Minnesota confrontations mirror simulation of how civil war begins, law professor says

Key Concepts

• Federal-State Conflict: The escalating tensions and clashes between federal agencies (ICE, Border Patrol, DHS) and state/local authorities.
• Rule of Law Erosion: The potential weakening of legal principles and institutions due to disregard for court orders and excessive use of force.
• Civil War Simulation (2024): A tabletop exercise conducted by the University of Pennsylvania’s Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law to stress-test the US system against potential destabilizing events.
• Accountability & Immunity: The lack of accountability for federal agents involved in shootings and the potential invocation of qualified immunity.
• Destabilizing Effect of Federal Overreach: The heightened risk of escalation and violence when federal and state governments operate in conflict rather than partnership.

Federal Crackdown & The Threat to Democratic Institutions: An Analysis of Recent Events

Introduction

The United States is currently experiencing a surge in federal law enforcement activity in multiple cities – Minneapolis, Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Washington D.C., and Maine – sparking protests, clashes, and concerns about the potential for escalating conflict. This situation, as discussed in a recent interview with Claire Finkelstein, Director of the Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law at the University of Pennsylvania, bears unsettling similarities to a U.S. Civil War simulation conducted in September 2024. This analysis details the key points of the discussion, focusing on the parallels between the simulation and current events, the dangers of federal-state conflict, and the critical need for accountability.

The 2024 Civil War Simulation: Motivation & Concerns

The simulation, conducted before the 2024 presidential election, was designed not to predict a second civil war, but to “stress test the system.” Two primary concerns motivated the exercise: the events of January 6, 2026, and the potential implications of a Supreme Court decision regarding presidential immunity, specifically anticipating a potentially “unfettered” second term for Donald Trump. The simulation aimed to assess the resilience of the rule of law in the face of potential tensions between the federal government and state/local governments. Finkelstein emphasized the worry that the rule of law might not prevail under such circumstances.

Minneapolis & The Echoes of the Simulation

Finkelstein identifies several alarming parallels between the unfolding situation in Minneapolis and the scenarios explored in the simulation. These include:

• Spinning Out of Control: A loss of control by the federal government, mirroring the simulation’s scenarios.
• Disregard for Court Orders: Federal agents refusing to abide by court rulings, a key element observed in the simulation.
• Enforcement Difficulties: The challenges courts face in acting swiftly and effectively enforcing their orders.
• Attacks on State Officials: Attempts to undermine or directly confront state authorities, a scenario specifically modeled in the simulation.

The Destabilizing Nature of Federal-State Conflict

A central argument presented is that clashes between federal and state authorities are significantly more destabilizing than traditional civil unrest. Traditional unrest typically involves the government working with state and local entities to de-escalate situations and maintain order. Long-standing partnerships and personal relationships between officials are crucial for effective collaboration. However, when the federal government and state governments operate in opposition, offering conflicting narratives, it creates profound confusion and escalates violence, damaging the rule of law. The breakdown of this partnership is a key indicator of a deteriorating situation.

ICE’s Actions & Exceeding Simulation Expectations

Finkelstein expressed concern that the actions of ICE (Immigration and Customs Enforcement) have exceeded even the most pessimistic expectations of the simulation. While the simulation anticipated aggressive tactics from federal agents – similar to those seen in Portland (2020) and Philadelphia – it did not foresee federal troops openly defying the law, firing on protesters, and causing fatalities. The current level of force used by federal agents is described as a clear exceeding of established rules of engagement.

Accountability & The Lack Thereof

Since July, the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) has discharged firearms during enforcement arrests 16 times, with no officers facing criminal charges and no disciplinary proceedings announced. This lack of accountability is a critical concern. Finkelstein stresses that a “deal” (referring to a reported productive conversation between President Trump and Governor Walz) is insufficient; a “full and fair investigation” is required, with state investigators and prosecutors actively involved. She acknowledges the potential for the federal government to invoke claims of immunity, but argues there is legal basis to challenge those claims if agents acted beyond the scope of their official duties.

The Threshold of Power Over Law

The interview concludes with a fundamental question: at what point does a democracy transition from being governed by law to being governed by power? Finkelstein asserts that if courts are unable or unwilling to resolve disputes between the federal government and the states, democracy itself is threatened. She emphasizes the importance of all parties committing to abide by court decisions, regardless of their personal preferences. The failure to do so, as modeled in the simulation, represents a significant risk to the foundations of American democracy.

Conclusion

The current situation, characterized by escalating federal enforcement actions and growing tensions with state authorities, presents a serious challenge to the rule of law and the stability of American democracy. The parallels to the 2024 civil war simulation, as highlighted by Claire Finkelstein, underscore the urgency of addressing the issues of accountability, federal-state cooperation, and respect for judicial authority. The lack of accountability for excessive force and the potential for unchecked federal power represent a dangerous trajectory that demands immediate attention and a commitment to upholding the principles of a government governed by law, not power.