What official statements have the FBI and ICE made about the Minneapolis raids and any property seizures?
Executive summary
Federal agencies have issued a mix of operational briefings and defensive statements: ICE and DHS have publicly framed the Minneapolis surge as a large-scale, law‑enforcement operation focused on criminals and fraud, while the FBI has signaled involvement primarily around investigative support and evidence collection — including releasing wanted photos tied to alleged thefts from federal vehicles — even as state officials and judges have criticized some federal tactics [1] [2] [3] [4] [5]. Both DHS/ICE and the FBI have also sought to justify force and seizures as lawful responses to threats or criminal activity, but journalists and local authorities report disputes over warrants, property seizures, and when federal agencies should defer to local courts [6] [7] [5].
1. ICE’s public framing: “largest immigration operation ever” and criminal targets
ICE and other Department of Homeland Security officials portrayed the deployment to Minneapolis as a major, multi‑agency enforcement surge, with ICE saying roughly 2,000 federal agents were being sent and emphasizing that most would come from its Enforcement and Removal Operations and Homeland Security Investigations to pursue arrests and fraud investigations — language that frames the effort as criminal enforcement rather than purely immigration processing [1]. ICE spokespeople and allied reporting have repeatedly highlighted arrests of people with criminal convictions and old deportation orders as evidence of law‑enforcement necessity [2]. At the same time, ICE’s HSI public statements about particular raids have described operations as addressing “complex, multidimensional threats” from drug smuggling to labor trafficking while noting state and local partners, a framing that some local critics say blurs immigration and criminal enforcement roles [8].
2. FBI’s role and official communications: investigative support and evidence requests
Federal officials have said the FBI is assisting DHS components in investigative work related to the January shooting and to property crimes tied to the operations; the FBI publicly released photos of a suspect wanted for allegedly stealing government property from federal vehicles and offered a reward in that case, signaling an active evidence‑gathering and fugitive‑location role [4]. Multiple outlets report that the FBI has worked with state investigative agencies on joint or assisted probes — for example, the Bureau was cited as coordinating with the Minnesota BCA and U.S. attorney’s offices on the shooting inquiry and on evidence collection — and federal prosecutors and investigators have issued subpoenas to Minnesota offices, underscoring the FBI’s evidentiary and grand‑jury posture [3] [9] [4].
3. DHS and ICE defensive statements about force, seizures and “rioters”
DHS statements, as reported, defended agents’ use of force and property seizures by saying officers faced violent confrontations and that personnel followed training and used “the minimum amount of force necessary” to protect themselves, the public and federal property; those statements did not fully address specific questions about smashed car windows or the distinction between administrative and judicial warrants in private‑home entries, according to reporting [6]. DOJ filings in related litigation have characterized some state legal pushes against the surge as without merit, reflecting an institutional defense of the operation’s legality even as judges and local officials pressed the agencies on compliance with court orders [4] [5].
4. Local pushback and disputed claims about warrants and property seizure legality
Local news and national outlets document sharp disagreements about whether ICE used proper judicial warrants for home entries and whether property seizures were lawful: AP noted the “thorny legal distinction” between administrative and judicial warrants when a private home was raided, and Minnesota judges and officials have condemned agency actions and said some detentions or seizures lacked required judicial backing [7] [5]. The City of Minneapolis publicly demanded ICE leave and provided guidance for residents about rights when stopped or detained — a civic response that underscores the gap between federal statements defending enforcement and municipal officials contesting methods and authority [10].
5. What official statements do not (or have not) said, per available reporting
Available reporting shows DHS/ICE statements stressing threat mitigation and legality, and FBI communications focusing on investigative steps (rewards, photos, joint probes), but none of the cited official releases fully reconcile specific contested incidents — such as exactly what warrants were presented during particular home entries or detailed legal bases for certain property seizures — and press accounts note ongoing subpoenas, litigation and court rebukes that continue to shape the official record [4] [9] [5] [7]. Where sources diverge, the federal posture has been to emphasize enforcement necessity and investigatory cooperation, while state and municipal officials, judges and civil‑liberties advocates have pressed for more transparency and legal accountability [5] [10] [7].