Did Minnesota police join ice

1. Minneapolis police have declined to “escort” or assist ICE in the field

Minneapolis Police Department leadership has repeatedly signaled a formal break from operational support for ICE, adopting revised immigration policies that “more clearly prohibit assisting ICE” and stating the department will refrain from escorting federal agents or providing crowd control for ICE actions except where there is a “clear and immediate threat,” a posture the Minnesota Reformer describes as a deliberate distancing meant to protect constitutional policing ^[1].

2. State and city officials say local police are left responding to federal actions

Minnesota’s attorney general and the City of Minneapolis have complained that the federal deployment has forced state and local officers to “clean up the chaos” created by DHS operations, and together with Saint Paul and the state filed suit seeking to halt the federal surge; the coalition alleges federal agents commandeered local resources and harmed public safety ^[5].

3. Some Minnesota counties do cooperate with ICE under 287(g) or detainer practices

The collaboration picture is mixed beyond the Twin Cities: ICE’s own database shows six local law enforcement agencies in Minnesota with active 287(g) agreements — a program that deputizes local officers for immigration enforcement — and several rural sheriffs have entered detainer or housing arrangements with ICE, prompting legal challenges from the ACLU and state officials ^{[2] [3]}.

4. Hennepin County and Minneapolis city agencies deny routine operational coordination

Hennepin County’s sheriff’s office has stated it is not working with federal agencies in current immigration enforcement operations, and Minneapolis city leadership has publicly demanded ICE leave the city while providing community guidance and legal support for residents affected by federal actions ^{[2] [6]}.

5. Federal DHS narrative and local rejection are both politically charged

DHS and the Administration have framed the operation as removing “the worst of the worst” and have publicly criticized local leaders for refusing to cooperate, asserting that governors and mayors have “released” criminals rather than honoring detainers ^[4]. That federal messaging must be read alongside local legal and civil-rights pushback — including ACLU litigation alleging racial profiling and unlawful seizures — which portrays the federal response as overreach and harmful to communities ^[7].

6. On-the-ground tensions and who did what during protests

During public protests following the ICE-involved fatal shooting of Renee Good, Minnesota police actions were cautious: MPD issued dispersal orders at demonstrations and emphasized protecting First Amendment activity rather than serving as an operational arm of ICE; meanwhile federal agents, often outnumbering Minneapolis officers, conducted arrests and drew scrutiny for their tactics, which state officials argue required local response to maintain public safety ^{[8] [9]}.

7. Legal and investigative friction colors cooperation decisions

The Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension withdrew from investigating the ICE shooting, citing lack of access to evidence, and said it would only reengage if federal partners agreed to a joint investigation, underscoring the procedural barriers and mutual distrust shaping whether and how local agencies work with federal immigration authorities ^[10].

8. Bottom line: no single answer — local police as a whole did not “join” ICE, but collaboration exists in pockets

It is inaccurate to state uniformly that Minnesota police “joined ICE”; Minneapolis police explicitly have tried to distance themselves and avoid operational assistance ^[1], yet some county sheriffs and six local agencies continue formal cooperation through 287(g) or detainer arrangements ^{[2] [3]}, and the federal government publicly asserts a lack of cooperation from state and city leaders as part of its justification for the surge ^[4].