⚠️ The University of Pennsylvania Ran a Simulation to Predict an American Civil War. It Gave the EXACT MOMENT WE ARE IN RIGHT NOW.
A Penn law center war-gamed a federal operation spiraling into state vs. federal force. Their scenario is now playing out
Minnesota is not just “a messy situation.”
It’s not just “politics.”
It’s starting to look like a case study—like a warning we were given in advance and then ignored.
Because researchers ran high-level civil war simulations and found that a civil war between state and federal forces could be triggered by exactly what ICE is doing right now—a widely condemned federal law enforcement operation, escalating force, a governor resisting, threats to federalize the National Guard, and the president hinting at the Insurrection Act.
And now Minnesota is living inside that script.
If you believe in journalism that stays free for the world—for readers in Gaza, readers in Sudan, families living in deep poverty, and even kids in middle school trying to understand what adults are doing—please support our work. Membership is how we keep our reporting free for them, and even for you, when you can’t afford to pay. click here to become a member and click here to join as a monthly, annual, or founding member.
A professor at the University of Pennsylvania—Claire Finkelstein, the director of the Center for Ethics and the Rule of Law—wrote that developments in Minnesota “closely mirror” a scenario explored in an October 2024 tabletop exercise. In that simulation, a president ordered a highly unpopular law enforcement operation, tried to federalize the state’s National Guard, the governor resisted, the Guard splintered, and the president deployed active-duty troops. It culminated in what she described as a “violent confrontation” between state and federal forces in a major American city.
Let that sink in: this wasn’t some internet fantasy. She says the participants included actual government officials and former senior military leaders—and that none of them considered the scenario unrealistic.
Because they understood something that too many Americans refuse to face: in a fast-moving domestic crisis, courts can be slow, institutions can freeze, and power—when unchecked—can escalate into violence before anyone can stop it.
And family, ICE is being used like a paramilitary force.
Finkelstein wrote that roughly 2,000 ICE agents were deployed to Minnesota “since January 6” under the pretext of a fraud investigation, and that the Trump administration has encouraged lawlessness by announcing “absolute immunity”for ICE agents. She warned that if federal officials ignore court limits, the consequences could be “nothing short of civil war.”
She described a pattern of escalating force and chaos: shootings, tear gas, “less deadly” weapons used in ways that maim, detentions and family separation—often without regard to legal status. She argued that ICE is being deployed not merely for immigration enforcement but increasingly to suppress dissent.
And here’s the deeper warning she raised—one that should alarm every person in the military and every person who cares about the Constitution: she wrote that it is not legal for federal troops to back up ICE agents who are behaving illegally, and she emphasized that service members have an oath to the Constitution and an obligation to refuse patently illegal orders.
I want to say this in plain English: if a president orders troops to support unlawful violence against civilians, that order is not automatically “law.” It can be illegal. And service members are not robots. They are sworn defenders of the Constitution.
That is how close the edge is.
This is what escalation looks like before the match is struck
Civil wars don’t start with a press release saying, “We are now in a civil war.”
They start with broken legitimacy.
With institutions refusing to recognize each other’s authority.
With armed men in masks acting with impunity.
With courts issuing rulings that are ignored.
With politicians threatening extraordinary powers like the Insurrection Act.
And then one day, a “standby” becomes a deployment.
A “deployment” becomes a confrontation.
A confrontation becomes a tragedy.
And a tragedy becomes a point of no return.
That is exactly what the Penn exercise modeled.
In the simulation, a president tried to federalize the National Guard. The governor resisted. State Guard units stayed loyal to the state. The president sent active-duty troops. And then Americans—uniformed Americans—ended up facing each other.
That’s what “green-on-green” violence means: Americans firing on Americans in the streets of a U.S. city.
This is not normal. This is not “just another election year.” This is the kind of domestic fracture a nation may not heal from.
Here’s the part that makes me furious: the courts may not save us
One of the most sobering points in Finkelstein’s analysis is that courts can become functionally irrelevant in a fast-moving emergency. Judges may not respond quickly enough, may refuse to intervene in what they consider “political questions,” or may issue orders that an administration simply ignores.
If that sounds outrageous, remember what we’ve already watched in our lifetimes: institutions bend until they break—especially when leaders gamble that no one will enforce the limits.
That’s why the crisis isn’t “what the law says.” It’s what power is willing to do.
I’ve seen this playbook before—just not in Minnesota
Family, I’ve studied and reported on authoritarian states for years. And one of the first signs that a society is sliding is when the state creates a class of armed agents who operate as if they are above consequence. They don’t need to be right. They don’t need to be precise. They just need permission.
“Absolute immunity” is permission.
And once you tell armed agents they’re untouchable, you’re not enforcing law anymore—you’re manufacturing fear.
That’s what ICE is doing in Minnesota. And it’s why state and local leaders are warning that trust is collapsing. That’s what makes communities stop cooperating. That’s what makes people panic. That’s what produces confrontation.
Then the state points to the panic it created and says: “See? We need more force.”
That is how the loop closes.
Objection & Answer
Objection: “This is alarmist. Minnesota isn’t on the brink of civil war.”
Answer: Nobody is saying a civil war is inevitable. The point is that serious experts ran a simulation and found that the exact pattern we’re seeing—federal overreach, escalating force, threats to federalize the Guard, and potential troop deployments—is the kind of chain reaction that can spiral fast.
What the evidence shows: In their tabletop exercise, it escalated to a violent confrontation between state and federal forces, and senior officials involved did not view it as unrealistic.
What I want from you
Do not normalize this.
Do not accept a country where federal agents operate with impunity.
Do not accept talk of the Insurrection Act as a casual political tool.
Do not accept masked raids, random violence, and intimidation as “standard.”
And if you’re in uniform—military or law enforcement—remember: your oath is to the Constitution, not to any politician. Orders are not automatically lawful. And unlawful orders can destroy a country.
If you want The North Star to keep telling the truth with moral clarity—without paywalls—please become a member today. click here to become a member and click here to join as a monthly, annual, or founding member.
Love and appreciate each of you.
Your friend and brother,
Shaun
I don't share this to scare you, but to inform you. We are in a VERY dangerous position right now. I know you feel it.
"Your oath is to the Constitution, not to any politician. Orders are not automatically lawful. And unlawful orders can destroy a country."
Amen! Americans need to follow the law--not the whims of a dictator!