The Department of Homeland Security's official account issued a threat after a Hilton hotel location in Minneapolis canceled the reservations of immigration officials, stating that the owner of the independently franchised property did not want to assist in such law enforcement operations.
Already, the fallout is spreading, with Hilton's corporate team telling Fox News the decision was "not reflective" of the chain's values or policies, and a number of pro-MAGA accounts calling for retribution. However, a number of other experts and commentators took the side of the hotel operator.
"I dunno man this seems like the sort of thing you'd have resolved privately by talking with the company if DHS hadn't put an incel in charge of the account," wrote attorney Andrew Fleishman.
"The government being mad that Hilton Hotels canceled rooms for kidnappers is probably the best ad for Hilton Hotels I’ve ever seen," wrote comedian Mike Drucker.
Some took particular issue with DHS's use of the words "NO ROOM AT THE INN!" in their statement, which appeared to be conflating immigration agents with the story of Mary being forced to give birth to Jesus in the manger at Bethlehem.
"Federal agents aren't Jesus, Mary, or Joseph. What a sacrilegious thing to say," wrote Institute for Justice civil rights litigator Patrick Jaicomo.
"DHS, in trying to complain to the manager, seems to be comparing ICE agents with Mary and Joseph?" wrote American Immigration Council fellow Aaron Reichlin-Melnick. "Also, aren’t the vast majority of Hiltons independently owned franchises? DHS doesn’t even know that?"
Many others pointed out that the Hilton operator was well within their constitutional rights.
"It's a free country. Cry harder," wrote liberal podcaster Ed Krassenstein.
"Hilton is a rational business like any other, and it should be free to provide service or not to anyone it pleases," wrote Cato Institute Director of Immigration Studies David J. Bier. "DHS is free to book elsewhere. Glad there is freedom somewhere in this great nation of ours."
"This is unacceptable use of an official government account to attack a private business. This is illegal," wrote Missouri congressional candidate Fred Wellman. "We are so far off the reservation with this disgusting Administration. Congress needs to get back to work."
Still others noted that this might not just fall under the First Amendment, but the relatively rarely-tested Third Amendment, which limits the ability of the federal government to force private residences to quarter soldiers.
"We’re so, so close to a 3A case. I can feel it!" wrote FIRE communications director Alex Griswold.
"Where's the Onion's famous Third Amendment group when you need em," wrote political analyst Andrew Egger.
