The fatal shooting of a U.S. citizen by a federal immigration agent in Minneapolis is a profoundly disturbing event. It has sparked public outrage and intensified tensions between federal authorities and local leaders.

The response to public protest in the wake of this killing will matter as much as the incident itself. In a democracy, the rights to free expression, peaceful assembly, and criticism of the government are not threats to national security; they are essential to it. History shows that chilling speech does not make a nation safer, It makes it more brittle, weakening the trust and cohesion that democratic security depends upon.

This incident comes at a moment when the United States appears to be retreating from longstanding commitments to international cooperation while increasingly relying on force, both at home and abroad, to achieve its goals. Recent U.S. military action in Venezuela, alongside threats of similar interventions elsewhere and withdrawals from key international institutions, signal a troubling shift toward isolationism and coercion as tools of policy.

The parallels matter. Whether the use of force occurs overseas or on a city street in Minneapolis, the underlying question is the same: what do we expect of democratic power, and who do we want to be as a nation?

National security is not sustained by force alone. It depends on legitimacy. It depends on the belief that power is exercised lawfully, proportionately, and with accountability. When force becomes a substitute for collaboration, oversight, and consent, trust erodes, social divisions deepen, and both domestic stability and global credibility suffer.

Immigration enforcement sits squarely at this intersection of security and legitimacy. Truman has long argued that a functional, humane immigration system is a core component of democratic governance, not a test of how much force the state can deploy. When immigration is treated primarily as a security threat rather than a shared governance challenge, enforcement expands faster than oversight, accountability weakens, and the risk of harm to civilians increases. A system that relies on fear and coercion to demonstrate control ultimately undermines public trust, damages community safety, and erodes the rule of law it claims to defend.

Excessive or unchecked uses of force, whether in immigration enforcement or foreign policy, risks undermining the very security they claim to protect. The strength of the United States has never rested solely on its capacity to wield power, but on its willingness to restrain it in service of democratic values.

This moment demands reflection, not just on a single incident, but on the broader direction of our national conduct, at home and abroad, and a recommitment to the principles that make democratic security possible.