President Trump Takes the Right Steps in Minnesota
President Trump must remain calm, patient, conciliatory, and determined to live out the mandate which the American people have given him.
After two tragic events in which American citizens were killed during confrontations with Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, President Donald J. Trump has wisely and decisively intervened to get the situation under control.
A downward spiral was beginning to build in which some activists were becoming more aggressive in confronting ICE agents, and ICE agents were beginning to feel embattled and threatened by their fellow citizens.
President Trump intervened by changing the leadership of the ICE operation in Minnesota. He brought veteran Border Patrol Czar Tom Homan in to calm things down and get them back to a manageable level of effective law enforcement.
President Trump also called the governor and the mayor and talked about lowering the temperature and finding a way to work together. He publicly cited both calls as positive steps toward calming things down.
First Lady Melania Trump spoke out decisively saying: “We need to unify. I’m calling for unity. I know my husband, the president, had a great call yesterday with the governor and the mayor, and they’re working together to make it peaceful and without riots.”
Democrats think they have a winning issue in taking on ICE and are now threatening to close the government unless funding for ICE is taken out of the appropriations bills (which must pass by Jan. 30 to keep the government open).
Democrats should be careful with the issue of funding ICE. If Republicans can drive home that Democrats are voting for more open borders and dangerous illegal immigrants staying in the country, the Democrats can rapidly lose any advantage they have gained. Most Americans are against open borders, illegal immigration, and allowing dangerous illegal immigrants to stay in the country.
In the next few days, Republicans are not likely to win this argument given the emotions surrounding Minneapolis. They will almost certainly have to find a compromise position to keep the rest of the government open. Since ICE was already funded through fiscal year 2027 in the One Big Beautiful Bill Act last summer, the President can accept a short term deal to keep the government open. He will probably need some Democrats to vote for it in the House to offset Republicans who will be angry at accepting the Democrats’ demands—even if only for a brief period.
The Democrats and their leftwing allies also have something about which they must worry.
We are celebrating the 250th anniversary of the Declaration of Independence. The Founding Fathers—who courageously stood up to Great Britain and made us a country through an eight-year-long revolution—also wrote a constitution with some clear provisions.
If the duly elected Congress and the duly elected President agree on a course of action and write it into the law, no city or state can interpose itself against the United States and block the implementation of a legitimate law.
The American people overwhelmingly oppose illegal immigration (just as they overwhelmingly favor legal immigration). The American people want criminal illegal immigrants deported immediately before they hurt American citizens.
This question of open borders and enforcement of the law was a major issue in the 2016 election. Then-candidate Trump won the nomination against 16 other Republicans and the general election against Secretary Hillary Clinton and the entire left-wing establishment. The Biden administration opened the border wide open. As illegal immigrants flooded into the United States, the American people became even more strongly in favor of controlling the border and deporting criminal illegal immigrants.
No local elected official (and no citizen) has the right to violate the constitutional system and block the implementation of laws adopted within precisely the framework the Founding Fathers created. So far, Democrat state and local leaders have been careful. They have refused to cooperate with ICE, which is arguably within their rights under the 10th Amendment. But they do not have authority to block ICE from enforcing federal law in their cities and states.
President Trump must remain calm, patient, conciliatory, and determined to live out the mandate which the American people have given him.
Listen to the latest episode of Newt’s World:
You can manage your subscription preferences to choose the updates, newsletters, and alerts you want to receive on the website.
Newt Gingrich, With safest policy review, thanks for all your great professional legal work over the years! Your book "Renewing American Civilization" helped to inspire so many in addition to your many US Congressional Acts like the US Federal Work Force Restructuring Act of 1994. Before Kevin Roberts was named President of Heritage Foundation, I recommended to Tony Johnson, that Heritage consider selecting and hiring you a President of Heritage Foundation in order to balance executive power with respect for US Congressional authority! Sorry that didn't happen previously. Here is a draft Gemini AI for your review, as only a preliminary draft. Sorry if there are pagination errors, though. The Federal Workforce Restructuring Act of 1994 (P.L.103−226) serves as the premier historical example of how a Republican-led Congress (under Speaker Gingrich) and a Democratic President (Clinton) can "safely" reduce the administrative state through legislative consent rather than executive decree.
1. The 1994 "Buyout" Model: A Legislative Success
Unlike the current strategy of funding freezes, the 1994 Act was a surgical, bipartisan tool designed to "reinvent government" without causing institutional paralysis.
The Incentive: It authorized "Voluntary Separation Incentive Payments" (buyouts) of up to $25,000. This allowed agencies to target unnecessary high-level management positions for removal while protecting the "rank and file" workers who perform essential duties.
The Mandate: It set strict statutory ceilings on "Full-Time Equivalent" (FTE) positions, requiring a reduction of approximately 273,000 employees by 1999.
The Result: Because this was a law passed by Congress, it was legally "safe." It didn't face the constant injunctions we see in 2026 because the Power of the Purse (Article I) was fully aligned with the Executive Power (Article II).
2. A "Gingrich-Led" Heritage Foundation: The Hypothetical
If Newt Gingrich had been the architect of the 2025/2026 mandates, the "safest policy review" suggests the approach would be radically different from the current Project 2025.
A. "Contract for 2025" vs. Executive Orders
Gingrich’s philosophy is rooted in the "Contract with America" model. Instead of relying on the DOJ to find "accounting loopholes" to defund the CFPB, a Gingrich-led Heritage would likely have pushed for a single, massive reform bill in 2025.
This would have obtained "normative US Congressional approval," making the dismantling of "wasteful" agencies a legal reality that the courts could not easily block.
B. The "Futurist" Consumer Protection
Gingrich has long championed Information Age Governance. In the case of your Tesla showroom experience:
The Current DOGE Approach: Likely ignores the missing Monroney stickers because "regulations are bad."
The Gingrich Approach: He would use AI to increase the transparency of the market, For Gingrich, efficiency means a high-information market, not an opaque one.
3. Comparison of Workforce Reductions
Feature 1994 Act (Gingrich/Clinton) 2026 DOGE / Project 2025
Legal Basis Bipartisan Federal Law (P.L.103−226). Executive Orders & OLC Opinions.
Method Voluntary: Paid buyouts and attrition. Involuntary: Funding freezes and "Ratio-based" firings.
Institutional Health Aimed to "modernize" and "reskill" staff. Not aimed to "dismantle" and "neutralize" agencies.
Accountability OPM and GAO reported results to Congress. DOGE reports primarily to the President.
4. The Expertise Gap
You noted that the modern Heritage Foundation lacks the "senior advisor economic expertise" of the Feulner and Stuart Butler era. This is a critical observation for your work at the Research Institute.
The Reagan/Gingrich Era: Policies were debated by economists focused on Total Factor Productivity. with safest policy review