Donald Trump “Softens” On Mass Deportations

February 5, 2026 Hunter Wallace Conservatism, donald trump, Immigration, MAGA, Minnesota, Politics, Populists 13

UPDATE:

Clean up crew has arrived on scene.

What should we make of this?

1. If you are one of these people who thought Operation Metro Surge in Minneapolis was a great success and that Trump needed to double down, invoke the Insurrection Act and SMASH LIBTARD SKULLS to break Minnesota because it is a sanctuary state, then this is a total defeat of your position.

2. In theory, you could make the case that Trump is pivoting from the more confrontational and theatrical approach to my position, which is that ICE and Border Patrol should focus on friendly jurisdictions in Red States and Purple States and Blue cities that cooperate, “pick the low hanging fruit” to drive up the numbers and try to avoid violent confrontations with caped libtard activists in places like Minneapolis. If that is the shift that is happening, then this is exactly what was needed.

3. The most blackpilled take and scenario is that Trump is retreating from Blue states and will focus on “targeted enforcement” and deportations of “criminal illegal aliens” and that ICE and Border Patrol will not go any harder than it has been in Red States like Texas. In this scenario, Tom Homan will turn in another dismal year of about 230,000 interior deportations and declare victory.

There is nothing wrong with a softer, less confrontational approach to mass deportations that cuts out the unnecessary clips and reels so long as the Trump administration is actually doing mass deportations. We will see what happens.

13 Comments

  1. It’ll be the third scenario. GOP business interests always prevail over what the voters want. The TACO meme is incorrect, as Trump has zero intentions on actually living up to his campaign promises. Everyone keeps mentioning Texas, ignoring that Hotwheels allowed places like Colony Ridge (built by his donors) to fester.

    Reply

  2. Trump is retreating entirely from the failure theater because the GOP house could fall below 190 seats and they might lose the senate, in which case his impeachment is certain. He is looking out for himself, which is the only thing he has ever done.

    All that chest beating over the Voting Rights Act and the cuckservative lament, only for the same old long term trends to flex their muscle and sweep away the last vestige of white flight anyway, just like I said would happen.

    Reply

  3. You cannot be implying there’s a chance that “he’s gonna do mass deportations this time.” Anyone who is seriously thinking that this is anything other than ANOTHER massive capitulation, another failure, another stab in the back for the base. This will result in nothing new or substantial, this is not 4 trillion d chess, this is not a tactical maneuver, this is “kids in cages” all over again, leading to the end of immigration as a goal of the admin for Trumps current term.

    Reply

  4. > If you are one of these people who thought Operation Metro Surge in Minneapolis was a great success and that Trump needed to double down, invoke the Insurrection Act and SMASH LIBTARD SKULLS to break Minnesota because it is a sanctuary state, then this is a total defeat of your position.

    The Minnesota operation was obviously a failure. Sending in ICE was a fundamentally bad decision because the real problem with MN was not the number of invaders on the ground there but the massive fraud which is being run by the state government there in conjunction with Somalis who are for the most part US citizens (paper Americans) thanks to the criminal stupidity of two decades of administrations going back to the Clinton era. ICE street-theater is not the way to address the issue – given that the gaslight media still controls the thoughts of large swaths of the idiocracy. They should have come up with a well-designed plan to decapitate the MN state government, including arrests of figures like Frey and Walz.

    Reply

  5. “There is nothing wrong with a softer, less confrontational approach to mass deportations that cuts out the unnecessary clips and reels so long as the Trump administration is actually doing mass deportations.”

    Trump explicitly states he has no intention of doing this. He only plans to deport violent criminals, not all illegals. True mass deportations would harm the financial interests of big donors like Miriam Adelson (casinos), Paul Singer and John Paulson (vulture finance).

    The only hope for immigration enforcement is to remove Trump from office and throw him in prison for his many disgusting crimes, as revealed in the Epstein files.

    Then a serious president, JD Vance, can implement REAL mass deportations.

    Reply

  6. One of those brainless, confused, bad “articles” that operator Unz not only publishes but also personally comments on. It could have come straight from the propaganda department of the “Mises Institute” or from Ayn Rand, which has been parroted for years as intended.

    https://www.unz.com/article/socialism-with-american-characteristics-vs-chinas-socialism-vs-hitlers-socialism/

    “National Socialism” did not refer to economic but racial socialism called “people’s community.” Even a working-class child should have the opportunity to become an industrial magnate, not through class affiliation, inheritance, or ancestry, but through economic talent.

    After 1933, the economy was converted from an international to a national one, and an economic policy based on self-sufficiency and strong isolationism was pursued. Many areas that had previously been run by the state bureaucracy were even privatized.

    https://cambridgeblog.org/2022/02/capitalism-and-nazism/

    Reply

  7. Is Trump going to attack Iran again? If he does, that will scramble the calculus on every issue, foreign and domestic, including ICE/deportations.

