Does it seem to you that public officials are becoming increasingly crass, crude, and aggressive, maybe inclined to violence, in their pronouncements?
Hi, I’m Rex Rogers and this is episode #245 of Discerning What Is Best, a podcast applying unchanging biblical principles in a rapidly changing world, and a Christian worldview to current issues and everyday life.
Recently, Jacob Frey, Mayor of Minneapolis, responded to the shooting and killing of a resident by an Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agent by demanding publicly that ICE “get the f--- out of Minneapolis.” He went on to emphasize his profane interpretation of the deadly incident and called for resistance to what he considers unlawful activity by the federal agency.
In recent American experience, elected officials across the political spectrum have repeatedly encouraged citizens to ignore, resist, or defy laws—sometimes through lawful non-cooperation, sometimes through civil disobedience, and occasionally by challenging the legitimacy of the law itself.
Elected officials have urged residents and local officials not to cooperate with ICE and encouraged illegal immigrants to remain in place and use local protections. Oregon officials, particularly in Portland, have actively encouraged pushback against federal government actions. U.S. Senators Elissa Slotkin (D-MI) and Mark Kelly (D-AZ) along with Representatives Jason Crow (D-CO), Chris Deluzio (D-PA), Maggie Goodlander (D-NH) and Chrissy Houlahan (D-PA) released a video urging members of the U.S. military and intelligence community to “refuse illegal orders.” None of them named a specific order they considered unlawful, and none of them have been able to name one in subsequent challenges by media or congressional colleagues.
Chicago Mayor Brandon Johnson encouraged citizens to "resist" federal immigration enforcement, particularly ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement), by signing executive orders to limit local police involvement in federal operations and create "ICE-free zones" in city spaces, asserting that Chicago would challenge federal overreach in court, leading to controversy and accusations from critics of siding with criminals over law-abiding citizens, while he framed it as protecting immigrant communities and constitutional rights against potential federal crackdowns.
Milwaukee Circuit Court Judge Hannah Dugan was convicted last month of obstructing federal agents attempting to arrest an illegal immigrant. Minnesota Governor Tim Walz recorded a “six-minute-long address to Minnesotans where he called on President Trump and Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem to ‘end this occupation.’” He went on to say, “If you see these ICE agents in your neighborhood, take out that phone and hit record. Help us create a database of the atrocities against Minnesotans, not just to establish a record for posterity, but to bank evidence for future prosecution.”
Either these officials do not realize, or they know exactly what they are doing, is that what a public figure says is often magnified, taken to another uncontrolled, unexpected level. This is called a stochastic effect wherein a public figure makes a broad, charged statement or sets a goal. Unpredictable individuals interpret it as a call to action. The leader does not specify violence or extreme acts, but some followers escalate far beyond what was explicitly said. The leader’s statement lowers social or moral barriers, making actions feel justified or acceptable. Followers feel “authorized” even without explicit instruction. The outcome is statistically foreseeable but individually unpredictable.
My interest here is not per se the specific issue, i.e., immigration, deportation, ICE debate, but the idea of elected officials calling for resistance. I am not defending ICE or claiming all their actions are justified. Nor am I attacking them. I am more interested in what seems to be an increasing number of elected officials directly encouraging citizens to break the law.
American politics has always been rancorous and insulting—actually from the very beginning—including during George Washington’s lifetime. Notorious slogans, insults, and arguments are not a modern novelty. Nor is the idea of state and local public officials calling for citizens to reject federal law.
There are many well-documented moments in U.S. history when state or local officials openly defied federal law or federal authority—sometimes framed as principled resistance, sometimes as obstruction, and often later judged very differently with hindsight.
One of the earliest was called the Nullification Crisis (1832–1833), in which the South Carolina state government declared federal tariffs null and void within the state. President Andrew Jackson threatened military force; compromise on the tariff ended the crisis. This was the first major constitutional showdown over federal supremacy.
