Donald Trump Accuses Minnesota Leaders of ‘Harboring Anti-Federal Militants,’ Signs Executive Order Removing Agencies and Resources From the State After Anti-ICE Assault on Federal Officers”

Washington, D.C. — In a stunning and highly controversial fictional development, President Donald Trump announced on Tuesday that he had signed an executive order directing the immediate withdrawal of resources from the state of Minnesota, following reports of violent clashes between an armed anti-ICE group and federal officers outside the Minneapolis Federal Building.

The announcement, delivered during an unscheduled briefing at the White House, accused Minnesota state leaders of “failing to maintain basic cooperation with federal authorities” and “allowing anti-ICE extremism to grow unchecked.” In his statement, Trump portrayed the confrontation outside the federal building as evidence that Minnesota “no longer provides a safe operational environment for federal workers.”

According to federal spokespeople, the confrontation took place earlier in the afternoon when a group identified as anti-ICE activists gathered outside the downtown facility during an ongoing immigration enforcement operation. Witnesses described a chaotic scene in which protesters threw objects and attempted to block federal officers from entering and exiting the building. Federal officials reported multiple injuries among officers, though details remain limited and unverified in this fictional account.

In the briefing, Trump sharply criticized Minnesota’s leadership, characterizing the state as “hostile to federal presence” and going so far as to say the administration would “let Minnesota burn” if officials refused to work with Washington. The remark immediately drew national attention, with both supporters and critics reacting online within minutes.

Minnesota Governor and local officials responded swiftly, denouncing the executive order as reckless and legally questionable. In a joint fictional statement released from the Capitol, state leaders accused the administration of abandoning basic federal responsibilities, including immigration processing, judicial functions, and public support programs that rely on federal infrastructure.

Legal experts in this fictional scenario expressed uncertainty about the practical implications of such an order. While the President can direct federal agencies, the logistics of withdrawing law enforcement, administrative offices, and funding streams would be complex and could trigger a cascade of legal disputes between state and federal institutions.

Political analysts argued that the move could deepen polarization already surrounding immigration policy, federal authority, and the use of executive power. Supporters of the administration claimed the order was a necessary response to threats against federal officers, while opponents described it as a retaliatory political maneuver aimed at punishing a state with opposing policies.

As of late Tuesday, federal agencies had not publicly confirmed timelines for withdrawal, and it was unclear how long the order would remain in effect or whether courts would intervene.

State officials urged calm among residents and emphasized that Minnesota would “continue functioning and protecting its communities” even amid federal withdrawal. Meanwhile, national attention centered on whether this fictional confrontation marks the beginning of a wider political standoff between states and Washington.