Walz Under Scrutiny for Claims About Minnesota’s Cooperation with ICE

In a growing dispute over immigration enforcement, Minnesota Governor Tim Walz is facing scrutiny for his characterization of the state’s cooperation with federal immigration authorities amid a controversial deployment of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents to the region.

In a Wall Street Journal opinion piece published Monday, Walz pushed back against the Trump administration’s deployment of federal immigration officers to Minnesota, writing that “the Minnesota Department of Corrections honors all federal and local detainers by notifying Immigration and Customs Enforcement when a person committed to its custody isn’t a U.S. citizen.”

The governor’s assertion, however, tells only part of a more complex story. While Minnesota state law does require the Department of Corrections to notify ICE when non-citizen felons are scheduled for release, this mandate doesn’t extend to all detention facilities in the state, many of which operate under local, not state, control.

Most notably, the Hennepin County Public Safety Facility in Minneapolis—Minnesota’s largest jail—has actively scaled back cooperation with federal immigration officials. Under the jurisdiction of the Hennepin County Sheriff’s Office, the facility once maintained a working relationship with ICE, but that partnership has been systematically reduced by former Sheriff Dave Hutchinson and continues under current Sheriff Dawanna Witt, according to reporting by the New York Times.

This policy distinction represents a significant gap in the comprehensive cooperation that Walz’s comments might suggest exists throughout the state.

The situation in Minnesota reflects the broader national tension between federal immigration enforcement priorities and local law enforcement policies. While the state corrections department may follow notification protocols, the patchwork of policies across Minnesota’s 87 counties creates an inconsistent enforcement landscape.

According to the New York Times, officials in just seven Minnesota counties have established formal agreements to collaborate with ICE. This means the vast majority of counties in the state operate without explicit protocols for turning over undocumented immigrants to federal authorities—a reality that contradicts the impression given by Walz that cooperation with ICE is standard procedure throughout Minnesota.

In his Wall Street Journal piece, Walz also strongly condemned the tactics allegedly employed by federal agents in Minnesota, writing: “In recent weeks, masked agents have abducted children. They have separated children from their parents. They have racially profiled off-duty police officers. They have aggressively pulled people over and demanded to see their papers. They have broken into the homes of elderly citizens without warrants to drag them outside in freezing temperatures.”

The governor concluded that “everyone wants to see our immigration laws enforced,” but argued that the current enforcement approach “isn’t effective law enforcement.”

The deployment of federal immigration officials to Minnesota comes amid heightened national debate over immigration policy. The Trump administration has criticized sanctuary jurisdictions—areas where local authorities limit cooperation with federal immigration enforcement—arguing they undermine public safety and immigration laws.

Immigration enforcement advocates maintain that cooperation between local and federal authorities is essential for maintaining an effective immigration system, while critics contend that aggressive tactics and local-federal partnerships can undermine community trust in law enforcement and lead to civil rights violations.

The situation in Minnesota illustrates the tensions that arise when federal enforcement priorities clash with local control over law enforcement policies. As federal operations continue in the state, the debate over the appropriate balance between immigration enforcement and local autonomy remains unresolved.

Governor Walz’s office did not respond to requests for comment on the discrepancy between his characterization of statewide cooperation with ICE and the actual policies in place across Minnesota’s detention facilities.