#17: Our Mainstream Response to This Moment: Learning from Minnesota, Acting in Community (Part Two)

Summary

In this, Part Two of our post, I discuss the challenge of how democratic societies can mobilize at various levels of society in positive response to increasing American authoritarianism.

(Part One may be found here).

Recognizing we must compliment our personal and national work with local and state level action, I explore elements of that approach and state “soft succession,” before closing with a word of warning that as we act locally, we must affirm our commitment to a United States of America and not submit to the idea that our nation has split and divided to the point where we can longer be one.

How should democratic societies respond?

As previous posts explored the place of individuals in responding to rising American authoritarianism, when we think of a larger, societal level of response, the following might be elements of our engagement:

1. Early and consistent accountability: Democracies must refuse to normalize authoritarianism, even through quiet economic toleration.

2. Solidarity and coordination: Civil society, workers, investors, and politicians need to unite—not free‑ride—to resist repression.

3. Diversify and decouple: Businesses deeply dependent on authoritarian states (e.g. single‑market exposure) must explore diversification to reduce leverage.

4. Support alternative narratives: Independent media, alternative institutions, and international NGOs help off‑set state propaganda.

5. Enforce ethical cost: Public pressure, regulation, and reputational risk raise the cost of capitulation—deterring cozy relationships with autocrats

To confront these converging pressures, the following are essential:

• Rebuild representation: electoral and party reforms that restore voice.

• Strengthen institutions: judicial independence, media autonomy, civil society support.

• Address inequality: economic policies that reduce stratification and restore mobility.

• Regulate platforms: counter disinformation and algorithmic reinforcement without censorship.

Broadly speaking, what we’re talking about (from an impact investing perspective) is the opportunity to align governmental policy and enabling frameworks with the needs of private market, impact seeking capital to be deployed in greater alignment with both. The GSG Impact (together with I assume various collaborators) has done some interesting work in this area that is worth exploring.

And when taken together, we begin to see how the personal becomes the political and the local is linked with national—and international—efforts to promote democracy in the face of moves to curtail democratic process.

It also becomes clear our actions as impact investors have seeded a host of promising strategies and organizations offering real, meaningful alternatives for those looking to literally put our money where our mouths are. While addressed in part throughout, the role and place of impact investing in this moment will be specifically explored in future posts of the AtA Series.

Never mind the Feds: Acting at the State Level

One area of activity that has been of note has been the response of “Blue States” having been targeted by the current administration. Along these lines, the Center for American Progress reflects on a number of ways States can organize to protect themselves (or at least try to…) in response to executive overreach. This would include action to draft national legislation formalizing what had been the norm for how states handled the process of redistricting.

According to CAP, such legislation could include the following:

• Commit states to keep redrawn mid-decade maps in reaction to Texas’ redistricting through the 2030 election cycle.

• Call on Congress to act immediately and pass federal standards for redistricting with quantitative measures for proportional redistricting—wherein the statewide proportion of districts in each redistricting plan correspond as closely as possible to the statewide partisan preference of voters—to ensure fairness and accountability in time for all states to draw fair maps following the 2030 decennial census.

• Where applicable, reinstate the use of a state’s redistricting commission to draw congressional maps following a decennial census only after federal redistricting standards have been enacted.

• Reaffirm values of fairness and the importance of representation and fair maps for all Americans and how these principles will be realized with congressional action.

The article points folks to reviewing proposed text of this “redistricting treaty” as model legislation and is included here.

Going a step beyond legislation, and in addition to considering the previous points, society level areas of engaging to challenge the rise of fascism, Chris Armitage also shares some great examples of action to be taken at the State level—but takes it a step beyond by concluding states should engage in what he calls “soft secession.”

Armitage identifies a number of actions being taken by “blue states” and how “soft secession” - a coordinated resistance strategy that uses legal federalism principles to effectively nullify federal authority within their borders without violent confrontation—can be effective in responding to actions seeking to take away state authority to govern. In a separate but related post, Armitage proposes the withholding of federal taxes at the state level as one more aspect of a soft succession movement.

