What official statements have Minnesota state leaders (governor, attorney general) made about arrests or charges related to the January 2026 ICE operation?

Checked on January 13, 2026
Disclaimer: Factually can make mistakes. Please verify important information or breaking news. Learn more.

Executive summary

Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison has publicly accused the federal ICE surge of making unconstitutional, warrantless arrests and using excessive force, announced a state lawsuit and independent review, and urged residents to submit video and witness accounts while demanding the surge stop [1] [2] [3] [4]. Governor Tim Walz has echoed sharp criticism of the federal operation, rejected the Department of Homeland Security’s account of the fatal shooting, placed the National Guard on alert, and called for federal agents to withdraw as tensions rose in the Twin Cities [5] [6] [7].

1. Attorney General Ellison: framing the federal arrests as unlawful and seeking court relief

Keith Ellison has characterized the Operation Metro Surge arrests as constitutionally suspect and legally unlawful, announcing a federal lawsuit (including a motion for a temporary restraining order) to halt the deployment and to stop what he described as “warrantless, racist arrests” and the use of excessive force on Minnesotans; his office has alleged federal agents have made arrests at schools, churches and other sensitive locations and asserted that the surge is spreading “chaos and terror” across the metro area [1] [8] [9].

2. Ellison’s active steps: investigations, evidence-gathering and litigation

Beyond rhetoric, Ellison moved to open a state-level response: he and Minneapolis’ chief county prosecutor asked residents to submit videos, photos and eyewitness accounts to assist a state review of the fatal ICE shooting that became the catalyst for broader scrutiny, and Ellison’s office filed suit alongside the cities of Minneapolis and Saint Paul seeking injunctive relief to stop the surge and to challenge the legality of the federal tactics [3] [10] [2] [9].

3. Governor Walz: public condemnation, rejecting DHS narrative, and readiness measures

Governor Tim Walz publicly rejected the Department of Homeland Security’s account of the fatal shooting and criticized the federal presence in Minnesota, joining other Democratic leaders who demanded withdrawal of federal agents; Walz also took operational precautions—placing the Minnesota National Guard on alert amid concerns the federal operation was escalating local unrest [5] [6] [7].

4. What they have not claimed: criminal charges by the state against federal agents

State leaders have pursued civil and investigatory remedies and have demanded transparency and evidence, but the reporting does not show Ellison or Walz announcing criminal charges filed by the state against ICE personnel as of the cited coverage; instead, Ellison initiated a civil lawsuit against DHS and opened a state review into the fatal shooting while local prosecutors and the state BCA were described as exploring options for a state-level investigation [1] [3] [10].

5. Counterstatements and federal position acknowledged by state leaders’ critics

State criticisms triggered immediate federal pushback: DHS defended the operation, said the ICE agent involved in the shooting acted in self-defense, and disputed claims of random or politically motivated arrests—asserting that ICE does not conduct operations “without specific objectives” and contesting Ellison’s characterization as prioritizing politics over public safety [11] [12]. Reporting shows this dispute over facts and legal framing is central to the standoff between Minnesota officials and federal authorities [13] [4].

6. The practical effect: litigation, evidence-gathering, and political escalation

Ellison’s lawsuit and public evidence appeals aim to interrupt further arrests and to obtain judicial limits on the federal deployment, while Walz’s public denunciations and readiness posture underscore the political escalation: both actions seek to constrain federal arrest activity in Minnesota through courts, public pressure and state investigatory mechanisms rather than by announcing state criminal prosecutions of federal agents in the incidents covered so far [1] [2] [4] [9].

Want to dive deeper?
What specific claims and legal theories are in Minnesota’s lawsuit against DHS seeking to stop Operation Metro Surge?
What has the Minnesota Bureau of Criminal Apprehension and Hennepin County prosecutor publicly stated about potential state criminal charges in the Renee Good shooting?
How have federal officials justified the arrests and detentions in Operation Metro Surge, and what evidence have they released about the charges against those detained?