As Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem comes under growing pressure, a journalist who has been closely following the events in Minneapolis explains how the courage of ordinary people changed the direction of the story—and how the Trump political machine completely lost control of the narrative.
The discussion comes from a January 29 episode of The Daily Blast podcast, hosted by Greg Sargent. At the center of the conversation is the killing of Alex Pretti, and the political fallout that followed.
Sargent explains that two Republican senators, Thom Tillis and Lisa Murkowski, have now publicly called for Noem to resign. This deeply angered Donald Trump, who lashed out at them online, calling them “losers” and “terrible senators.” But behind the insults, it has become clear that Noem’s position is no longer secure. A new review of Pretti’s killing contradicts her initial claims, Senate Republican leadership has refused to defend her, and even Trump adviser Stephen Miller has indirectly undermined her account. According to Sargent, the situation has spiraled beyond Trump’s control and is now unpredictable.
Sargent is joined by Virginia Heffernan, a writer for The New Republic, who has been documenting the public backlash against ICE operations. She argues that this moment is different because people have seen clear video evidence. Noem initially described Pretti’s phone as a gun and suggested he was a threat, but multiple videos from different angles told a very different story. People watched closely, slowed the footage down, and shared it widely. What they saw was not an armed attacker, but a man holding a phone, trying to protect someone, who was taken down and shot.
Heffernan explains that the administration’s attempt to control the narrative collapsed because people no longer accept official statements when video evidence contradicts them. She says the government did not even try to soften the story or explain it carefully. Instead, officials quickly labeled Pretti an “assassin” and a “terrorist,” just as they had done earlier with another victim, Renee Nicole Good. This time, the public simply did not believe it.
Sargent notes that Trump’s response has seemed unusually weak and scattered. When Trump attacked Tillis for speaking out, Tillis responded with sharp sarcasm, saying that being called a “loser” apparently qualified him to be Homeland Security Secretary. Tillis also openly criticized Noem and Stephen Miller, saying their actions were making law enforcement jobs more dangerous. Sargent points out that Miller is often described as extreme or cruel, but rarely as incompetent—and yet this situation suggests a major miscalculation.
Heffernan agrees, saying Miller’s entire strategy is built around numbers rather than people. She explains that the administration promised mass arrests and deportations, claiming they were removing thousands of “dangerous criminals.” But when she checked DHS’s own data, she found that the government publicly listed only eight examples. Those cases included minor offenses like theft, a DUI, and writing a bad check. Being undocumented itself is not a criminal offense. The numbers simply did not match the rhetoric.
Sargent adds that to reach the massive deportation numbers Miller wants, the administration must target non-criminal immigrants, because there are not enough serious criminals to meet those goals. That reality, he argues, explains the aggressive raids, public displays of force, and indiscriminate arrests. Everything flows from an obsession with numbers, not safety.
Heffernan says what has truly disrupted the administration’s plan is the response of everyday people. In Minnesota, communities quickly organized mutual aid, legal observers, food networks, and peaceful protests. Ordinary citizens showed up in large numbers, documented events, and protected one another. These actions, she says, looked deeply American and stood in sharp contrast to the masked agents, military vehicles, and aggressive tactics used by federal authorities.
She points out that many people who are often mocked or dismissed—especially white women and suburban “wine moms”—were among the first to recognize what was happening and speak out. These groups, she argues, understood Trump early and are now helping shift public opinion.
Sargent agrees, saying the images matter. Diverse crowds standing together, filming events, and putting themselves at risk look like a defense of constitutional values. In contrast, secretive raids, heavy weaponry, and propaganda feel authoritarian to most Americans.
As the conversation closes, Sargent asks whether this moment will force real change among Republicans or simply deepen their panic ahead of elections. Heffernan says issues like Epstein, Venezuela, and now Minneapolis are becoming political disasters for Trump. She believes more Republicans may distance themselves as these topics increasingly make them look morally compromised and politically vulnerable.
What began as an effort by Trump and his allies to project strength and control has instead exposed cracks within their own ranks. According to both speakers, it was not politicians or strategists who turned the story around—but ordinary people who refused to look away, recorded what they saw, and insisted on the truth.