Some of these steps might include:

Organized Resistance Infrastructure: Twenty-three Democratic attorneys general hold daily 8 AM Zoom calls to coordinate legal challenges and share lawsuit templates. They’ve been preparing since last spring, with California’s AG describing preparations so thorough that challenging Trump’s birthright citizenship order required only minor finishing touches before filing.

Economic Leverage: Blue states contribute significantly more to federal coffers than they receive back - Massachusetts sends $4,846 more per capita than it gets back, while New York contributed $142.6 billion more than it received over five years. Meanwhile, red states receive $1.24 for every dollar they send to Washington.

Legal Foundation: The strategy relies on conservative Supreme Court precedents, particularly the “anti-commandeering doctrine” from cases like Printz v. United States (1997), which prevents the federal government from forcing states to implement federal programs. As the author notes, “The legal foundation for soft secession was written by conservative justices who never imagined blue states would use it.”

Historical Precedent: Armitage cites successful examples of state non-cooperation, including Northern states’ personal liberty laws that made the Fugitive Slave Act “virtually unenforceable between 1780 and 1859, with only 330 slaves returned despite federal law,” and cannabis legalization spreading to 41 states despite federal prohibition.

Practical Preparations: States are stockpiling resources (Oregon storing abortion medication in secret warehouses), exploring digital sovereignty, and preparing to deny federal agents access to state databases, airports, and highways. Illinois Governor Pritzker is exploring ways to disable location tracking for people crossing state lines for medical procedures.

Parallel Governance: Blue states are building independent systems - the Regional Greenhouse Gas Initiative’s 11 states reduced emissions by 50% while federal climate regulations were rolled back, and the U.S. Climate Alliance’s 24 governors represent 60% of the American economy.

He concludes by arguing these times and this process do not at this time appear to be heading toward violent conflict like 1861, but rather “states quietly walking away from each other,” creating a scenario where federal authority becomes “meaningless within their borders” through systematic non-cooperation rather than direct confrontation.

At this point, I should also acknowledge that for some much of this is simply a question of how the Democratic Party should reposition itself in these times and seek to promote a platform focused less on gender, racial justice or other social issues and more on foundational economic questions many would cite as driving much of the frustration and energies of those voting for the Republican Party.

This is, of course, another direction we might take in the AtA Series, but I’d encourage you to find other resources better positioned for that discussion. For those interested, I would point you to various reports on how the Democrats need to think differently about the moment. While a part of the solution, getting into a lengthy discussion of Democratic Party strategy is beyond what I would like to address in this series—though it is, perhaps, the focus of a series to come!

And the bottom line here is that, in the words of Robert Reich:

Share

Communities Respond: Organizing At the Local Grassroots Level

As previously referenced, recent events in Minnesota have been both tragic and inspiring. The way in which members of various local communities organized in opposition to the ICE surge in their state has been nothing less than uplifting for those of us watching the authoritarian tide flow across our nation.

In stepping back, there are a number of aspects to their strategic response we should take note of and build upon as we mobilize our common, peaceful promotion of an alternative vision of America in other cities and states across the country.

The outline that follows is informed by publicly shared information, articles and press releases, so I do not feel I’m betraying any secrets or strategic positioning by sharing them more widely in my effort to support each of us showing up as we feel most appropriate in this moment in peaceful ways that reflect the deep, historic values we affirm.

That said, we must ask:

What have been the key aspects of community level responses in Minnesota that led to success and celebration of local voice, self determination and opposition to the rise of American Authoritarianism?

There have been six key areas of action:

1. Rapid response network and community surveillance

2. Economic action and Labor organizing

3. Faith-based, nonviolent direct action

4. Mutual aid and community support

5. Legal and institutional challenges

6. Mass mobilization and public protest

Let’s consider initial details in each of these.

1. Rapid Response Networks & Community Surveillance

Minnesota developed sophisticated systems involving thousands of volunteers who track ICE agents using encrypted apps like Signal. These networks evolved from centralized systems to decentralized neighborhood-based units.