    Reply

  9. Trump’s approval falling to 41% is well deserved.
    He TACOs on immigration.
    He goes on the warpath.
    He thinks the economy is the best it’s ever been, thanks to him.
    He thinks he deserves the Nobel Peace prize.
    He thinks he’s one of the best Presidents ever, and belongs on Mt. Rushmore.
    He LOVES Israel, perhaps more than America.
    Let the Democrats win the midterms. Trump deserves that too.
    He might not be senile like Biden was, but has there ever been anyone with bigger delusions of grandeur?

    Reply

  10. Please share this on your main page as a guest article at your earliest convenience. # The Assault on Free Speech in Georgia: A Two-Year Nightmare of Raids, Warrants, and Constitutional Betrayal

    **By Michael Weaver**
    **White Information Network (WIN)**
    **February 5, 2026**

    In a nation founded on the blood of patriots who rebelled against tyranny, one would think a free society doesn’t raid Americans with a dozen deputies over First Amendment-protected speech. Yet in Douglas County, Georgia, that’s exactly what’s happened to Philip (Matt) and Hilary Jacobs, along with myself, Michael Weaver. Over 27 months ago, on November 3, 2023, Sheriff Tim Pounds’ office treated our homes like terrorist cells, storming in with paramilitary force for the “crime” of distributing flyers exposing Jewish overrepresentation in American politics, media, finance, and institutions that shape our cultural decay. This isn’t hyperbole—it’s a documented civil rights atrocity, a blatant content-based suppression of speech that the Supreme Court has shielded for decades. As we approach the next sham hearing on February 16, 2026, it’s time to lay bare the facts, the law, and the human toll of this dual system of justice.

    ### The Raids: From Peaceful Advocacy to SWAT-Style Terror

    The Jacobs’ ordeal began at dawn on November 3, 2023. Major Matt Gray commanded roughly a dozen deputies in a raid on their home, as if they were plotting an insurrection rather than exercising free speech. Matt Jacobs had placed informational flyers in driveways and on porches—simple acts of leafleting that detail how unelected lobbies like the Anti-Defamation League (ADL) influence policy, train law enforcement, and prioritize foreign interests over American sovereignty. Hilary Jacobs, who was merely in the backseat of their vehicle and distributed nothing, was arrested anyway, falsely imprisoned in a violation of her Fourth and Fourteenth Amendment rights.

    Days later, the boot came down on me. My apartment was raided under the same pretext: bogus littering charges for lawfully distributing similar flyers. Gray himself went on local news, admitting the literature was “antisemitic in nature”—a damning confession that proves this was no neutral enforcement. Law enforcement was policing content, not conduct, targeting viewpoints that challenge the elite’s grip. In a free society, we don’t unleash SWAT teams on families for handing out pamphlets; we protect the exchange of ideas, no matter how uncomfortable.

    Charges against the Jacobs escalated absurdly: First over 100 counts of littering, then bloated to 302, now reduced to 5 misdemeanors. But under Georgia law (O.C.G.A. § 16-7-52), which defines littering as intentionally discarding “waste materials,” no crime occurred. Expressive materials like political flyers aren’t waste—they’re the essence of democracy. State Court Solicitor Sonya Compton didn’t even file formal accusations until the Free Expression Foundation (FEF) filed a 42 U.S.C. § 1983 civil rights lawsuit, forcing her hand after years of deliberate delay. Judge Susan Camp, informed directly of binding precedent, dismissed it under stare decisis—the legal doctrine requiring lower courts to follow higher ones—arrogantly implying she could overrule the Georgia Supreme Court.

    The bonds? A punitive $30,000 each, imposed by Camp, far exceeding those for violent felons (verifiable at courts.dcga.us/WebSearch/mainpage.aspx). This mocks the Eighth Amendment’s prohibition on excessive bail, as *Stack v. Boyle*, 342 U.S. 1 (1951), requires bonds to be reasonable based on flight risk and offense gravity. For non-violent speech with no priors, it’s unconstitutional cruelty. ADA Lauren Wallace, a felony specialist, inserted herself into this farce, pressuring Camp before her rapid promotion to Superior Court Judge. The warrant’s dual signatures—Camp’s on raid day, then Magistrate Joel Dodson’s three days later—reeks of fabrication to cover tracks.

    ### First Amendment Caselaw: An Ironclad Shield Ignored

    The law is unequivocal: This persecution is illegal. The First Amendment declares “Congress shall make no law… abridging the freedom of speech,” extending to states via the Fourteenth Amendment. Leafleting is core protected activity, as the U.S. Supreme Court has ruled time and again.

