A U.S. combat veteran is issuing a stark warning about Immigration and Customs Enforcement operations in Minnesota, arguing that recent actions by ICE and Border Patrol cross a dangerous line — one she says no professional military force would be allowed to cross.
In a searing op-ed published in the Huffington Post, Iraq War veteran Diana Oestreich compared federal immigration agents’ conduct in Minneapolis to behavior explicitly forbidden in combat zones, calling the pattern “sinister” and demanding it be confronted head-on
Oestreich, who served more than a year in Iraq as part of a 500-soldier battalion, said ICE and Border Patrol operations in Minnesota have resulted in the deaths of two Minnesotans in a matter of weeks, a fact she contrasts sharply with her own combat experience.
“In over a year of combat in Iraq, my battalion of 500 soldiers did not kill a single person,” Oestreich wrote. “That difference matters.”
She detailed the strict rules her unit operated under, even while facing snipers, roadside bombs, and active firefights. Soldiers, she explained, were prohibited from using lethal force unless a shooter was clearly identified, civilians were not in danger, and no other options remained. Those constraints weren’t optional — they were enforced by the Uniform Code of Military Justice and the War Crimes Act.
According to Oestreich, that accountability is what separates professional forces from mercenaries.
Her warning comes amid growing scrutiny of ICE operations in Minneapolis following the fatal shootings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti. Minnesota officials have demanded full investigations into both deaths, including allegations that lifesaving medical aid may have been delayed or denied — allegations Oestreich says cannot be dismissed as partisan noise.
“This is not political disagreement,” she wrote. “It is a constitutional failure.”
Oestreich also pointed to remarks by Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara, who said the department recovered roughly **900 guns** and arrested hundreds of violent offenders in 2025 without killing a single person. The comparison, she argued, raises an unavoidable question: how can civilian police and combat troops operate with restraint, while federal immigration agents cannot?
The answer, she suggested, is deeply troubling.
“Either this is their mission — or they are operating outside accountability,” Oestreich wrote.
In one of the column’s most striking passages, Oestreich warned that armed agents who operate beyond the reach of law cease to be public servants altogether. Without transparency, oversight, and consequences, she argued, federal badges become shields for violence rather than safeguards for the public.
“Mercenaries are defined not only by who pays them but by what restrains them,” she wrote. “Without those codes, uniforms become disguises instead of safeguards.”
Oestreich rejected the idea that internal staffing changes or silence from federal agencies constitute accountability, insisting that Minnesotans are right to demand independent investigations under state law. No federal authority, she wrote, is above the Constitution.
Her conclusion was blunt: if ICE and Border Patrol cannot operate with restraint, transparency, and legal accountability, they are not fit to operate in Minnesota — or anywhere else.
“When force is untethered from law,” Oestreich warned, “our freedom is already in danger.”
