When Federal Power Stops Answering to the People
As Congress seeks accountability, the executive branch offers impunity—and signals it's ready to deploy the military to protect it.
Over just ten days in January 2026, three events unfolded separately yet unmistakably linked by what they reveal about the current structure of power in the United States.
Representative Ayanna Pressley reintroduced legislation to strip federal agents of the legal shield known as qualified immunity. White House Deputy Chief of Staff Stephen Miller told immigration officers that they were covered by “federal immunity.” President Trump threatened to invoke the Insurrection Act to suppress protests following the fatal shooting of a U.S. citizen by a federal agent.
Each of these events carries weight on its own. Together, they form a chilling pattern — not theoretical, but operational — in which the federal government is not just exercising its force, but consolidating it, and preemptively excusing it from consequence.
This is not about fear-mongering. It is about documenting the use and justification of force in plain view, and refusing to treat its normalization as anything less than a democratic emergency.
Want to Know Your Rights?
Download a free digital copy of the U.S. Constitution, the same document Trump is trying to bulldoze. Learn exactly what he’s breaking, and how to fight back.
100,000+ strong — and counting.
This winter of our discontent, become a paid subscriber for just $1 a week and help us keep the truth alive.
Join The Coffman Chronicle — $1/Week
A Civilian Killed, A Bill Reintroduced
On January 13, Rep. Ayanna Pressley and Senator Ed Markey reintroduced the Qualified Immunity Abolition Act of 2026, a bill aimed at ending legal protections for federal agents that frequently block civil rights lawsuits from proceeding in court. The announcement came just six days after Renée Nicole Good, a 37-year-old U.S. citizen, was shot and killed by an ICE agent in Minneapolis.
The bill would not touch state or local police. It focuses solely on federal officers, including ICE, CBP, and other DHS agents, who, thanks to a combination of qualified immunity and restrictive court doctrines, operate with near-total protection from civil liability. In many cases, even when a federal agent violates someone’s constitutional rights, victims are blocked from suing because no “clearly established” precedent exists under federal law.
Pressley’s legislation is a direct challenge to that system. In her words, it aims to “finally restore the full power of our civil rights statutes,” and to ensure that “federal agents cannot kill with impunity.” Markey called it a necessary step to restore constitutional accountability.
In any healthy democracy, this would be the beginning of a conversation about law, about training, about oversight. Yet that’s not really what is happening.
“You Have Federal Immunity”: The Executive Line Hardens
On January 13th, the Department of Homeland Security reshared a post of Stephen Miller from the Will Cain show in October in which he stated: “You have federal immunity in the conduct of your duties.” He added that no state or activist could interfere with their work, and that anyone who did was committing a felony.
X
Miller is not an elected official, but his words carry weight. He is the president’s senior policy adviser and a central figure in shaping the current administration’s immigration and enforcement strategy. His language was not vague. It was a deliberate assertion of legal untouchability.
To be clear, there is no such thing as blanket “federal immunity.” Legal experts weighed in immediately following Miller’s claim. Federal agents may be protected in some cases from state prosecution under the Supremacy Clause, and they do benefit from qualified immunity in civil cases. However, what Miller offered was not legal nuance but political absolution. It was a message to agents that no matter what happens, the law will not touch them.
This is not how laws are supposed to work. However, this is how cultures of impunity are built, not through legal rulings alone, but through rhetorical signals from the top.
A Threat from the Commander-in-Chief
On the morning of January 15, President Trump posted the following message on Truth Social:
“If the corrupt politicians of Minnesota don’t obey the law and stop the professional agitators and insurrectionists from attacking the Patriots of I.C.E, who are only trying to do their job, I will institute the INSURRECTION ACT, which many Presidents have done before me, and quickly put an end to the travesty that is taking place in that once great state.”
There is no ambiguity in this statement. The president threatened to deploy the U.S. military — not in response to armed rebellion, not in response to an attack on the Capitol, but in response to public protests over a government killing.
By all available reporting, these protests have been overwhelmingly peaceful. There has been no emergency declaration by Minnesota officials. There has been no request for federal troops. There has been no evidence of a breakdown in civil order warranting the use of the Insurrection Act, a statute originally passed in 1807 and used only sparingly in modern history, typically only with state consent.
And yet, the president threatens military deployment as a first response to dissent.
That this threat came just days after the White House quietly revised its official narrative of January 6, 2021, scrubbing references to violence and describing the Capitol breach as a protest, is not an accident of timing, but an attempt to invert reality, casting citizens protesting federal violence as seditionists, while recasting a true insurrection as legitimate civic expression.
See our reporting here:
This is not an interpretation. It is a documented fact.
What These Events Reveal
What we are witnessing is a convergence of three strands of power: a Congresswoman introducing legislation that would impose legal consequences on federal agents who violate civil rights; a senior executive official telling those same agents they are immune from accountability; and a president declaring that public protest against these agents may soon be met with military force.
This is not merely a question of policy direction. It is a real-time illustration of how a democratic republic can begin to consolidate unchecked executive power under the language of law and order.
This is not about hypotheticals. Citizens have already been killed. A protester has already been blinded. And no one — not one federal agent involved in any of these incidents — has been charged or arrested.
We Are Not Powerless, But We Are on Notice
We do not write this to provoke fear. We write it to affirm clarity.
There is no law, statute, or founding document that can protect a democracy once its institutions decline to enforce the limits of power, and that is the moment we are watching unfold now — not in secret, not in theory, but in full public view.
Legislators who speak the truth about military oaths are being investigated. Protesters who de-escalate are being tear-gassed. Officers who kill civilians are protected. The most powerful military in the world is being named as the enforcer of domestic calm.
We still have tools. We still have time. However, we do not have the luxury of pretending this is business as usual. It is not, and history will not look back kindly on those who saw the pattern and said nothing.
Support Independent Media
Sources:
“Markey and Pressley introduce bill to end federal law enforcement immunity” — The Boston Globe, January 13, 2026.
“In New Bill, Ayanna Pressley Demands End To Qualified Immunity For ICE Officers” — BET, January 14, 2026.
“Following ICE Murder of Renee Good, Pressley & Markey Expand Push to End Qualified Immunity for ICE Agents, Federal Officers” — Press Release (Markey/Pressley), January 13, 2026.
“Trump adviser says ICE officers have ‘federal immunity’ Experts say that doesn’t mean they can’t face charges” — The Independent, January 14, 2026.
“DHS shares Stephen Miller clip telling ICE they have ‘federal immunity’” — FOX 9, January 14, 2026.
“Trump threatens to use Insurrection Act to end protests in Minneapolis” — AP News, January 15, 2026.
“Trump threatens to use Insurrection Act to end protests in Minneapolis” — Reuters, January 15, 2026.
“Trump threatens to use Insurrection Act to end Minneapolis protests” — Al Jazeera, January 15, 2026.
“White House recasts Trump as a Jan. 6 hero in new anniversary website” — MS NOW, January 6, 2026.
“White House Recasts Jan. 6 Riot as ‘Peaceful Protest’” — Wall Street Journal, January 2026 (reported revision of Jan. 6 description).
When the government sees George Orwell's 1984 as a playbook rather than a cautionary tale, it's time to give the problem our full attention while we still can.
Oh, discordia! This rotten excuse of a leader daily displays his lack of respect for Americans and cannot leave office soon enough for any of us.