What contemporaneous public statements did Mayor Jacob Frey and Attorney General Keith Ellison make that the DOJ might also be examining?
Executive summary
The DOJ’s subpoenas to Minnesota officials are seeking records about coordination, communications and any refusal to aid federal immigration agents, and prosecutors appear to be scrutinizing public remarks from Mayor Jacob Frey and Attorney General Keith Ellison that criticized the federal surge of ICE/CBP officers and framed local resistance as necessary — statements the Justice Department could view as evidence of obstruction or encouragement of interference [1] [2]. Both men publicly characterized the federal operation as dangerous, political, and unlawful, and both framed the subpoenas as intimidation or retaliation; these contemporaneous public statements are therefore central to what the DOJ might be examining [3] [4].
1. Mayor Frey’s public warnings and refusals — “keeping our community safe” vs. alleged discouragement of cooperation
Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey has repeatedly denounced the federal deployment, publicly demanding that the officers leave and saying he would continue “keeping our community safe and standing up for our values,” a line cited in local and national reporting that could be read by prosecutors as discouraging cooperation with federal agents [5] [3]. Frey’s office publicly released a copy of the grand jury subpoena that seeks records “since the beginning of 2025” about “cooperation or lack of cooperation with federal immigration authorities,” making his public rhetoric and internal communications a direct subject of the DOJ’s request [1] [2]. In news interviews and statements Frey also described the investigation into him as “an obvious attempt to intimidate me for standing up for Minneapolis, our local law enforcement, and our residents,” language that both asserts First Amendment and political motives and underscores why prosecutors may be pairing statements with documentary records [6] [7].
2. Attorney General Ellison’s litigation posture and combative framing — “I will not be intimidated” and claims of a federal “invasion”
Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison led legal action to block the federal surge and framed the deployment in forceful terms: his office filed a lawsuit challenging the operations and he argued the presence of DHS agents caused “serious harm” and amounted to an unconstitutional intrusion, language reported across outlets and invoked in his public defenses [8] [9]. Ellison has characterized the subpoenas as “highly irregular” and emphasized that the subpoena seeks records of his office rather than being directed at him personally, while publicly warning that the actions are politically motivated — stating “Donald Trump is coming after the people of Minnesota” and “I will not be intimidated,” comments captured in coverage from NPR and KARE [2] [4]. Those combative public legal and political claims are precisely the contemporaneous statements the DOJ could be correlating with documentary evidence of whether officials took actions that obstructed federal enforcement [10] [1].
3. What the subpoenas ask for and why statements matter to prosecutors
The grand jury subpoenas served to Frey, Ellison and others demand records, communications and documents about federal immigration enforcement and any “refusal to come to the aid of immigration officials,” a narrow evidentiary focus that naturally turns prosecutors toward contemporaneous public statements as context for internal decisions and directives [2] [1]. News reporting and legal analysis cited by NBC, Reuters and PBS emphasize that prosecutors are examining whether public statements “disparaging the surge of officers and federal actions” crossed into criminal interference — meaning the line between protected political speech and illegal obstruction is the core factual question tied to quotes and press appearances [11] [12] [13].
4. Competing narratives, legal sensitivities and limits of available reporting
Supporters of Frey and Ellison frame their remarks as constitutionally protected political speech and necessary public leadership opposing tactics they view as harmful, while DOJ signals through subpoenas that it wants documentary corroboration to assess whether any speech dovetailed with actions that impeded federal officers; both interpretations are present in coverage and frame the legal tension [3] [10]. Public reporting provides examples of the quoted rhetoric and the subpoena language, but does not — at this stage in the reporting reviewed — disclose non-public internal deliberations or specific documentary links between statements and allegedly obstructive acts, so any claim that the remarks alone constitute a crime exceeds what the sources establish [1] [2].