What policies has the Minneapolis Police Department implemented to limit cooperation with ICE since 2025?
Executive summary
Since 2025, Minneapolis has layered city-level rules, executive directives and departmental policy changes designed to erect a “firewall” between local policing and federal immigration enforcement—most notably updates to the city’s separation ordinance, a mayoral executive order barring ICE staging on municipal property, and a revised MPD immigration policy whose compliance is mandatory and disciplinable [1] [2] [3]. Those steps explicitly limit MPD assistance to ICE while retaining avenues for cooperation on serious federal criminal investigations, and they sit alongside a consent-decree-era reframing of use-of-force and civil‑rights obligations that shape how the department approaches federal operations [1] [4] [5].
1. Separation‑ordinance revisions: codifying a firewall around immigration enforcement
The Minneapolis City Council advanced major updates to the separation ordinance in late 2025 that strengthen protections against federal immigration enforcement by restricting Minneapolis police from helping ICE with immigration enforcement, while spelling out exceptions that preserve cooperation on federal investigations into crimes like drug and human trafficking and RICO cases [1] [6]. Those revisions were passed after months of public testimony and advocacy and position the ordinance as the city’s primary legislative barrier to MPD involvement in routine civil immigration actions [1].
2. An executive order to keep ICE off city property
Mayor Jacob Frey signed Executive Order 2025‑02 prohibiting federal, state, and local agencies from using any city‑owned parking lots, ramps, garages or vacant lots to stage civil immigration enforcement operations—an operational constraint designed to deny ICE municipal staging areas even though the city cannot bar federal agents from being in Minneapolis altogether [2] [3]. The city has promoted that order publicly and embedded its prescripts into guidance and resource pages for residents as part of a broader response to increased federal activity [3] [7].
3. MPD policy changes, mandatory compliance and the consent‑decree context
Minneapolis says it released a revised MPD immigration policy that more clearly prohibits assisting ICE and that compliance with MPD policy and the separation ordinance is mandatory, with violations subject to discipline—an internal accountability mechanism the city emphasizes alongside its settlement agreement with the state Department of Human Rights and the DOJ consent decree that reframed civil‑rights and use‑of‑force expectations for the department [4] [3]. City materials stress that MPD’s commitment to constitutional policing will guide interactions with federal agents and that department policy and ordinance noncompliance can trigger discipline [3] [4].
4. Narrow exceptions and evidence of limited on‑the‑ground cooperation
The new local rules intentionally preserve cooperation with federal law enforcement on investigations into serious crimes, a carve‑out framed in the separation ordinance and public reporting; the ordinance allows MPD to work with agencies such as the FBI and ATF on significant federal prosecutions while limiting routine assistance to ICE [1]. Independent auditing of a June 2025 federal raid found MPD did not violate the city’s sanctuary policy during that operation, highlighting how the department has navigated the line between presence and prohibited assistance [8].
5. Pushback, federal escalation and practical limits to local control
The city’s steps have not been uncontested: critics and policing commentators warn that prohibitions on local‑federal cooperation can hamper investigations and complicate responses to federal deployments, and federal authorities have escalated activity in the Twin Cities—prompting lawsuits, a federal inquiry into local officials, and court orders curtailing ICE crowd‑control tactics toward peaceful protesters [5] [9] [10]. Minneapolis has responded with legal action against DHS and public resource campaigns, but reporting and federal court decisions underscore that municipal policy can constrain local actors’ cooperation while stopping short of preventing federal operations or fully immunizing the city from federal enforcement consequences [7] [9] [10].