Minnesota Democratic Senate nominee Peggy Flanagan says immigration enforcement played a significant role in her primary victory, and she is pointing directly at the Laken Riley Act while explaining why.
Appearing Wednesday on MS NOW’s All In, Flanagan was asked about her campaign call to “rip apart” and replace Immigration and Customs Enforcement, a position that distinguished her from her primary opponent.
Guest host Jacob Soboroff asked whether that difference had proved decisive with Democratic voters.
“You have this platform of ripping apart — are the words that you use — and replacing ICE,” Soboroff said. “And your opponent in this primary did not use that type of language. Do you believe that that was a decisive issue in the race?”
Flanagan did not directly say that opposition to ICE alone delivered her victory. Instead, she framed the difference as a question of political judgment.
“Well, I think what we heard from Minnesotans is that this was really an issue of judgment,” Flanagan said.
She then turned to her opponent’s vote for the Laken Riley Act.
“My opponent was the only Minnesota Democrat to vote for Donald Trump’s immigration bill, the Laken Riley Act, which I think really gave the green light for the, just chaos and cruelty that we saw here in the streets in Minneapolis,” Flanagan said.
The legislation was named for Laken Riley, the 22-year-old nursing student murdered in Georgia in 2024 by José Ibarra, a Venezuelan national who had entered the United States illegally. The law expanded requirements for federal immigration authorities to detain certain noncitizens accused of specified crimes.
Flanagan, however, connected the legislation with subsequent federal immigration enforcement in Minnesota.
“And I know that the economic impact, the trauma, especially for our children, and the loss of two Minnesotans, people are continuing to carry that, even if the national media has moved on,” she said.
Her comments came after an intensely contentious period of immigration enforcement in Minnesota, including the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti during separate confrontations involving federal immigration agents in January.
Flanagan argued that the federal operation also produced a political reaction among Minnesota residents.
“The biggest thing I think — and I know that you saw it here when you were on the ground — is that Minnesotans showed up for each other,” she told Soboroff.
“We demonstrated that we are powerful in the face of Donald Trump. And I think that mobilized a lot of people to get engaged and involved in this race.”
The remarks expand on the message Flanagan delivered following her primary victory.
During her victory speech Tuesday, she declared that the country needed to “rip ICE apart and stop them from terrorizing our communities.”
That language is likely to receive plenty of attention during the general election, particularly because Republicans can contrast it with Flanagan’s acknowledgment later in Wednesday’s interview that immigration laws still need to be enforced.
Flanagan said she does believe there should be immigration enforcement.
That creates an important distinction in her position. She is not arguing for the elimination of immigration enforcement altogether. She is calling for ICE itself to be dismantled and replaced while maintaining some form of enforcement.
Exactly what that replacement would look like — its powers, personnel, detention authority and relationship with existing federal agencies — will become an obvious question as her Senate campaign moves forward.
Her criticism of the Laken Riley Act will likely receive similar scrutiny.
Calling the law a “green light” for the “chaos and cruelty” she says occurred in Minneapolis is a substantial claim about legislation enacted to impose additional detention requirements on certain noncitizens accused of crimes.
Flanagan has now made that argument part of her explanation for why Democratic voters chose her.
