Did tim waltz release undocumented criminals from prison
Executive summary
The short answer: no credible reporting shows Governor Tim Walz personally ordered prisons to “release undocumented criminals,” but federal agencies (DHS/ICE) assert that Minnesota’s sanctuary-style policies have resulted in hundreds of noncitizens not being held on ICE detainers and in large numbers of federal arrests — claims the Minnesota Department of Corrections disputes as inaccurate or misleading [1] [2] [3]. The dispute is primarily about whether Minnesota refused or ignored ICE detainers and how many people that affected, not about the governor physically opening cell doors.
1. What DHS and ICE are claiming — big numbers and political framing
The Department of Homeland Security and ICE have publicly accused Governor Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey of refusing to honor ICE arrest detainers and of “releasing” hundreds of criminal noncitizens back into Minnesota communities, with press statements citing figures such as “nearly 470” and broader claims that more than 1,300 people with ICE holds remain in Minnesota custody [1] [2]. DHS and ICE have used those figures to justify sweeping federal enforcement actions in Minnesota and to frame local officials as responsible for subsequent federal arrests of people they call “the worst of the worst” [1] [4]. Conservative outlets amplify the line that sanctuary policies allowed convicted violent offenders to remain free [5] [6].
2. What Minnesota’s Department of Corrections says — a categorical pushback
Minnesota’s corrections commissioner has pushed back hard, calling the federal counts and the way they’re being presented “false claims,” noting discrepancies between DHS/Border Patrol data and state prison records, and saying the department did not violate ICE detainers for people held in state prisons; the state says it released 84 people to ICE in 2025 and often facilitated transfers rather than refusing cooperation [3]. The commissioner also noted many individuals DHS cited were never in Minnesota state prisons or had already been transferred or released to ICE custody, undercutting blanket assertions that the state “released” hundreds to the street [3].
3. Where the semantic clash is — detainers, local jails vs. state prisons, and policy limits
A core source of confusion is the difference between ICE “detainers” and state law, and between local jails and state prison systems: Walz has supported limits on local cooperation with federal immigration arrests and broader immigrant-access policies (driver’s licenses, health care) that critics label “sanctuary” measures [7] [8]. Federal statements often aggregate numbers across jurisdictions and timeframes and conflate local-jail practices with the state Department of Corrections oversight, while Minnesota officials say DHS has not used consistent systems or timeframes to justify the large-count claims [3] [2].
4. Independent reporting and investigations — a volatile political context
National outlets report a DOJ probe into whether Walz and Mayor Frey impeded federal agents through public statements and policy stances, but those investigations concern potential obstruction and rhetoric, not a demonstrable act by Walz of releasing prisoners; that probe reflects the heightened, partisan national conflict over immigration enforcement in Minnesota [9] [10]. At the same time several county sheriffs later made cooperation pacts with ICE, showing the landscape is fragmented and not uniform across Minnesota jurisdictions [11].
5. Bottom line: claims are politically charged and factually contested
The evidence in the public record shows DHS/ICE assert large release numbers and blame Walz’s policies for enabling alleged re-offending and subsequent federal arrests, while Minnesota’s corrections leadership counters that the agency did not release people to the community to evade ICE, that many cited individuals were never in state prisons, and that the state did facilitate transfers to ICE in many cases — meaning the headline “Tim Walz released undocumented criminals from prison” is a politicized oversimplification rather than a settled fact [1] [2] [3]. Reporting shows a clash of data sets and definitions; available sources do not document an explicit gubernatorial order to free incarcerated noncitizens.