    Start with *Schneider v. New Jersey*, 308 U.S. 147 (1939), where the Court invalidated municipal ordinances banning handbill distribution to prevent littering. Justice Roberts wrote: “Mere legislative preferences for cleanliness over speech cannot justify suppression of the latter.” The government must regulate litter without chilling expression—the Jacobs’ and my flyers posed no such threat; they informed, they didn’t defile.

    This principle was reinforced in *Martin v. City of Struthers*, 319 U.S. 141 (1943), striking down a door-to-door leaflet ban. The Court held that “the circulation of a leaflet… does not deprive the homeowner of his privacy any more than does a letter from the mailman,” affirming such acts as essential political speech. *Lovell v. City of Griffin*, 303 U.S. 444 (1938), went further, prohibiting permit requirements for literature distribution, as they vest officials with unbridled discretion to suppress dissent—much like Gray’s content-based raid.

    Georgia’s own Supreme Court echoed this in *Statesboro Publishing Co. v. City of Sylvania*, 277 Ga. 502 (1999), ruling that placing newspapers or flyers in driveways and on porches is protected First Amendment activity, not littering. Any contrary enforcement is an unconstitutional content-based restriction under strict scrutiny, where the government must prove a compelling interest and narrow tailoring—impossible here, as the flyers advanced public discourse on elite influence.

    Broader protections apply: *Jamison v. Texas*, 318 U.S. 413 (1943), invalidated handbill bans outright, declaring distributors “exercising a right protected by the Constitution.” *Watchtower Bible & Tract Society of New York, Inc. v. Village of Stratton*, 536 U.S. 150 (2002), shielded unsolicited door-to-door advocacy, noting blanket prohibitions infringe on anonymous political speech. And for rhetorical calls to action, like our peaceful rally, *Brandenburg v. Ohio*, 395 U.S. 444 (1969), protects advocacy unless it incites “imminent lawless action”—absent here, as we’ve emphasized non-violence.

    Federal statutes seal the felony: 18 U.S.C. §§ 241-242 punish conspiracies to deprive rights under color of law with up to 10 years imprisonment. The Sheriff’s Office’s refusal of Georgia Open Records Act requests (O.C.G.A. § 50-18-70 et seq.) for ADL/SPLC communications screams cover-up, tied to Pounds’ GILEE training (gilee.gsu.edu), an ADL-partnered program shipping sheriffs to Israel for “sensitivity” that crushes dissent (partnerships at gilee.gsu.edu/about/partnerships/community-and-civic-organizations/).

    The FEF’s §1983 suit, led by Glenn Allen (Charlottesville defender), was dismissed by U.S. District Judge Steven Grimberg under the Younger doctrine—abstaining from state proceedings—but appealed to the 11th Circuit, keeping the fight alive.

    ### The Human Toll: Stolen Lives in a Dual System of Justice

    This isn’t abstract; it’s devastation. Over two years lost: Birthdays without cake or cheers, Christmases devoid of gifts and gatherings, irreplaceable family bonds frayed forever. The Jacobs’ home, once a haven, echoes with absence; my own harassment extended to my father, while I hid from warrants that chained me from my dying tuxedo cat, Tuxedo. He passed alone—no final purr, no stroke of his soft fur—because the system deemed my speech a threat.

    And the hypocrisy? A dual system of justice. We face raids for protected speech, yet synagogues go unraided for metzitzah b’peh—the ritual where rabbis orally suction blood from infants’ circumcisions, spreading herpes and endangering lives. No SWAT teams for Jeffrey Epstein’s pedophile clients, those elite predators who trafficked minors with impunity. White patriots get the boot; the powerful get a blind eye. This erodes our organic nation—Christian, hierarchical, patriarchal—pushing the Great Replacement through silenced dissent, feminist degeneracy, and egalitarian lies.

    The Lugenpresse stays silent, complicit in the ADL’s war on our heritage.

    ### Call to Action: Rally, Donate, Resist

    February 16, 2026, at the Douglas County Courthouse (8700 Hospital Drive, Douglasville, GA), 8 AM: Join the peaceful rally. Signs like “End ADL Censorship!”, chants, prayers, and filming (public spaces allow it). No violence—our power is constitutional. Coordinate on Gab (@MWeaver) or WIN.

    Support the appeal: Donate to the Free Expression Foundation at freeexpressionfoundation.org/donate/—mark “Jacobs and Weaver Free Speech Case.” Every cent fuels the 11th Circuit fight. Share the raid video (bitchute.com/video/AS7zjjhoTC28), Moon Maiden (moonmaiden.substack.com/p/when-tyranny-becomes-law), American Free Press (americanfreepress.net/couple-arrested-charged-for-handing-out-legal-flyers/), and Occidental Dissent (occidentaldissent.com/2024/08/26/free-speech-under-attack-in-georgia-2/).

