Listen to the article
Immigration Experts Divided on Trump’s Minnesota Immigration Enforcement Strategy
Conservative immigration experts have expressed conflicting opinions about President Donald Trump’s reported consideration to reduce the number of federal agents in Minnesota, following tensions over immigration enforcement operations in the state.
Minnesota Governor Tim Walz recently indicated that President Trump agreed during a phone call to potentially withdraw some Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents from the state. This apparent shift in strategy comes with a condition – Minnesota officials must follow federal immigration detainers and ensure criminal illegal immigrants in state custody are transferred to federal officials.
The discussion follows a period of escalating tensions in Minnesota, where both Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey have used strong language to oppose ICE operations in their jurisdictions, with Frey reportedly telling federal agents to “get the f— out” of their city.
In a parallel development, Gregory Bovino, the top Border Patrol official leading deportation operations nationwide including in Minnesota, will be reassigned to his former duties as chief of Border Patrol in California’s El Centro sector. Trump’s border czar, Tom Homan, is expected to travel to Minnesota soon to oversee ongoing border security efforts there.
Some immigration policy experts view these developments as a strategic retreat. Dale Wilcox, Executive Director of the Federation for American Immigration Reform (FAIR), expressed concern about the potential pullback.
“If the Trump Administration accedes to Minnesota’s unreasonable, unlawful demands, it will have surrendered the rule of law to thugs and brigands,” Wilcox told Fox News Digital. “The Supreme Court has opined that the power to enforce immigration law belongs exclusively to the federal government.”
However, Mark Krikorian, Executive Director at the Center for Immigration Studies, rejected the characterization that Trump is “backing down.” He argued the president is simply proposing a return to standard enforcement protocols.
“I didn’t think that’s what Trump is saying – rather, based on his Truth Social post, he was saying ICE won’t have to do at-large arrests if Minnesota changes its sanctuary policies and allows ICE into the jails and prisons to take custody of illegals once the locals have finished with them,” Krikorian explained. “That’s not ending enforcement – that’s returning enforcement to the ways it’s always been done.”
The dispute centers on Minnesota’s adherence to federal immigration detainers for undocumented immigrants arrested for crimes. The Trump administration has claimed state officials do not honor these detainers, leading to the release of potentially dangerous individuals back into communities. Minnesota’s Department of Corrections has challenged this assertion, maintaining they do comply with ICE detainers.
President Trump addressed the situation on his Truth Social platform, describing his conversation with Walz as “a very good call” and stating, “We have had such tremendous SUCCESS in Washington, D.C., Memphis, Tennessee, and New Orleans, Louisiana, and virtually every other place that we have ‘touched’ and, even in Minnesota, Crime is way down.”
The White House has emphasized the administration remains committed to its immigration enforcement objectives. “The Trump Administration remains committed to removing the worst of the worst from American streets – including in Minnesota – and President Trump wants to work with local leaders to get public safety threats out of their communities,” White House spokesperson Abigail Jackson told Fox News Digital.
Rep. James Comer (R-KY) suggested the administration might be considering the safety of federal agents. “If I were President Trump, I would almost think about, OK, if the mayor and governor are going put our ICE officials in harm’s way and there’s a chance of losing more innocent lives, or whatever, then maybe go to another city,” he said.
These developments represent the latest chapter in the ongoing national debate over immigration enforcement authority and the relationship between federal and local jurisdictions when it comes to undocumented immigrants with criminal records.
Fact Checker
Verify the accuracy of this article using The Disinformation Commission analysis and real-time sources.
7 Comments
The reported shift in ICE strategy for Minnesota seems like an attempt to balance enforcement with local relationships. It will be important to see if this leads to a more cooperative approach between state and federal authorities.
The reported tensions in Minnesota underscore the need for clear, consistent, and humane immigration policies that can be effectively implemented while also addressing local community concerns. It will be interesting to see how this situation evolves.
This situation demonstrates the complexity of immigration policy implementation at the local level. I’m interested to see if a constructive compromise can be reached that satisfies both the federal government and Minnesota officials.
Reasonable people can disagree on the right approach to immigration enforcement. I appreciate that the officials involved are trying to find a solution that works for everyone, even if it’s not easy.
This is a complex issue with valid concerns on both sides. It’s important to balance public safety, immigration enforcement, and community relations. I’m curious to see how the federal and state officials work to find a balanced approach that works for Minnesota.
The tensions over immigration enforcement in Minnesota highlight the need for clear and consistent policies that respect the law while also addressing local community concerns. It will be interesting to see if a compromise can be reached.
Immigration is a sensitive and polarizing issue. I hope the federal and state leaders can come together and find a measured approach that maintains public safety while also respecting community concerns in Minnesota.