How have other U.S. cities quantified and responded to federal ICE/CBP deployments during similar operations?
Executive summary
Cities confronted large, visible federal ICE and CBP deployments by counting direct operational impacts—overtime, arrests, shootings and agent headcounts—and by deploying legal, political and public-safety responses including lawsuits, public protests, and demands for oversight; those tactics have been framed alternately as enforcement of immigration law (per ICE’s stated mission) and as unconstitutional, militarized occupations that require litigation and congressional action [1] [2]. The pattern in Minneapolis–Saint Paul and Chicago shows local governments quantifying costs and harms while seeking judicial relief and public accountability, even as federal officials defend and expand the operations [3] [4] [5].
1. How cities measured the scope: arrests, agent counts, overtime, and casualties
Municipal officials and reporters turned to tangible metrics to quantify deployments: Minneapolis reported police overtime exceeding 3,000 hours within days of federal activity and estimated more than $2 million in overtime costs tied to public-safety needs created by DHS operations [3], while a DHS official told national outlets there were roughly 800 CBP agents and 2,000 ICE officials in the Minneapolis area during the surge—figures repeatedly cited in coverage [5]. Cities and states also logged arrest and use-of-force incidents: Chicago’s complaint catalogs shootings and mass detentions alleged since federal agents arrived, and Minneapolis became the site of multiple federal-agent-involved shootings that intensified scrutiny [4] [6] [5].
2. Legal responses: lawsuits and class actions as first-line remedies
Faced with aggressive interior enforcement, several jurisdictions have moved quickly to court: Minnesota’s attorney general together with Minneapolis and Saint Paul filed federal suits seeking to halt the surge and challenge practices they call unlawful [6] [3], while the ACLU and partners brought a class-action alleging suspicionless stops, warrantless arrests and racial profiling in Minnesota [2]. Illinois and Chicago likewise joined litigation alleging rights violations and abusive enforcement tactics by CBP and ICE in Chicago neighborhoods [4]. These cases aim to secure injunctions, investigations and limits on tactics rather than only political remedies [2] [4].
3. Political and civic responses: protests, strikes, and public pressure
Municipal actors and activists turned to street pressure and public campaigns as complements to legal action: thousands protested in Minneapolis and a statewide general strike was reported in reaction to the operations, and civic organizations organized coordinated “ICE out” actions and calls for congressional oversight and funding restrictions [6] [7]. City leaders publicly condemned tactics they described as “occupier”-style enforcement, amplifying local political pressure for federal restraint [4] [7].
4. Accountability measures and technological scrutiny
Responses also included demands for transparency around surveillance and body-worn technology: Chicago-area oversight and federal hearings pressed CBP on body-camera use after local concerns [8], while privacy groups and local reporting documented ICE and CBP reliance on license-plate readers, commercial data and phone-forensics tools—sparking local complaints that agencies used private data to intimidate observers and activists [9] [10] [11]. These findings shaped municipal calls for independent probes and stricter local controls on data-sharing.
5. Competing narratives and limits of available data
Federal officials frame deployments as fulfilling ICE/CBP missions to protect national security and public safety [1], and the White House and allies have defended immunity and necessity for the operations even as polls show public unease about tactics—most voters say ICE tactics have “gone too far” according to national polling [12]. Reporting shows a clear pattern of cities combining quantification, litigation and civic mobilization, but the available sources do not provide a comprehensive national dataset of every city’s accounting or of long-term outcomes; thus conclusions are drawn from high-profile cases in Minneapolis–Saint Paul and Chicago and national reporting about federal staffing levels and public reactions [6] [4] [5].