Listen to the article
Minnesota Corrections Commissioner Refutes DHS Claims on Immigrant Releases
Minnesota’s top corrections official has publicly challenged claims made by the U.S. Department of Homeland Security regarding the number of undocumented immigrants with criminal convictions released from state custody.
Paul Schnell, Commissioner of the Minnesota Department of Corrections (DOC), issued a statement this week saying he needed to “correct the public record” following allegations that Minnesota had released hundreds of undocumented immigrants with criminal backgrounds.
The dispute began when the Department of Homeland Security released a statement criticizing Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey for what it characterized as a lack of cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
“Governor Walz and Mayor Frey REFUSE to cooperate with ICE law enforcement and will not let us into their jails,” said Tricia McLaughlin, assistant secretary of public affairs for DHS. “They have released nearly 470 criminal illegal aliens including violent criminals back onto the streets of Minnesota. They have made it abundantly clear they are prioritizing politics over public safety.”
Schnell described this assertion as “inexplicable” and presented significantly different figures. According to DOC records, only 84 people with Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) detainers were released by the state in 2025, not the 470 claimed by federal officials.
The commissioner emphasized that in each of these cases, ICE was notified in advance, and coordinated custody transfers occurred when requested by federal authorities.
The discrepancy extends beyond release numbers. DHS reported that 1,360 non-U.S. citizens were currently in Minnesota’s custody. Schnell countered that DOC records show just 207 non-citizens in the state prison system, less than one-sixth of the federal claim.
“The Minnesota Department of Corrections has always coordinated with ICE agents when individuals in our custody have detainers and will continue to do so,” Schnell stated. “Public safety depends on facts, not fear. When federal agencies make claims that are demonstrably false, it undermines trust and disrespects the dedicated professionals who work every day to keep Minnesotans safe.”
This conflict highlights the ongoing tension between federal immigration enforcement priorities and state-level policies across the country. Since President Trump returned to office, his administration has intensified efforts to identify and deport undocumented immigrants with criminal records, putting pressure on states with more restrictive cooperation policies.
The dispute also has legal dimensions. In February, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison issued a formal legal opinion stating that Minnesota law prohibits state and local law enforcement agencies from holding someone based solely on an immigration detainer if that person would otherwise be released from custody.
Ellison warned that law enforcement agencies risk “significant civil liability” if they detain individuals solely on the basis of ICE detainers without proper judicial warrants.
This disagreement between Minnesota officials and DHS reflects broader national debates about immigration enforcement, public safety, and the appropriate relationship between federal and state authorities. Several states and cities nationwide have adopted various policies limiting cooperation with ICE, citing concerns about civil liberties and community trust in law enforcement.
Immigration policy experts note that such disputes have become increasingly common as administrations change and federal priorities shift. The significant data discrepancies in this case raise questions about how immigrant populations in correctional facilities are tracked and reported.
For Minnesota residents, the conflicting narratives from state and federal officials create uncertainty about the actual scope of the issue and the effectiveness of public safety measures related to immigrant populations with criminal backgrounds.
As this dispute continues, both state and federal authorities remain firm in their positions, with Minnesotans caught in the middle of a complex policy and political disagreement that shows no immediate signs of resolution.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
13 Comments
Interesting to see state officials push back on federal claims. It’s important to get the facts straight on immigration enforcement and public safety. I wonder what the data actually shows about criminal convictions and immigrant releases in Minnesota.
Definitely, transparency and accuracy are crucial in these types of disputes. It will be important to see the full context and evidence from both sides.
The clash between state and federal officials over immigration enforcement is troubling. I hope both sides can provide detailed, verifiable information to support their claims so the public can make an informed assessment. Transparency is critical in these types of disputes.
This dispute over immigrant releases and public safety seems to be another chapter in the broader debate around immigration enforcement. I’m curious to see how the state and federal officials back up their respective positions with facts and figures.
Absolutely, data and evidence should drive these discussions, not political rhetoric. It will be important for the public to have a clear understanding of the actual situation on the ground.
This clash between state and federal authorities over immigration enforcement highlights the need for clear, evidence-based decision making. I hope both sides can move beyond political rhetoric and provide the public with a comprehensive, data-driven analysis of the situation.
Absolutely, facts and transparency should drive these important discussions, not partisan posturing. Getting to the truth of the matter is essential for the public to have confidence in the process.
This is a complex issue with valid concerns on both sides. I’m interested to see the specific data and documentation that the state and federal officials use to back up their respective positions. Fact-based analysis will be key to understanding the true situation.
Agreed, getting to the facts is essential. I hope the officials involved can set aside political posturing and work together to provide a clear, objective picture of what’s happening with immigrant releases and public safety.
This dispute highlights the ongoing tensions between state and federal authorities on immigration policy. I’m curious to learn more about the specific allegations and data that are being disputed. Fact-checking will be key to understanding the real situation.
Agreed, these types of political conflicts can get messy. I hope both sides provide clear evidence to support their claims so the public can judge for themselves.
The accusations of false claims and lack of cooperation between state and federal officials are concerning. As an observer, I’d like to see the full data and documentation from both sides to assess the validity of the claims. Transparency is crucial in these types of disputes.
The dispute over immigrant releases and public safety claims is concerning. I’d like to see the state and federal officials provide detailed, verifiable data to support their positions. Transparent, fact-based dialogue is crucial to address these complex issues effectively.