Is local police in Minneapolis not working with ice?
Executive summary
Minneapolis city leaders and the Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) have publicly distanced themselves from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and said they will not cooperate with federal immigration enforcement operations, a stance reflected in revised MPD policy and repeated statements by Mayor Jacob Frey [1] [2]. Federal officials and some national lawmakers, however, say that this lack of cooperation has forced ICE to operate without typical local support and has created operational friction and public safety challenges [3] [4].
1. The official municipal posture: formal distancing and refusal to aid ICE
City officials and the MPD have taken explicit steps to limit cooperation with ICE: Mayor Frey has stated the city “will not cooperate” with ICE in enforcement [1], the MPD revised an immigration policy to more clearly prohibit assisting ICE [2], and the city moved to strengthen a separation ordinance intended to keep local policing distinct from federal immigration actions [2]. The City of Minneapolis and Minnesota’s attorney general have also sued to halt the federal surge, arguing the state and cities did not ask for the operation and are bearing its public-safety and financial costs, including documented overtime tracking by MPD [5].
2. Federal officials’ account: complaints of non-cooperation and operational strain
Department of Homeland Security and allied federal voices have publicly criticized Minneapolis and Minnesota leaders for what they describe as a failure to cooperate, with officials and politicians — including visiting Republicans — arguing that the absence of local assistance has left ICE conducting riskier street-level operations [3] [6]. ICE leadership and administration allies have repeatedly framed the situation as one in which local noncooperation has contributed to “chaos” and the need for a large federal presence [4] [7].
3. Spotty on-the-ground interplay: MPD actions that complicate a simple answer
Despite the city’s public refusal to assist ICE, reporting shows the relationship on the ground is more nuanced: Minneapolis police chief Brian O’Hara has said that local law enforcement secures scenes for evidence preservation after federal shootings and that MPD has been responding to incidents involving federal agents [8]. The city has also tracked substantial overtime tied to federal operations and public reaction, suggesting active MPD engagement in managing community safety even while declining to participate in federal immigration enforcement [5].
4. Conflicting narratives in media accounts and moments of visible absence
Some outlets have portrayed MPD as absent during specific flashpoints — for instance Fox News reported MPD was not present when barricades were erected near a shooting scene [9] — while other reporting emphasizes MPD’s conscious policy shift away from collaboration and efforts to protect community trust after past policing controversies [2]. These differing depictions reflect political and editorial angles: federal and conservative sources highlight noncooperation as dereliction, while local and reform-minded outlets frame it as deliberate reform and legal compliance [3] [2].
5. Legal and investigative pressure: subpoenas, lawsuits, and mutual accusations
The Justice Department has issued subpoenas to Minnesota officials probing whether local leaders impeded federal agents, and Minneapolis and the state have sued to stop the ICE surge — a legal back-and-forth that underscores the contested nature of cooperation [6] [5]. Meanwhile, federal authorities have said DHS will lead investigations into federal shootings even as local prosecutors stress the need for scene security by local law enforcement, illustrating overlapping responsibilities rather than seamless cooperation [8].
6. Bottom line: not a binary — official noncooperation exists, but law enforcement interaction continues
It is accurate to say Minneapolis city leadership and MPD have publicly and formally refused to assist ICE in immigration-enforcement operations and have instituted policies to limit such cooperation [1] [2]. That stance does not mean local police disappear from all incidents involving federal agents: MPD secures scenes, has absorbed overtime costs responding to disturbances tied to federal actions, and day-to-day interactions and legal obligations create instances of contact or overlapping responsibilities [5] [8]. National political actors contend noncooperation impedes law enforcement, while local leaders argue the city is upholding reform and community trust; available reporting documents both claims but does not fully adjudicate individual on-the-ground decisions by every officer [3] [6].