How have Minneapolis city policies changed regarding cooperation with ICE since 2024?
Executive summary
Since 2024 Minneapolis has tightened formal barriers between city operations and U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE): Mayor Jacob Frey issued an executive order refusing use of city property for civil immigration enforcement that was later codified into a revised separation ordinance limiting city employee and police cooperation with ICE, while preserving narrow channels for federal collaboration on serious criminal investigations [1] [2] [3]. Those legal and policy changes have unfolded amid an intense federal response — including a large ICE deployment and a fatal ICE shooting that prompted public denunciations from city leaders — generating legal friction, protests and federal scrutiny of Minneapolis officials [4] [5] [6].
1. What the city changed in law and executive action
Minneapolis formalized and strengthened its longstanding “separation ordinance” by incorporating Mayor Frey’s executive order into city code: the executive order explicitly refuses use of City property for civil immigration enforcement and the updated ordinance prohibits City employees — including Minneapolis Police Department (MPD) personnel — from participating in federal immigration enforcement activities [1] [2]. City communications describe the update as reinforcing a firewall between federal immigration raids and general crime-fighting, and the council advanced those updates after public testimony and advocacy [3].
2. Practical limits introduced: staging, assistance, and information-sharing
The updated policy specifically prevents ICE from staging on City-owned lots and ramps and bars city employees from assisting ICE — including investigating individuals when the sole alleged violation is being in the U.S. unlawfully — and restricts MPD participation in immigration enforcement [2] [7]. City guidance for residents also emphasizes practical supports and rights information for people stopped or detained by ICE, signaling an operational shift toward noncooperation and community protections [8].
3. Preserved exceptions: serious federal criminal investigations
The ordinance revisions were explicitly designed to preserve municipal cooperation with federal agencies on certain serious crimes: MPD can still work with federal partners such as the FBI or ATF on investigations involving drug trafficking, human trafficking and gang prosecutions under federal RICO statutes, and the council language frames the changes as balancing immigrant protections with public-safety imperatives [3].
4. How federal actions have tested the new posture
The strengthened noncooperation stance emerged against the backdrop of a stepped-up federal presence in Minnesota: thousands of federal agents were mobilized to the state in late 2025 and January 2026, and operations included arrests in public spaces that city officials called intimidating, prompting emergency bulletins and public denunciations from Minneapolis leadership [4] [6]. The fatal shooting of Renee Good by an ICE agent heightened tensions, with city and state officials disputing the federal account and demanding an end to the enforcement surge [5].
5. Legal and political blowback and courtroom friction
Federal pushback has included investigations and legal orders: the Department of Justice opened inquiries into Minnesota officials’ actions, and a federal judge issued restrictions on ICE responses to protesters as the city experienced demonstrations tied to the enforcement activity [4] [9]. At the same time, federal agencies have publicly criticized Minneapolis officials’ noncooperation — including politically charged statements from the Department of Homeland Security — framing municipal policies as endangering public safety [10].
6. Local impacts, contested narratives, and limits of the reporting
Reports detail immediate impacts: small businesses and immigrant communities have reported disruptions and fear during raids, while local advocates praised the ordinance updates as strengthening protections [11] [12]. Coverage also shows competing narratives — city leaders and immigrant-rights groups emphasize civil-liberties and public-safety tradeoffs, while federal officials and some national outlets portray Minneapolis as failing to assist in detaining criminal noncitizens [10] [13]. Reporting available here documents the policy changes, the preserved criminal-investigation exceptions, and the political confrontation, but it does not provide comprehensive data on enforcement outcomes (e.g., arrest or prosecution rates) after the ordinance updates; that gap limits assessment of the real-world operational effect beyond the heightened federal response [3] [2] [6].