Which Minnesota officials have been subpoenaed or investigated by federal grand juries in 2025–2026?

1. Who the reporting says was subpoenaed — the named officials

Multiple mainstream outlets report that the offices of Governor Tim Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey were served with grand‑jury subpoenas in the recent DOJ probe; Reuters and The Guardian explicitly name Walz and Frey, PBS and BBC report six subpoenas to Minnesota officials, and local Fox affiliates likewise list Walz, Ellison and Frey among the offices served ^{[6] [1] [3] [7] [2] [8]}. Minneapolis Mayor Frey publicly shared at least one subpoena directing his office’s custodian of records to produce documents dating back to the start of 2025 about “cooperation or lack of cooperation with federal immigration authorities,” according to reporting ^{[6] [9]}.

2. How many offices were targeted — five, six, and why counts diverge

News organizations report either five or six government offices received grand jury subpoenas: several Fox outlets and other reports say five offices were served, while PBS and others state there were six subpoenas — the discrepancy reflects varying attribution by sources inside the DOJ and local governments and the opaque nature of grand‑jury processes ^{[5] [2] [1]}. Reporters uniformly describe the documents sought as records related to coordination with federal immigration authorities and public statements or actions around ICE’s enforcement surge in the Twin Cities ^{[6] [1]}.

3. The alleged focus of the probe: obstruction, coercion and public statements

Reporting says the grand‑jury subpoenas are part of an inquiry into whether state and local officials or associated actors hindered, obstructed or conspired to impede federal law‑enforcement activity during Operation Metro Surge — including possible effects of public statements and local policies that critics say impeded ICE and other federal agents ^{[1] [4] [5]}. Legal commentary cited in coverage frames the inquiry as centered on potential misuse of a conspiracy statute tied to actions or rhetoric that might have “coerced” or interfered with federal officers ^{[4] [5]}.

4. Legal and political context: why this is notable and contested

Legal experts described the DOJ’s probe as “highly unusual,” noting grand juries are deferential but that using criminal process to scrutinize elected officials’ public statements and policy decisions marks a sharp escalation in federal‑state conflict; Minnesota leaders and advocates portray the subpoenas as politically motivated pushback against officials who pressed for limits on federal enforcement after a fatal shooting and a surge of federal agents ^{[4] [10] [11]}. The state has also rebuffed other federal data demands and court actions have multiplied in related litigation, underscoring a broader, partisan clash over federal enforcement tactics ^{[10] [12]}.

5. What is and is not confirmed by reporting — limits of the public record

Reporting confirms that Walz, Ellison and Frey are among the named offices and that five to six Minnesota government offices received subpoenas, but outlets differ on the full list of offices and on whether individuals beyond those three were subpoenaed; grand‑jury secrecy and ongoing investigation mean comprehensive, confirmed lists of every official subpoenaed are not publicly available in the cited reporting ^{[2] [1] [5]}. Coverage also confirms the probe’s general focus on obstruction of federal immigration enforcement, but it does not provide public evidence of charges or indictments tied to the subpoenas as of the cited reports ^{[1] [4]}.