Marjorie Taylor Greene Accidentally Made the Best Civil Liberties Argument

Rep Marjorie Taylor Greene put out a tweet the other day responding directly to what is happening right now in Minnesota.

Former Congresswoman Marjorie Taylor Greene🇺🇸 @FmrRepMTG I impeached Biden’s Secretary of Homeland Security, Alejandro Mayorkas, those were my articles of impeachment that passed in the House of Representatives. I unapologetically believe in border security and deporting criminal illegal aliens and I support law enforcement. However, 2:56 PM · Jan 25, 2026 · 3.25M Views 2.98K Replies · 2.87K Reposts · 28K Likes

There are protests. There is federal enforcement activity. There is outrage. There is a familiar cycle of footage, reactions, commentary, and people choosing sides almost immediately. Videos are being zoomed in on, rewound, slowed down, framed, and now increasingly reconstructed by AI in ways that serve political slants rather than truth.

Greene’s tweet tried to cut through that by offering a simple what-if.

Take what is happening in Minnesota. The protests. The federal presence. The enforcement actions. Now swap the labels.

Replace protesters against ICE under the Trump administration with January 6 protesters. Replace ICE agents with FBI agents operating under the Biden administration.
Keep everything else the same.

Same tactics. Same posture. Same justifications. Just different actors wearing different names.

Then ask yourself how you would feel about it.

It is not a complicated thought experiment. It is actually pretty basic. Most people should be able to arrive at that comparison on their own without being walked there. But the fact that it had to be spelled out says a lot.

What made this moment interesting was not the argument itself. It was who made it.

As Saagar Enjeti framed it on Breaking Points, it took someone like Marjorie Taylor Greene, better known now as “Marjorie Traitor Greene,” someone clearly associated with the Republican Party and the right, to say this out loud in order for people on that side to feel comfortable expressing outrage. To feel that maybe this was an overreach. That maybe a line was being crossed.

That should set off alarms.

We are in a place where people do not evaluate state power, federal enforcement, or civil liberties based on principle first. They evaluate based on tribal permission. Who is allowed to say this. Who is allowed to feel this way. Whether speaking up will get you thrown out of your political group, your friend group, or publicly shamed online.

And when Saagar says that Greene’s statement gives people on the right permission to feel that something is wrong, my reaction is not relief. It is sadness.

Why do you need permission at all?

The Permission Problem...