

In the Vermont Statehouse, lawmakers have moved from rhetoric to proposals designed to restrict how law enforcement conducts certain actions, including when federal officers operate in the state. The legislative push includes bills to ban masked law enforcement, including federal agents, and to limit civil arrests in sensitive locations such as schools.

Those proposals have prompted debate over what the state can enforce against federal officers, and what would remain symbolic. Public Safety Commissioner Jennifer Morrison warned lawmakers about enforcement challenges against federal officers as the measures advanced through the legislative process.

Sen. Tanya Vyhovsky (P/D-Chittenden Central) pressed for immediate enactment as of January 20, 2026, when the Senate Judiciary Committee had ongoing discussions. The committee’s deliberations placed the proposals on the formal pathway that would determine whether Vermont can translate political outrage into binding state policy.

The incidents cited in Vermont’s debate have also fueled broader community reaction and public safety arguments from multiple sides. State leaders and advocates have pointed to the shootings and the large-scale arrests referenced in legislative discussions as reasons to question operational decision-making and the visibility of federal officers.

Scott has endorsed transparency as the dispute over masked enforcement intensified. He said law enforcement should not “operate in the shadows or hide behind masks.”

The gap between political statements and federal confirmation has played an unusually prominent role in this Vermont action because the episode’s public record centers on the governor’s remarks rather than an agency announcement. The ORCA Media video provided primary details on Scott’s account of what happened, while official confirmation of the specific operation and the target’s status did not appear in public announcements.

For immigrants, employers, and local communities, the dispute has combined immediate fears about how ICE agents conduct operations with a longer-running question about whether state policy can meaningfully shape day-to-day enforcement realities. Scott’s remarks and legislative proposals have also put Vermont’s law enforcement culture and expectations—identification, transparency, and conduct—into the center of a federal-state conflict.

Fiscal constraints have formed a parallel backdrop to the political fight, even as the controversy focused on enforcement conduct and accountability. Scott proposed a $9.4 billion state budget on January 20, 2026, and emphasized fiscal discipline amid reduced federal support.

Budget pressures can shape how quickly the state can expand public safety capacity, fund legal resources, or implement any new state-level rules tied to enforcement conduct. As Vermont’s debate over ICE agents and Operation Metro Surge continues, Scott’s demand for transparency—and his insistence that law enforcement should not “operate in the shadows or hide behind masks”—has remained a central point of his public case for Vermont action.