Does Mayor Frey support the enforcement of immigation laws
Executive summary
Yes — Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey does not support local enforcement of federal immigration laws and has actively opposed federal immigration operations in his city, while defending the city's policy of noncooperation; his public rhetoric and an executive order instructing city resources not to be used for immigration enforcement have prompted a Justice Department inquiry into whether those statements crossed a legal line [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. The mayor’s clear stance: refusal to use city resources for immigration enforcement
Frey has repeatedly stated that Minneapolis will not assist federal immigration agents and has reinforced that position through policy: the city’s official materials and an executive order make plain that “we do not enforce immigration laws” and the city will not provide property or policing resources to ICE operations [1] [2]; Frey told national media the city “will not cooperate with ICE or any other federal immigration agency in enforcing immigration laws” [5].
2. From protest language to policy: public denunciations of federal agents
Beyond paperwork, Frey has used forceful public language — calling the surge of federal agents an “occupying force” and telling ICE to “get the f**k out of Minneapolis” — framing the federal presence as dangerous and counterproductive to public safety, and urging peaceful protest while condemning federal tactics he described as reckless [6] [7] [8].
3. Legal and political consequences: a federal probe and partisan pushback
Those public statements and the city’s noncooperation posture have triggered real consequences: federal prosecutors and the Justice Department opened an investigation into whether Mayor Frey and Governor Tim Walz impeded federal immigration enforcement, with officials saying the probe centers on their public comments and alleged coordination to obstruct agents [4] [3] [9]. Political adversaries and some federal officials have characterized Frey’s rhetoric as encouraging obstruction or even violence, arguing that it undermines enforcement and public safety [3] [9].
4. The mayor’s justification and local defense: safety, accountability, and separation of duties
Frey and city spokespeople defend the policy as consistent with Minneapolis’s separation ordinance and aimed at protecting community safety and civil rights; city communications stress the mayor’s demand for accountability after incidents involving federal agents and emphasize that public criticism of federal tactics is protected speech unless it involved direct coordination to obstruct law enforcement [1] [3] [10].
5. Critics’ framing and alternative viewpoint: obstruction or leadership?
Conservative outlets and critics depict Frey as soft on crime and accuse him of “inveighing against federal enforcement” and encouraging lawlessness, arguing his rhetoric and sanctuary-style posture keep dangerous people from being handed to federal authorities [11] [12]. Supporters counter that the mayor is defending residents from heavy-handed, militarized federal tactics and is upholding local policy and constitutional limits on federal intrusion [13] [14].
6. What the public record does — and does not — show
The reporting establishes Frey’s opposition to local enforcement of immigration laws, his demand that ICE leave Minneapolis, and the issuance of an executive order and city statements formalizing noncooperation [2] [1]. The record also shows a DOJ probe into whether his communications rose to illegal obstruction, but the available sources do not report any criminal charges or legal determinations as of the cited coverage; therefore, whether his words legally constitute impediment remains under investigation [4] [3].