Gov. Evers Responds to Trump Border Adviser Threat \ Newslooks \ Washington DC \ Mary Sidiqi \ Evening Edition \ Wisconsin Gov. Tony Evers strongly defended himself Friday after a Trump border adviser hinted he could face arrest for issuing immigration-related guidance to state employees. The memo advised staff to seek legal counsel before complying with ICE. Evers labeled the criticism as misinformation and called the threats “chilling.”
Quick Looks
- Gov. Evers defends memo guiding state workers on ICE encounters
- Guidance advises consulting attorneys before complying with ICE
- Trump’s border adviser Tom Homan implied Evers could face arrest
- Evers says he has not broken the law or encouraged it
- Memo mirrors legal advice from Connecticut and national groups
- Republicans accuse Evers of interfering with immigration enforcement
- Evers calls threats “chilling” and politically motivated
- Fake image of Evers in handcuffs circulated by GOP state lawmaker
- Legal spotlight comes after Wisconsin judge arrested in ICE case
- Evers: “I’m not afraid” to stand by legal protections
Deep Look
The political and legal standoff between Wisconsin Governor Tony Evers and the Trump-aligned federal immigration apparatus intensified Friday, following a controversial suggestion by Trump’s top border adviser that the Democratic governor could face criminal prosecution. The spark for this confrontation is a guidance memo issued by Evers’ administration — a standard procedural document intended to instruct state employees on how to legally handle encounters with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents. But in today’s politically charged climate, it has escalated into a constitutional clash over states’ rights, federal authority, legal ethics, and free speech.
At issue is a one-page directive released in response to internal inquiries from Wisconsin state workers. The document advises employees not to turn over files or allow access to digital records without first consulting their agency’s legal counsel. It also recommends asking ICE officers to return at a later time if legal representation is not immediately available and instructs staff not to answer questions from ICE agents directly. Far from being a radical or subversive policy, the memo mirrors best practices recommended by national immigration law groups, and reflects similar guidance issued in other blue states — including Connecticut.
But that context hasn’t stopped critics, particularly within the Trump orbit, from seizing on the guidance as a supposed act of obstruction. On Thursday, Tom Homan, former acting director of ICE and now Trump’s lead border policy adviser, told reporters outside the White House to “wait to see what’s coming” in response to the memo. Homan escalated the rhetoric by suggesting that if Evers or state employees were found to have “knowingly harbored or concealed an illegal alien,” it would be treated as a felony offense. While he did not provide specifics or confirm an investigation, the statement was widely interpreted as a threat of potential legal action against a sitting governor.
Governor Evers responded swiftly and defiantly in a video posted to YouTube, calling the rhetoric “chilling” and part of a broader misinformation campaign aimed at undermining lawful governance. “I haven’t broken the law,” Evers said. “I’ve never once been discouraged from doing the right thing, and I will not start today.”
Evers emphasized that the guidance was never intended to prevent cooperation with ICE but rather to ensure compliance with all applicable laws while protecting the due process rights of both state employees and the individuals affected by federal immigration enforcement. “The goal is not resistance,” he said. “The goal is legal clarity.”
Still, right-wing media and some Republican officials have run with the narrative that Evers is operating a de facto sanctuary policy, even though the memo does not prohibit cooperation with ICE. Wisconsin GOP Rep. Calvin Callahan stoked the flames further by posting a doctored image on social media showing a glowering Evers in handcuffs, escorted by Trump in a police uniform — a visual metaphor for a political fantasy playing out across conservative media circles.
The controversy arrives amid heightened scrutiny of state and local officials’ interactions with federal immigration authorities, particularly following the arrest of Milwaukee County Circuit Judge Hannah Dugan. Dugan was recently charged with two felonies for allegedly helping a man evade ICE officers after learning they were waiting to detain him at her courthouse. That case has intensified the political pressure on Wisconsin’s judiciary and further politicized the state’s role in immigration enforcement.
But legal scholars say the distinction between obstruction and legal caution is being dangerously blurred. Public officials and employees, they argue, have a constitutional right to consult legal counsel — especially in complex legal areas like immigration enforcement, which often involves overlapping jurisdictions, confidential information, and civil rights protections. The National Immigration Law Center, among others, has praised Wisconsin’s memo as an example of legally sound public policy.
The Evers controversy is also emblematic of a broader trend in Trump’s second-term policy blueprint: expanding executive pressure on states, professional institutions, and individuals seen as political or ideological obstacles. From targeting elite law firms to punishing states that refuse to fall in line with federal immigration priorities, the aggressive federalism rollback signals a more combative and retributive approach to governance.
Homan’s comments — vague, ominous, and strategically timed — are part of that tactic. By invoking felony prosecution while offering no legal specifics, he casts a cloud of suspicion and doubt over legitimate governance actions, effectively chilling dissent without needing to follow through with legal action. The fact that the comments came days after the judge’s arrest adds emotional weight and heightened tension to the moment.
Constitutionally, the situation pits the First and Tenth Amendments against federal immigration authority. The First protects freedom of expression and legal advice, while the Tenth reserves powers not delegated to the federal government to the states — including how state agencies operate internally. Unless Evers or his administration explicitly instructed employees to break federal law or obstruct immigration officers, legal experts say there is no criminal exposure — and any attempt to prosecute would face substantial constitutional hurdles.
In defending his actions, Evers is not just protecting a memo — he’s defending the legal autonomy of state government, the professional duty of legal counsel, and the right of public employees to not be coerced into immediate compliance without representation. He has made clear that he sees this battle not as a partisan skirmish, but as a defense of democratic norms.
“This isn’t about immigration policy,” Evers said in the video. “It’s about rule of law. It’s about the right to ask for a lawyer before handing over documents. That shouldn’t be controversial.”
But in an environment where political messaging often trumps legal nuance, even routine memos can be weaponized. As the 2025 election cycle heats up and Trump and his allies continue to test the limits of executive influence, conflicts like this may become more frequent — and more dangerous.
For now, Evers is standing firm. “I’m not afraid,” he said — a quiet but resolute reminder that in the face of intimidation, civic courage still has a voice.
Gov. Evers Responds Gov. Evers Responds Gov. Evers Responds
You must Register or Login to post a comment.