Does Minnesota cooperate with ICE?
Executive summary
Yes — but not unconditionally: Minnesota’s state corrections system and some local officials provide forms of cooperation with ICE as required by federal law, while many county jails and elected city leaders limit or refuse broader access sought by the Trump administration, creating a patchwork of cooperation that both sides claim supports their narrative [1][2].
1. What “cooperation” means in practice in Minnesota
Minnesota’s Department of Corrections says it notifies ICE before inmates complete state prison sentences and complies with detainer requests within the bounds of state and federal law, which the state frames as “cooperat[ion] as required by law,” but Minnesota law bars holding people solely on ICE detainers, and many county sheriffs limit their engagement because of constitutional concerns [1][2].
2. Federal claims versus state rebuttals
The Biden administration’s successor officials have publicly and repeatedly accused Minnesota leaders of refusing to cooperate — a critique the Department of Homeland Security reiterated in public statements — yet state officials and legal observers counter that Minnesota does cooperate where legally permissible and that federal rhetoric omits legal constraints and local variations [3][2].
3. Local variation produces a patchwork, not a wall
Across Minnesota the level of access varies: state prisons generally coordinate release notifications with ICE, while county jails set their own policies and many deny ICE the automatic access and prolonged custody the agency seeks, meaning cooperation is uneven and localized rather than comprehensive statewide alignment with ICE’s operational desires [1][4].
4. Federal pressure, political theater and enforcement consequences
The Trump administration escalated pressure by deploying a large ICE operation and publicly demanding expanded access to jails and local enforcement — an effort framed by DHS as a response to noncooperation — while federal officials signaled they might reduce deployments only if Minnesota granted greater access, revealing a political quid pro quo between federal resources and local cooperation [5][6][7].
5. Courts, oversight and accusations of overreach
Legal friction complicates the picture: federal agents’ tactics in Minnesota prompted litigation and a federal judge found numerous violations of court orders by ICE in state cases, while state leaders have argued the surge infringes on state sovereignty under the Tenth Amendment; these legal findings and lawsuits underscore that cooperation is constrained by judicial rulings and legal process as well as policy choices [5][8].
6. Media, fact‑checks and competing narratives
Local and national outlets have sought to clarify the dispute: Reuters reported internal ICE guidance noting increased cooperation from some Minnesota officials and promising more opportunities to pick up immigrants released on parole or probation, while fact‑check outlets and Minnesota officials have pushed back on wholesale claims that the state “refuses” to cooperate, pointing to announced procedures and a state site countering DHS messaging [9][10][2].
7. The political stakes and implicit agendas
Both sides carry political incentives: the federal administration frames limited local access as obstruction to justify surges and demand policy changes, while Minnesota leaders emphasize legal limits and civil‑liberties concerns to resist expanded federal policing in communities — an exchange amplified by protests, corporate statements, and partisan legislative proposals seeking either tighter collaboration or stronger guardrails [11][12][13].
Bottom line
Minnesota cooperates with ICE in specific, legally prescribed ways — especially through state prison notifications and some detainer interactions — but resists the broader, blanket access and custodial practices the federal government seeks, leaving the reality of “cooperation” a contested, jurisdiction‑by‑jurisdiction mosaic rather than a simple yes or no [1][2][9].