ICE is “invading” Minnesota and has no jurisdiction there
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Federal immigration agents from ICE are operating in Minnesota as part of a campaign called “Operation Metro Surge,” and DHS says ICE arrested “more than 400” noncitizens during the effort; Minnesota is in ICE’s St. Paul Area of Responsibility, which covers multiple Midwestern states [1] [2]. State and local leaders dispute how far federal authority should extend: the Minnesota attorney general has issued legal guidance limiting local cooperation on ICE detainers and county-level agreements exist but may be jeopardized [3] [4].
1. ICE is present in Minnesota — federal jurisdiction, not a mystery
ICE has publicly announced operations called Operation Metro Surge in Minnesota and federal releases describe hundreds of arrests, and reporting shows ICE activity across the Twin Cities and elsewhere in the state; Minnesota falls inside ICE’s St. Paul Area of Responsibility, which also covers Iowa, Nebraska, North Dakota and South Dakota [1] [2] [5].
2. “Invading” is a political framing, not the legal description used by federal or local actors
Sources show federal agents were deployed, operations occurred in neighborhoods and agents parked on city streets, but reporting characterizes this as federal enforcement activity rather than an illegal incursion. City officials have said they cannot prevent ICE from being in Minneapolis even as they take steps to limit local support for staging and coordination [6] [7] [8].
3. Local legal limits and disputes over cooperation shape the picture
Minnesota’s attorney general issued a legal opinion saying state law bars sheriffs from unilaterally detaining people solely on ICE detainer requests and says county agreements require county-board approval; that guidance could threaten existing 287(g) or similar arrangements and changes how much on-the-ground assistance ICE can get from local agencies [3] [4].
4. Some counties and agencies do partner with ICE; others resist
At least eight Minnesota counties had signed agreements with ICE, and several local law-enforcement agencies signed programs this year to assist federal efforts, per reporting that lists Cass, Crow Wing, Freeborn, Itasca, Jackson, Kandiyohi, Mille Lacs and Sherburne among counties with agreements and notes five agencies signing programs in 2025 [4] [9]. Those partnerships give ICE delegated authorities in certain contexts, even as state legal guidance constrains unilateral local action [3].
5. Cities are using ordinances, executive orders and operational limits to push back
Minneapolis and other city officials have adopted or considered ordinances (for example, revised “ICE separation” rules) and executive steps to refuse use of city resources for federal staging and to instruct local officers to intervene if residents’ rights are violated during federal actions — an active political and legal contest over how to handle ICE on municipal streets [6] [7].
6. Community reaction and civil‑liberties concerns are central to coverage
Immigrant-rights groups and community monitors have reported a surge in ICE alerts and growing public recording of operations; members of Congress and local leaders have alleged racial profiling and excessive force in specific incidents, reflecting sharp political and human‑rights concerns tied to the enforcement surge [10] [11] [12].
7. DHS messaging and local reporting show different emphases
DHS releases emphasize removing “the worst of the worst” and cite arrest totals in Minnesota [1]. Local reporting and oversight pieces focus on where arrests occurred, the scope of the database DHS released, questions about who is being targeted, and whether arrests are concentrated in specific communities such as the Twin Cities’ Somali population [5] [10] [1].
8. What the available sources do not settle
Available sources do not mention a legal finding that ICE has “no jurisdiction” in Minnesota; instead they document federal authority exercised in the St. Paul Area of Responsibility and a disputed but functional patchwork of federal-local cooperation and resistance [2] [3]. They also do not provide a comprehensive accounting that proves every arrest or tactic cited by DHS was lawful or that every local resistance measure will hold up in court — those outcomes are being litigated and debated [3] [7].
9. Bottom line for readers
ICE is operating in Minnesota under its declared federal authority and through some local partnerships [1] [9] [2]. Whether that activity constitutes an “invasion” depends on political framing; the concrete legal struggle is over local cooperation, detainer practices and municipal limits — matters Minnesota’s attorney general and city governments are actively contesting [3] [7].