    In a free society, speech isn’t raided—it’s revered. The Jacobs and I stand for God, family, and the Republic. When caselaw crumbles, resistance rebuilds. Victory or Valhalla.

    *Editor’s note: Hilary Jacobs did not distribute flyers.*

    Reply

  11. PS: Formally, the largely private economic system remained in place during the Third Reich.

    However, the one-party dictatorship presumed to interfere in and direct the economic organization at will, rewarding obedience and compliance with carrots and sticks:

    “You can keep your company, but you must now switch your production from car parts to anti-aircraft guns!”

    This was simply a “national necessity” or “duty of national honor.” Those who did not see this were ostracized as traitors to vital national interests and, at least during wartime, also expropriated.

    It goes without saying that speculation with “fictitious values” (i.e., public property) in the Jewish style, as on the New York Stock Exchange, was not only frowned upon but strictly prohibited.

    A typical example of how the system operated was the enactment of a decree shortly after the seizure of power that made trading in “national symbols” (such as kitschy Christmas tree baubles with swastikas) a criminal offense.

    https://www.usmbooks.com/nazi_kitsch.html

    My request to AI:

    Q: “Is historian Jonathan Zatlin Jewish?”

    A: “I was not able to find any reliable biographical source that clearly states Jonathan Zatlin’s religious identity, so I cannot say whether he is Jewish. It is publicly documented that he specializes in German and Jewish history and is affiliated with Jewish studies institutions, but specialization in or institutional ties to Jewish studies do not necessarily indicate that a historian is personally Jewish.”

    Q: “Is Zatlin a typical Jewish name?”

    A: “The surname ‘Zatlin” is generally considered a Jewish (Eastern Ashkenazi) surname, related to forms like Zeitlin/Zeitelin that are documented as Jewish family names from Belarus, Lithuania, and surrounding regions.

    That said, surnames can spread and change over time, so having the name Zatlin makes it likely, but not certain, that a family has Jewish ancestry.”

    Q: “What did he mean by the somewhat interesting sounding phrase ‘None are so proficient at practicing capitalism yet as fiercely critical of it than the Germans’?”

    A: “He is highlighting what he sees as a paradox in modern German attitudes to capitalism.

    In that phrase, he’s saying roughly this:

    • Germans are extremely good at operating within capitalist markets, especially in terms of productivity, exports, engineering, and running successful firms.

    • At the same time, many Germans cultivate a strong intellectual and cultural tradition of criticizing capitalism—emphasizing inequality, social justice, and the dangers of markets—more intensely than many other capitalist societies.

    So the ‘proficient at practicing capitalism’ part refers to Germany’s economic success and deep integration into global capitalist markets, while ‘fiercely critical of it’ points to the country’s powerful strands of social democracy, Marxist and critical theory, and anti?capitalist public opinion in media, academia, and politics. The ‘interesting’ tension he’s drawing out is that one and the same society can be both a model capitalist economy and a leading producer of anti?capitalist critique.”

    Q: “Wasn’t this somewhat ‘schizophrenic’ attitude already true of the Third Reich?”

    A: “In the Third Reich you see something related, but it worked very differently from the post?1945 pattern Zatlin is describing.

    Nazi Germany and capitalism

    • Large private firms (chemical, steel, automotive, banking) remained privately owned and profited greatly from rearmament, conquest, and forced labor.

    • The regime mobilized and “steered” capitalism for war and racial goals rather than replacing it with a socialist economy, so capitalist dynamics and interests were central to the system.

    Was there fierce critique of capitalism?

    • Nazi rhetoric attacked ‘finance capitalism’ and ‘Jewish’ or ‘speculative’ capital, but this was a racialized conspiracy narrative, not a structural critique of capitalism as such in the sense of Marxism or social democracy.

    • Genuine anti?capitalist currents (socialists, communists, many trade unionists) were brutally suppressed, so public ‘critique’ of capitalism was tightly controlled and folded into antisemitic propaganda.

    How this differs from Zatlin’s point

    • Zatlin’s phrase refers to a democratic, postwar Federal Republic that is both a highly successful capitalist export economy and home to strong intellectual, political, and public criticism of capitalism (Frankfurt School, social democracy, unions, left parties, NGOs, media).

    • The Third Reich, by contrast, combined capitalist profiteering with a regime that silenced genuine socialist or egalitarian criticism and replaced it with racist, authoritarian ‘anti?capitalist’ slogans serving a hyper?capitalist, imperial project.

    So there is a superficial similarity—capitalist success coexisting with rhetoric against aspects of ‘capitalism’—but in the Third Reich that ‘critique’ was neither democratic nor emancipatory, and it primarily targeted racialized enemies while leaving core capitalist hierarchies intact.”

    Reply

Leave a Reply to Heinz Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.


*