Key aspects:

• License plate tracking and databases (categorizing vehicles as “confirmed ICE,” “suspected ICE,” etc.)

• Hundreds of rapid response networks with thousands of volunteers tracking immigration agents and communicating through encrypted apps

• Mobile patrols in immigrant neighborhoods

• Documentation using the S.A.L.U.T.E. format (Size, Activity, Location, Uniform, Time, Equipment)

• Nearly 30,000 Minnesotans trained as constitutional observers (that’s an incredible number…).

2. Economic Action & Labor Organizing

Communities organized what would have been Minnesota’s first general strike since 1934, framed as a “Day of Truth & Freedom” or “economic blackout.”

Key aspects:

• Hundreds of businesses closed on January 23, 2026, with organizers estimating tens of thousands attended protests in subzero temperatures

• “No work, no school, no shopping” campaign

• Union-led food distribution systems for members in hiding

• Pressure campaigns against corporations (Target, Delta Airlines, Hilton, Enterprise, Home Depot) to become “4th Amendment businesses”

3. Faith-Based Nonviolent Direct Action

Religious communities led high-profile civil disobedience, drawing on traditions of nonviolent resistance.

Key aspects:

• Over 1,000 people of faith held a nonviolent action at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport on January 23, with 100 people arrested in below-zero temperatures

• Led by nonprofit group ISAIAH and interfaith clergy

• Quaker and other faith communities providing witness at detention sites

• Training in nonviolent resistance methods

4. Mutual Aid & Community Support

Grassroots networks provided material support to community members unable to leave their homes.

Key aspects:

• One mutual aid network distributed 12,000 boxes of food since the federal surge began

• Driving people to work, patrolling schools during drop-off/pick-up

• Organizing for eviction moratoriums

• Restaurant fundraisers and community food drives

• Emergency pregnancy and healthcare services for those sheltering in place

5. Legal & Institutional Challenges

Communities pursued multiple legal strategies alongside direct action.

Key aspects:

• Joint lawsuit by Minneapolis, St. Paul, and the State of Minnesota against DHS

• Legal observer programs and know-your-rights training

• Immigrant Rapid Response Fund raised $5 million for legal defense, basic needs, and organizing support

• Hotlines for legal intake and rapid response coordination

6. Mass Mobilization & Public Protest

Large-scale demonstrations maintained pressure and visibility.

Key aspects:

• A protest march from US Bank Stadium to Target Center at -20°F with organizers estimating 50,000 participants

• Mobile protests following ICE convoys through streets

• Use of whistles, horns, and noise to alert neighborhoods

• Indigenous-led resistance emphasizing sovereignty and land rights

Outcome

When confronted with this coordinated response, the administration announced a “tactical withdrawal” from Minnesota after communities organized, spoke out, and refused to accept fear as public policy, though organizers emphasized this came after real trauma and loss of life. Our final takeaway from all this is clear:

Organizing, mobilizing and stepping up to take action in support of our neighbors is key to how we should be present in this moment.

And, as Tonya Allen of the MN-based McKnight Foundation recently commented, this focus on grassroots individuals being supported in stepping up to play their role has been key to success. It was not the politicians or celebrities that led this response—it was a local/regional social movement that was in charge and created the needed infrastructure and preparation to show up in a way consistent with the values and community interests there in Minnesota. Just an incredible, inspiring response!

Within the impact investing arena, as we think about how best to respond and connect the dots between our work of capital innovation during this time of creeping American authoritarianism and connecting that work more directly to anti-authoritarianism, we might learn from and expand upon the efforts of the good people on the front lines of Chicago, Los Angeles and Minneapolis.

They organized, they spoke up and were present to peacefully promote an alternative vision of the world while voicing opposition to the policies disrupting their communities and literally killing community members.

They show us a way forward through this time and leave a guidebook for each sector—in our case, capital investment—to design approaches most relevant to our work and opportunities to stand and be counted.

More good to come, to be sure!

