What exact language did Governor Walz and Minnesota elected officials use when urging citizens to document ICE actions?
Executive summary
Governor Tim Walz explicitly urged Minnesotans to carry phones and record federal immigration agents, using language such as “carry your phone with you at all times” and “hit record” to “establish a record of exactly what’s happening in our communities,” and he framed filming as a peaceful, constitutional right while also urging protests to remain peaceful [1] [2] [3]. Other Minnesota officials echoed calls for documentation and public oversight even as federal authorities protested that such rhetoric risked incitement and urged reporting of threats against agents [4] [5].
1. What Walz said, verbatim and in context
In multiple public remarks Gov. Walz instructed residents to “carry your phone with you at all times and if you see these ICE agents in your neighborhood, take out that phone and hit record,” presenting filming as both a civic duty and a tool to “establish a record of exactly what’s happening in our communities” [2]. In a statewide address he similarly urged Minnesotans to “peacefully film ICE agents” while exhorting people to “protest loudly, urgently, but also peacefully,” tying documentation to peaceful public response rather than confrontation [3].
2. How Walz framed the purpose of filming
Walz framed the act of recording not merely as documentation but as evidence for accountability—saying that recording would help “establish a record” that could be used in court and at the ballot box, and promising that “accountability is coming” for abuses by federal officers [2] [1]. He positioned filming within a larger legal and political campaign: Minnesota and several cities were suing the federal government over the operations, and Walz linked citizen recordings to that effort by saying the state would reclaim communities “in court” and “at the voting booth” [1].
3. Other Minnesota elected officials and allied actors
Sen. Amy Klobuchar publicly joined Walz’s call for removing ICE operations from Minnesota and other Democratic leaders urged residents to remain calm while criticizing federal tactics; local leaders and organizers also called for public monitoring and transparency, with state Democrats broadly demanding ICE leave Minnesota [6] [4]. Reporting on coordinated responses elsewhere noted parallel efforts to create centralized archives of videos and to encourage citizens to submit footage to repositories intended for legal and journalistic use [2].
4. Federal response and warnings about rhetoric
The Department of Homeland Security and ICE pushed back, arguing that some public rhetoric—naming Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey—had contributed to threats and harassment against agents; DHS publicized an obscene threatening voicemail and urged the public to report threats and doxxing via a tipline, framing calls to document agents as potentially having unintended consequences [5]. News outlets quoted both Walz’s filming encouragement and DHS’s admonition, reflecting competing claims about public safety and accountability [7] [5].
5. Legal and practical caveats emphasized by observers
Policy commentators and legal observers cautioned that filming alone is “only half the accountability battle,” noting that video must be preserved, archived and made discoverable to be useful for prosecutions or civil suits—an argument reflected in reporting that urged centralized repositories and legal coordination to ensure footage can be found later [2]. Walz’s public instructions emphasized peaceful filming and protest, but advocates and technologists warned that chain-of-custody, metadata preservation and secure archiving are necessary steps beyond simply “hitting record” [2].
6. The rhetorical stakes and implicit agendas
Walz’s language—urging citizens to “carry your phone at all times” and to “hit record” and to “peacefully film ICE agents”—served both an accountability aim and a political one, bolstering the state’s legal case and public pressure on the federal operation while appealing to democratic norms of oversight [1] [3]. Federal agencies, by contrast, emphasized law-and-order concerns and highlighted threats against personnel, an implicit counter-narrative that frames calls to film as potentially escalating tensions [5]. Reporting shows these competing agendas played out in public statements and legal filings across Minnesota [1] [5].