“Tom Homan” in the front line; Will the Minneapolis protests be contained? – Mehr news agency RCO News Agency

Mehr News Agency, International Group: The tension over the strict immigration policies of the American government has once again taken to the streets; This time in Minneapolis, where the killing of two protesters during protests against a federal immigration crackdown has set off a wave of public anger, conflict and political pressure.

These incidents occur in a situation where the administration of Donald Trump has made the implementation of immigration policies one of the main pillars of his internal security agenda and considers any retreat in this area as a sign of weakness. At the same time, images of violence and shootings have seriously challenged the White House’s official narrative of “law enforcement”.

In such an atmosphere, the announcement of the dispatch of Tom Homan, a senior border official and one of the well-known figures of strict immigration policies, to the state of Minnesota can be seen as a sign of the government’s attempt to reorganize the crisis management; An effort that both aims to contain the protests and tries to divert public opinion from the deadly weekend shooting and its political consequences.

This decision raises important questions such as what exactly is Homan’s role? What is his history in dealing with similar crises? And can changing the face of the management reduce the intensity of the protests or will it simply mark a new chapter of the conflict?

Who is Tom Homan and why was he chosen?

Tom Homan is one of the veteran and controversial figures in the field of immigration law enforcement in the United States; A person who has worked in the border security and immigration structures for more than three decades and has followed his professional path not in soft politics, but in strict enforcement of the law.

He began working as a Border Patrol agent in the 1980s and worked his way up through the ranks of the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). The peak of his role-playing goes back to the years 2017 to 2018; When he was appointed as the acting director of Immigration and Customs Enforcement in the Trump administration, he was practically responsible for implementing an important part of the aggressive immigration policies of the White House.

Homan’s executive record is considered “successful” from the perspective of the Trump administration, because during his tenure, the number of arrests and deportations of illegal immigrants increased significantly and the US Immigration and Customs Enforcement became more operationally active. He was able to strengthen the intra-organizational cohesion and expand the field authorities of the officers; From the point of view of the White House, it meant restoring the “authority of the federal government” in law enforcement. However, these so-called achievements were accompanied by a wave of domestic and international criticism; Especially following the implementation of the “zero tolerance” policy and the separation of immigrant families, which became one of the most costly human rights crises of the Trump administration.

From the perspective of crisis control and protest management, Homan’s record is twofold; He has been successful in curbing executive operations and enforcing internal order, but experience has shown that his presence in tense social scenes has often led to increased political polarization. Homan is neither a negotiator nor a figure to calm public opinion; Rather, it is the manager who responds to the crisis with the logic of “showing authority”. For this reason, in previous cases, although the policies under his guidance have progressed in terms of implementation, they have created a high social and media cost for the government.

Homan’s re-election for a sensitive mission like Minneapolis shows that the Trump administration intends to prioritize field control and redefining the security narrative rather than seeking compromise or radical reduction of tension. His dispatch sends a clear message that the White House wants to take direct control of the crisis and not let the protests push immigration policy to the point of retreat.

However, Homan’s record shows that although he can strengthen executive order, there is no guarantee that his presence will reduce violence and calm the atmosphere; It may deepen the gap between the federal government and the protesters.

How likely is Homan to stop the Minneapolis protests?

Assessing the probability of Tom Homan’s success in curbing the Minneapolis protests is tied to the nature of the protests and the type of crisis rather than his personal background. The recent protests are not simply a reaction to the presence of immigrants or the enforcement of immigration laws, but are directly related to the deaths of protesters, the use of firearms, and the response of federal forces. This is an important difference; Because Homan has experience in curbing immigration executive operations, but he has no record of suppressing urban protests with a strong emotional charge and civil rights.

In the first scenario, Homan can reduce the level of street tension in the short term. This scenario is likely when he acts by reducing the direct presence of federal forces on the streets, transferring responsibility to local institutions, and resetting the rules of engagement. In this case, the goal is not “solving the crisis”, but “buying time”; Reducing violent images, reducing the intensity of conflict and preventing the spread of protests to other cities. Experience has shown that such an approach can temporarily calm the atmosphere, especially if accompanied by the promise of limited investigation or clarification.

The second scenario is the escalation of tension; A scenario that is more consistent with Homan’s personal history. If he emphasizes the show of authority, increasing the powers of federal forces and dealing harshly with protesters, it is possible that an appearance of order will be restored in some places, but the cost will be increasing public anger, radicalizing the protests and spreading the media crisis. In such a case, security control may cost the loss of political and social control; A pattern that has been seen before in similar crises in other American cities.

The third scenario, which is less likely but more decisive, is a structural inability to contain the crisis. If the administration fails to provide a convincing narrative about the shootings, an independent investigation is delayed and the rift between the federal government and local officials continues, Homan’s presence will not have a decisive impact. In this case, protests continue not as a security crisis, but as a sign of a crisis of legitimacy and public trust; A crisis that law enforcement tools alone cannot solve.

All in all, the chances of Homan being able to sustainably contain the protests are limited. He can manage or control the level of conflict in the short term, but without a clear answer to the issue of the fatal shooting and a review of the way immigration policies are implemented, his presence is more like the appearance of managing the crisis than solving it. Experience shows that crises of this kind, if answered solely with security logic, usually return in new and more complex forms.

The political implications of Minneapolis for Trump and the upcoming elections

The developments in Minneapolis, at a critical moment in the American political climate, can become a decisive factor in redefining Donald Trump’s election narrative. Strict immigration policies have always been one of the main pillars of mobilizing his voter base, but the killing of protesters and recent violent images have turned this policy from a “security issue” into a challenge of political legitimacy.

For independent and moderate voters, the question of whether the government is able to maintain order and security without crossing civil rights lines has become more prominent; A question whose answer can affect the makeup of gray votes.

There are also signs of division within the Republican camp. Although the loyal body of the party continues to defend Trump’s decisive approach, some elites and conservative politicians have warned about the costs of continuing this path. Calls for an independent investigation into the shootings and concerns about repeating costly patterns of the past suggest that the Minneapolis crisis could become a point of friction between electoral considerations and the imperatives of governance. In such a situation, any escalation of violence or field error will quickly become fuel for Trump’s political rivals.

From the point of view of the electoral strategy, the government is trying to convey the message of determination and control of the situation by highlighting the “executive authority” and sending figures like Tom Homan. But this strategy will only benefit Trump when the crisis is contained and the government’s official narrative overcomes the narrative of images and videos from the field. Otherwise, Minneapolis can become a symbol of the contradiction between the promise of order and the reality of violence; A contradiction that questions not only the immigration policy, but also the general image of Trump as a crisis manager, and its effect will remain until the upcoming elections.