Do ICE agents have native Americans held captive until they sign a treaty?
Executive summary
No credible reporting in the provided sources supports the claim that ICE agents are physically holding Native Americans "captive until they sign a treaty"; however, multiple tribal leaders and Native advocacy groups say ICE has detained enrolled tribal citizens in recent enforcement actions and that interactions with federal officials have raised allegations of coercive or unlawful pressure tied to immigration agreements [1] [2] [3]. Legal advocates emphasize that Native Americans born in the United States are U.S. citizens and generally cannot be detained or deported for immigration violations, creating a clear legal line that tribal leaders say ICE has crossed in practice [4] [5].
1. What the reporting actually documents: detentions, demands, and a disputed request for an "immigration agreement"
News outlets and tribal statements document that four enrolled members of the Oglala Sioux Tribe were detained during Minneapolis enforcement operations and that three were transferred to ICE custody, and tribal officials demanded their immediate release and government-to-government consultation [1] [2] [6]. The Oglala Sioux Tribe says federal officials would not provide fuller information unless the Tribe entered into an "immigration agreement" with DHS and ICE, a condition that tribal leaders called unacceptable and a violation of sovereignty; reporting cites that the Tribe refused to enter any agreement that would make it easier for ICE to arrest or detain tribal members on tribal homelands [3] [1].
2. Legal context and the counterargument from rights organizations
Federal law since the Indian Citizenship Act of 1924 recognizes Native Americans born in the United States as U.S. citizens, and legal resources repeatedly state ICE "cannot detain or deport" U.S. citizen tribal members for immigration violations—an argument deployed by tribes and advocacy groups demanding releases and legal remedies [4] [5]. The Native American Rights Fund and other advocates describe recent arrests and detentions as treaty and constitutional violations and advise tribal citizens not to sign anything or make legal decisions without counsel, while urging tribes to prepare rapid-response protocols [7] [5] [8].
3. Allegations of coercion versus documented evidence: a distinction
The sources show a troubling demand for an "immigration agreement" as a precondition for sharing information with the tribe [1] [3], which tribal leaders framed as coercive and incompatible with treaty obligations; however, none of the cited reporting documents ICE physically holding Native Americans until they signed a written treaty or agreement while in custody, nor is there evidence in these sources of forced treaty-signing occurring at detention facilities. Coverage records detentions, refusal to release information without an agreement, and demands for legal accountability—serious claims that fall short of proving the specific, dramatic claim phrased as "held captive until they sign a treaty" [2] [1] [3].
4. Broader context: history, accountability, and institutional dynamics
Tribal leaders point to the historical irony and trauma of Indigenous people being detained at sites with painful histories and warn that ICE operations are part of a pattern of racialized targeting and overreach that worsens distrust and legal vulnerability; commentators and legal scholars argue court decisions and enforcement practices have given ICE broad latitude and limited remedies for victims, a structural context that makes allegations of rights violations more plausible even when specific conspiracy-like claims lack direct proof [2] [9] [8].
5. Bottom line and limits of the record
Based on the provided reporting, it is accurate to say that ICE has detained enrolled tribal citizens during recent operations and that tribal leaders allege unlawful treatment and link federal refusal to share information to demands that the tribe enter an immigration agreement [1] [2] [3]; however, the sources do not show documented instances of ICE agents physically forcing Native Americans to sign a treaty while being held captive, and they make clear legal advocates maintain tribal citizens are U.S. citizens who should not be subject to immigration detention [4] [5]. Reporting is still developing, and absent official records or court filings proving a quid pro quo of detention-for-signature, the specific claim that ICE holds Native Americans captive until they sign a treaty is not substantiated in the documents supplied.