During the Antebellum Period and subsequent Civil War, certain northern refused to enforce or actively obstructed federal fugitive slave laws. Southern state governments, became the Confederacy, claimed authority to secede and defied federal sovereignty entirely. One hundred years later during the Civil Rights Era encompassing my youth, in 1957, Arkansas Gov. Orval Faubus used the National Guard to block desegregation. In 1962, Mississippi state officials blocked James Meredith’s enrollment at Ole Miss, defying Supreme Court rulings (Brown v. Board of Education) and federal court orders. President Dwight D. Eisenhower sent federal troops or marshals to enforce compliance. In 1963, Alabama Gov. George Wallace famously stood in a schoolhouse door at the University of Alabama to block federally ordered desegregation.
Now, it seems, we are being treated to a host of examples wherein local or state officials defy federal law, e.g., challenging or refusing to enforce federal vaccine or workplace mandates during the COVID-19 crisis, marijuana legalization by states contravening federal law, states or communities creating so-called “Second Amendment sanctuary” jurisdictions refusing to enforce federal gun regulations, immigration enforcement.
So, American history has repeatedly shown that state and local defiance of federal law is not an anomaly but a recurring feature of constitutional conflict. Defiance of federal authority has occurred, from slavery to civil rights, from tariffs to marijuana, from segregationists to sanctuary cities. Sometimes history later judges these actions as courageous resistance, sometimes as unconstitutional obstruction—often depending on moral context and outcomes.
But this said, there seems to be a difference now. What’s changed is the intensity and a direct embrace by progressive officials of a morally relative, lawlessness in the name of compassion, non-discrimination, or in their words, freedom.
Reports and analysis suggest rising anti-government sentiment and lawlessness in the U.S., often tied to political polarization, particularly concerning the Trump administration's actions on immigration and federal power, leading to increased protests, challenges to legal processes, and concerns about politicized law enforcement. It seems like hyperbole, but there are times when it feels like our country is tottering on the brink of anarchy.
“America suffers from a raft of lawlessness that is eroding social cohesion and democratic norms. From the little crimes to the big crimes, an epidemic of excuse-making by political elites allows lawlessness to run rampant while good-hearted and law-abiding citizens get played…in America’s eroding social contract.”
I first noticed and commented about this during the COVID pandemic. While I often objected to what I considered state governmental officials’ overreach playing fast and loose with respect for individual liberty, I also noted how some local officials—for example elected county sheriffs—stating publicly they had no intention of enforcing statewide pandemic mandates. I may have agreed with their view of the mandates, but I was uncomfortable with their selective approach to law enforcement.
Now, we have governors and mayors making big media splashes proclaiming their progressive bona fides by declaring what federal law they will either ignore or actively encourage citizens to defy. Mayors tell police forces to stand down, not to go to certain immigrant neighborhoods, not to do their jobs. But they would do well to temper their comments to avoid the stochastic mobilization of gullible or fanatic followers.
To form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, ensure domestic tranquility, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, we must maintain the rule of law.
Ordered liberty is essential for security, well-being. True freedom depends on order, because without order, freedom collapses into chaos, that is, anarchy, and without liberty, order collapses into tyranny, that is, despotism.
Right now, we don’t have domestic tranquility. The social experiment we’re enduring is bringing us increased lawlessness. It’s dysfunctional, dangerous, dystopian, and sadly, for some, deadly.
Well, we’ll see you again soon. This podcast is about Discerning What Is Best.
If you find this thought-provoking and helpful, follow us on your favorite podcast platform. For more Christian commentary, see my website, r-e-x-m as in Martin, that’s rexmrogers.com, or check my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers.
And remember, it is for freedom that Christ has set us free. Stand firm.
© Rex M. Rogers – All Rights Reserved, 2026
*This podcast blog may be reproduced in whole or in part with a full attribution statement. Contact me or read more commentary on current issues and events at www.rexmrogers.com/ or my YouTube channel @DrRexRogers, or connect with me at www.linkedin.com/in/rexmrogers.