ABC News correspondent Trevor Ault appears to be engaging in some truly reckless wishcasting, and it’s the kind that doesn’t just misread the moment—it actively makes it more dangerous. During a segment on Good Morning America, Ault suggested that Minneapolis protesters may begin bringing guns to confrontations with CBP and ICE agents, framing this potential escalation not as a warning sign of breakdown, but as an understandable response rooted in fear and “defending themselves.” That framing is not journalism. It’s narrative laundering.
ABC’s Trevor Ault predicts more Minneapolis protesters will start bringing guns to their confrontations with CBP and ICE and possible use against the agents, claiming fear of their safety…
“I mean, anger is the absolutely main emotion that we are seeing, George. They feel like… pic.twitter.com/ztjzwzKoGA
— Curtis Houck (@CurtisHouck) January 27, 2026
Listen carefully to what Ault actually said. He described a city where anger is “the main emotion,” where activists feel emboldened because “pushing back” has been “working,” and where another shooting could happen “at any moment.” Then came the most alarming part: the casual suggestion that demonstrators might arm themselves because they believe federal agents could shoot them. This was not presented as a line that must not be crossed, but as a foreseeable—and almost logical—next step.
That is how you normalize insurgent thinking.
Minnesota, at least as depicted through this lens, does not sound like a place where free thought or civil order is being valued. It sounds like a place where emotion is being elevated above law, where federal enforcement is treated as occupation, and where the idea of armed resistance is being softly introduced into the public conversation by a national news outlet.
The MN Commies seem to be following the “They’re comin right for us” theory of anti-law militancy. https://t.co/eFjW4N5smy pic.twitter.com/pMvSRI6YLl
— Andy RedBeard (@AndyTheRedBeard) January 27, 2026
Most Americans remember the chaos of open-border policies. They remember the disorder, the denial, and the gaslighting that accompanied it. That memory is a major reason Donald Trump won a second term. The public rejected the premise that law enforcement is violence and that enforcing immigration law is an act of oppression. Yet here we are again, watching legacy media recycle the same script they roll out any time Trump is in office.
The pattern is familiar. When Obama expanded executive power or deported record numbers of illegal immigrants, it was framed as pragmatism. When Trump enforces the law, it becomes tyranny. The double standard isn’t subtle—it’s structural.
The Press: “So, you see, ICE is everywhere, and it’s your right to push back on them. And if you want to bring more guns to your riots, go ahead and do that, because you need to be resolute. No, I’m not encouraging more chaos and violence. Why do you ask?” https://t.co/S8vx7watbm pic.twitter.com/qP0tWCzoW6
— Bonchie (@bonchieredstate) January 27, 2026
And when the consequences arrive, the Left refuses ownership. The fear, the unrest, the escalation—it is always someone else’s fault. Never the activists who obstruct raids. Never the politicians who compare ICE to Nazis. Never the media figures who frame federal agents as omnipresent threats while excusing mob behavior as emotional authenticity.
At some point, the language matters. When people are told they are under siege, that the state is illegitimate, and that resistance is moral, escalation is not an accident. It is the point. Insurgencies do not begin with uniforms and manifestos. They begin with narrative permission.
an absolutely insane thing to say on national TV is
“You cant rent a certain color SUV in Minnesota or else a mob of psycho communists will assault you ”
I refuse to give in to these idiots, they have no right to make people live like this https://t.co/7qGaICfNPB
— John (@John_Faker) January 27, 2026
Calling this “a tense situation,” as George Stephanopoulos did, dramatically understates what is happening. This is a media ecosystem flirting with the idea that armed confrontation with federal authorities is understandable, maybe even justified. That is not reporting. That is incitement by implication.
And if it goes wrong—as it inevitably does—the same voices will claim shock, confusion, and moral outrage. But responsibility will still rest exactly where it belongs.
