Has mayor frey told local police to fight ice
Executive summary
Mayor Jacob Frey has not instructed Minneapolis police to “fight ICE”; instead he has repeatedly said local officers will not enforce federal immigration laws and has demanded ICE leave the city, framing the role of city police as public-safety — not federal immigration — responders [1] [2] [3]. Independent fact-checkers and multiple outlets report that social-media claims Frey told police to attack or arrest ICE agents distort his words; legal experts say municipalities are not required to deputize local forces as federal immigration enforcers [4] [5] [6].
1. What Frey actually said about local police and ICE
In public remarks and social posts, Frey has said “Minneapolis does not, and will not, enforce federal immigration laws” and emphasized “the job of our police is to keep people safe, not enforce fed immigration laws,” adding he wanted officers “preventing homicides, not hunting down a working dad who contributes to MPLS” [2] [6]. The City’s official statement after the Jan. 7 incident likewise demanded ICE leave the city and said federal immigration agents’ presence was “causing chaos” [1].
2. Where the “fight ICE” claim came from and how it’s been assessed
The narrative that Frey urged police to “fight ICE” traces to social clips and partisan outlets that clipped or amplified his remarks and posed hypothetical questions about arresting ICE agents; PolitiFact determined Frey did not tell city police to “fight ICE,” and mainstream coverage shows his language was about noncooperation rather than incitement to violence [4] [7]. Right-leaning outlets and commentary have framed his stance as tantamount to obstruction, while critics in the Trump administration characterized it as endangering federal officers [3] [8].
3. Legal and political context that shapes the statements
Legal precedent gives municipal authorities discretion about enforcing federal law, and legal analysts told reporters that Frey’s refusal to have local officers perform federal immigration enforcement is within that authority — a point picked up in coverage by Forbes and Time noting Supreme Court precedent and constitutional limits on federal-state relations [5] [6]. Politically, the exchange has escalated into subpoenas and federal scrutiny: the DOJ subpoenaed Frey and other Minnesota officials amid a probe into whether local leaders impeded federal law enforcement [9].
4. The administration’s response and the charged rhetoric
The Trump administration and allied media have amplified claims that Frey’s posture equals lawlessness or a “serious violation” of the law, with the President publicly warning Frey he is “playing with fire,” while federal officials say operations should proceed and some portray local noncooperation as contributing to danger [8] [3]. Reuters and CNN coverage show the dispute is part of a larger, highly polarized fight over how and where ICE carries out arrests and how local leaders balance public safety and civil‑immigration policy [10] [11].
5. The practical reality on the ground and why ambiguity spread
On the ground, the situation has been chaotic: large federal deployments, protests, and high-profile shootings by federal agents forced sharp public statements and emotional rhetoric from Frey demanding ICE withdraw — language that is easily rephrased into claims he urged confrontation [1] [12]. Conservative sites and social posts often condensed or sensationalized passing remarks (for example, clips suggesting police are “outnumbered and outgunned”), which fueled misinformation even as mainstream fact-checkers and outlets provided corrective context [7] [4].
6. Bottom line: what can be stated with confidence
Based on city statements, mainstream reporting, and independent fact checks, Frey explicitly told local police not to carry out federal immigration enforcement and demanded ICE leave Minneapolis, but he did not order Minneapolis police to “fight ICE” or to arrest federal agents; claims that he did are a mischaracterization amplified by partisan outlets and social media [1] [2] [4]. Where interpretations diverge is the political framing: critics present noncooperation as obstruction or danger, while supporters view it as legally defensible prioritization of local public safety [5] [8].