Have Governor Walz and Mayor Frey refused to allow ICE to arrest and deport violent criminals and individuals released from jails and prisons?

1. DHS’s allegation: “They refused to honor ICE detainers” — the federal framing and numbers

The Department of Homeland Security has publicly accused Governor Walz and Mayor Frey of refusing to cooperate with ICE and of releasing “nearly 470 criminal illegal aliens” since President Trump took office, and has called on them to “honor” more than 1,360 ICE arrest detainers reportedly tied to people in Minnesota custody, framing the matter as a public-safety crisis and highlighting specific arrests under Operation Metro Surge ^{[1] [5] [2]}.

2. The local response: criticism of federal tactics, calls for restraint, and denials of obstruction

Walz and Frey have vocally criticized the federal surge, urged peaceful protest and de‑escalation, and publicly told ICE to leave Minneapolis; they and allied officials have said they will not assist tactics they view as overly aggressive or unconstitutional, but have not framed their position as a blanket order to block lawful federal arrests — a distinction their offices emphasize as they respond to federal pressure and subpoenas ^{[3] [6] [7]}.

3. Legal and practical limits on state and local authority to block ICE

Multiple reporting and legal commentary stress that American federalism constrains what governors and mayors can do to stop federal immigration enforcement: states and cities generally cannot lawfully prevent federal agents from carrying out immigration arrests, though they can decline to cooperate with administrative detainers or limit local assistance — a difference at the heart of the dispute ^{[8] [7]}.

4. Evidence on the ground: ICE operations continued and made arrests despite local resistance

DHS and ICE point to Operation Metro Surge and other actions in Minnesota as proof that ICE has continued to conduct arrests in the state and that federal agents have apprehended thousands, including cases they characterize as “the worst of the worst,” indicating that refusal to cooperate has not been absolute or fully preventative of federal activity ^{[5] [9] [4]}.

5. The investigatory turn: DOJ subpoenas and the unresolved question of obstruction

The Justice Department has served subpoenas and opened an investigation probing whether Minnesota officials, including Walz and Frey, conspired to impede federal immigration agents; those subpoenas seek records about “cooperation or lack of cooperation” and related communications, which signals the government believes statements or policies may cross legal lines — but as of reporting these inquiries are ongoing and not a finding of guilt ^{[3] [4] [10]}.

6. Conflicting narratives and incentives: what each side gains by its story

DHS’s messaging frames local leaders as endangering public safety and pressures political constituencies that favor strict immigration enforcement, while Walz, Frey and local advocates frame federal actions as dangerous overreach that threatens civil liberties and community trust; each narrative serves distinct political and institutional incentives and shapes how facts (like detainer practices) are presented ^{[1] [7] [9]}.

7. Bottom line — what can be said with confidence and what remains unsettled

It is factual that DHS publicly accuses Walz and Frey of refusing to honor ICE detainers and cites hundreds of alleged releases, that local leaders have criticized the federal surge and urged ICE to leave, and that the DOJ has subpoenaed and is investigating those officials — but whether Walz and Frey legally “refused to allow ICE to arrest and deport violent criminals” in a manner that constitutes criminal obstruction is not established by the available reporting and remains the subject of an active investigation and legal analysis ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}.