A Final Word of Caution: Diverse Action for a Shared Vision

While organizing at state and local levels against national authoritarian action makes real sense, we must also take care not to lose focus on the need to reassert a vision of a United States committed to shared values and common commitments to equity, justice and freedom.

Caution is warranted in that breaking down “the State” to establish alternative, mini-states each with their own policies and practices is potentially a version of what Yanis Varoufakis has called to as “technofeudalism” and plays into the vision and in some ways dystopian idealism of some technology elites and billionaires who seek to be fully liberated from what they see as the socialist confines of taxes, laws seeking to protect public interest and any limits to individual action at whatever social or environmental cost.

For a very solid piece on these issues, please also read The Plot Against America as well as listen to this podcast of Ezra Klein in conversation with journalist Radley Balko in which they review the increasing militarization of ICE and local police together with the current administration’s efforts to create an independent military under the sole direction of the President.

I can’t write that sentence and not reflect on how far we have come (how far we have fallen?) in just a matter of months—from having some level of shared confidence in our democracy to now having a constant and stomach turning level of uncertainty and awareness regarding how at risk our shared future and freedoms are at this time.

Hey—wake up!

We must acknowledge in light of recent events in Minnesota and elsewhere (and that others have written extensively about), the train has already left the station.

Know that truth.

Supreme Court rulings giving the Executive broad immunity for virtually any and all actions taken while in office function as a carte blanche for any number of steps he has already taken much less those yet to come.

Furthermore, as Chris Armitage explores in this brief piece, history shows us that authoritarians consistently use politics to get into office but (according to his analysis, which I discuss below) are seldom, if ever, removed from office through political processes.

The lesson from this is

1) we need to acknowledge where we now stand and

2) we need to be even more creative in our response to this present circumstance as peaceful positioning to prevent future potential violence.

In a separate post, Armitage goes on to outline his vision for how we should respond over the next 90 days—but is then reasonably challenged by a number of others debating our best mainstream path forward.

From Democracy to Authoritarianism and Back Again?

I would venture to say most governments that become fascist may start as an authoritarian regime that entered through the ballot box, yet how they leave is a bit more nuanced. Consider that while many enter legally and did fall through force, others had a different outcome:

1. Spain’s Franco died in office, leading to democratic transition (you know what I’m thinking)
2. Portugal’s Salazar regime ended through internal change and the Carnation Revolution
3. Various military juntas have stepped down under pressure without full-scale war
4. Some authoritarian leaders have lost elections (though this is rarer once they consolidate power)

The main point here is that once authoritarian movements consolidate power, they typically dismantle democratic institutions, making peaceful removal extremely difficult—so we must be more creative and get ahead of that potential future moment!

They often:

1. Suppress opposition parties and media
2. Pack courts with loyalists
3. Use state apparatus to maintain control
4. Manipulate or eliminate free elections

While there is truth to the idea it is easier to enter than exit through democratic means, it is not an absolute rule.

The consolidation phase after gaining power is often what makes peaceful removal so challenging, rather than something inherent about how they originally gained power.​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​​

And this is why we must act NOW in response to current developments in the United States and other nations around the world. Not acting is simply not an option as we know where this road ultimately leads.

My hope is that some of what has been offered in this series, Antidote to Autocracy, will position us all to do just that—advance a credible response to this moment, but one that aligns with our own, personal perspective and values.

Personal Challenge:

Of the many areas in which we’ve seen organized action against tyranny in the past, which resonates most with you?

Can you name organizations which are active and advancing the charge in those same areas today (many organization may come and go, but the ongoing challenges remain even as various forms of progress are made). Which intrigue and engage you the most?

What writers, groups or resources are most likely to be of interest to you as you ramp up your own engagements over coming months and years?

Leave a comment

Thanks for reading Antidote to Autocracy! This post is public so feel free to share it.

Subscribe now

Thanks for reading Antidote to Autocracy! Subscribe for free to receive new posts.

Author’s Note: While the final writing and analysis are my own, please know I did make use of various AI tools in research and drafts conducted for this project. For a fuller discussion, please see the closing Note in the first post of the Antidote to Autocracy series. Thanks!