“You Disgust Me” – Senator Unleashes on AG!

A Senate hearing turned into a verbal brawl when Republican senators unleashed a torrent of personal attacks on Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, calling him “low caliber” and saying he “disgusted” them over his state’s immigration enforcement policies.

Story Snapshot

Senator Bernie Moreno called Minnesota AG Keith Ellison “low caliber” and “an insult” during a February 12, 2026 Senate hearing on immigration enforcement
Senator Ron Johnson accused Ellison of encouraging activism that led to tragedy, concluding with “You disgust me”
The hearing focused on Operation Metro Surge, a federal immigration enforcement operation in Minnesota that resulted in fatal shootings and thousands of arrests
The contentious hearing preceded a failed DHS funding vote that triggered a partial government shutdown
Ellison defended his record, stating that Republican accusations were untrue and that Minnesota supports local law enforcement

When Senate Decorum Collapses

The Senate Homeland Security and Governmental Affairs Committee hearing on February 12, 2026 descended into an extraordinary display of personal animosity. Senator Bernie Moreno of Ohio abandoned any pretense of senatorial courtesy, directly telling Ellison “You’re a low caliber man” and “You’re an insult.” Senator Ron Johnson of Wisconsin went further, accusing the Attorney General of encouraging activism that led to tragedy before delivering his parting shot. These weren’t policy disagreements wrapped in parliamentary language. These were personal attacks designed to humiliate.

Ellison pushed back against the barrage, insisting “everything you said was untrue” and defending Minnesota’s support for local law enforcement. He objected to the hearing’s expanding scope, noting his reluctance to address topics beyond immigration policy. The Attorney General found himself in a political ambush where Republican senators controlled not just the questions but the entire tenor of the proceedings. This wasn’t a fact-finding mission. It was a public flogging dressed up as oversight.

Operation Metro Surge Under the Microscope

The hearing’s nominal purpose was examining Operation Metro Surge, a federal immigration enforcement initiative in Minnesota that generated nationwide controversy. The operation resulted in thousands of arrests, but what drew congressional scrutiny were the fatal shootings by immigration agents, including the deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in Minneapolis. These deaths transformed what might have been routine enforcement statistics into a flashpoint for debates about federal authority, state cooperation, and the human costs of aggressive immigration policies.

Republicans framed the issue as a failure of state-federal cooperation, suggesting Ellison’s policies created an environment hostile to immigration enforcement. They painted Minnesota as a sanctuary state in all but name, where state officials undermined federal authority and emboldened resistance. Democrats countered by demanding accountability measures for ICE and CBP, proposing reforms that would require agents to be unmasked, carry proper identification, wear body cameras, implement stricter use-of-force standards, and stay away from sensitive locations like schools and places of worship.

The Political Fallout Begins

The hearing set the stage for immediate political consequences. On February 13, 2026, the day after the explosive testimony, a motion to fund the Department of Homeland Security failed in a 52-47 vote. All but one Senate Democrat opposed the bill, triggering a partial government shutdown as lawmakers entered a preplanned week-long recess. The timing wasn’t coincidental. The heated exchanges over immigration enforcement had hardened partisan positions, making compromise on DHS funding politically impossible for Democrats who faced pressure to demand accountability for operations like Metro Surge.

The failed vote revealed the deeper fractures in how the two parties view immigration enforcement. Republicans see cooperation with federal authorities as non-negotiable, a matter of law and order that transcends state boundaries. Democrats increasingly view immigration enforcement through a civil liberties lens, demanding the same accountability standards applied to local police. Minnesota became the battleground for this national debate, with Ellison cast as either a defender of immigrant communities or an enabler of lawlessness, depending on which side of the aisle you occupied.

What the Fireworks Reveal About America’s Immigration Divide

The personal vitriol directed at Ellison reflects something larger than one hearing or one state’s policies. It exposes the raw nerve that immigration enforcement has become in American politics. When senators abandon decorum to call a state Attorney General disgusting, they’re not just attacking an individual. They’re signaling to their base that this issue transcends normal political boundaries, that cooperation with federal immigration enforcement is a moral imperative, not a policy choice subject to state discretion.

Yet the facts complicate the “open borders” narrative Republicans deployed against Ellison. Minnesota hasn’t declared itself a sanctuary state. Ellison defended his support for local law enforcement. The dispute centers on the degree and nature of cooperation with federal immigration operations, not whether laws should exist or be enforced. The gap between the heated rhetoric and the actual policy disagreements suggests this hearing served political theater more than legislative purpose. Voters watching this spectacle must ask whether their senators are solving problems or scoring points.