Listen to the article
Trump Administration Accuses Minnesota Officials of Organizing Anti-ICE Resistance
The Trump administration has escalated its confrontation with Minnesota state officials, accusing Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey of “actively organizing” resistance against federal immigration enforcement efforts amid conflicting claims about how the state handles illegal immigrants in custody.
The Department of Homeland Security (DHS) this week called on Walz and Frey to honor federal immigration detainers for more than 1,300 illegal immigrants allegedly in state custody. According to DHS, Minnesota has released nearly 470 criminal illegal immigrants onto Minneapolis streets, a claim that has sparked a heated dispute between federal and state authorities.
Governor Walz’s office quickly disputed these allegations, calling them “categorically false.” The Minnesota Department of Corrections (DOC) backed the governor’s position in a Thursday press release, describing DHS’s claims as “unsupported by facts and deeply irresponsible.”
“The Minnesota Department of Corrections honors all federal and local detainers, including those issued by U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement,” the state DOC insisted. The department challenged DHS’s figures directly, stating that Minnesota’s entire prison population is approximately 8,000 individuals, with only 207 (less than 3 percent) being non-U.S. citizens.
The state DOC further noted that in 2025, only 84 individuals with ICE detainers were released, claiming that “in each case, ICE was notified in advance and DOC staff coordinated with ICE officials to facilitate the custody transfer when requested.” State officials also criticized DHS for failing to identify which “jurisdictions, systems, or timeframes” were used to arrive at their numbers.
Despite these rebuttals, the Trump administration stood firmly behind its claims. DHS Assistant Secretary Tricia McLaughlin told Fox News Digital that Walz and Frey were “actively encouraging an organized resistance to ICE and federal law enforcement officers.”
“As DHS stated, across the state of Minnesota nearly 470 criminal illegal aliens including violent criminal illegal aliens have been RELEASED into communities,” McLaughlin said. “We have more than 1,360 active detainers on illegal aliens in the custody across all jurisdictions in Minnesota.”
The dispute comes in the wake of a fatal shooting in Minneapolis earlier this month involving federal ICE officers, which has intensified tensions between local and federal authorities. Following the shooting of Renee Good, Mayor Frey publicly told ICE officials to “get the f— out” of Minneapolis, while Governor Walz similarly told the Trump administration to “leave Minnesota alone.”
Mayor Frey has since issued an executive order prohibiting federal agents from using city property to conduct operations. Additionally, the city council recently strengthened a local separation ordinance designed to protect illegal immigrants.
The legal backdrop to this conflict was shaped in February when Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison issued a formal opinion arguing that state law prohibited state and local law enforcement from holding someone solely on an ICE civil detainer.
Federal authorities have pointed to the potential dangers of not honoring ICE detainers, citing a December case in Northern Virginia where an illegal immigrant with an active detainer was released from custody and allegedly committed a homicide the following day.
The dispute has now escalated to a federal investigation. According to two sources familiar with the probe, federal prosecutors are investigating both Walz and Frey for allegedly impeding law enforcement efforts in Minnesota. The investigation is reportedly in its early stages, and it remains unclear if it will result in criminal charges.
This confrontation highlights the growing tensions between federal immigration enforcement policies and local sanctuary jurisdictions across the country, with Minnesota now at the center of this divisive national debate.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
10 Comments
This dispute highlights the ongoing challenges around immigration policy and enforcement. I hope the authorities can find constructive ways to address these complex issues in a fair and lawful manner.
This dispute over immigration enforcement seems to be a complex and politically charged issue. I’m curious to learn more about the specific policies and procedures involved, and how the state and federal agencies are interpreting compliance requirements differently.
Yes, it’s an important topic with valid concerns on both sides. Hopefully the authorities can work together to find a balanced approach that upholds the law while also treating people humanely.
While immigration enforcement is a sensitive topic, it’s important that any accusations be backed by verifiable evidence. I hope the authorities can work together to provide a clear and transparent accounting of the situation.
This dispute raises important questions about the boundaries of state and federal authority when it comes to immigration. I’m curious to see how this plays out and whether it leads to any policy changes or clarifications.
Agreed, the interplay between state and federal powers is a crucial aspect here. Hopefully this leads to constructive dialogue and solutions, rather than just political posturing.
The Minnesota Department of Corrections’ firm statement refuting the DHS claims is noteworthy. I’d be interested to see the full documentation and evidence behind each side’s position on ICE compliance.
Agreed, transparency and factual accuracy are crucial here. It’s concerning if there are inaccurate allegations being made, regardless of the political affiliations involved.
Interesting to see the conflicting claims between state and federal officials on this matter. I wonder if there are any objective third-party analyses that could help shed light on the specifics of the compliance dispute.
Good point. An impartial review of the evidence and procedures involved could be helpful in clarifying the facts and resolving this disagreement.