Where is ICE deployed and Are they blue or red states?
Executive summary
Federal immigration agents are being deployed to a mix of cities across the country — prominently to Minneapolis and other urban areas — as part of a large, multi-pronged enforcement campaign that has involved ICE, CBP, Border Patrol support and even National Guard and Marine activations in some episodes [1] [2] [3]. While many high-profile deployments have targeted Democratic-leaning “blue” cities and triggered suits accusing the administration of partisan punishment, ICE’s footprint also depends on long-standing federal-local partnerships that span both red and blue states [4] [5] [6].
1. Where ICE is being deployed: hotspots and scale
The most visible recent deployments have concentrated in the Minneapolis–St. Paul area, where thousands of ICE and CBP agents were reported sent in an aggressive enforcement push after a high-profile incident, and where the administration described operations involving hundreds to thousands of personnel [1] [7] [2]. Reporting and compilations of the administration’s operations show federal forces sent into at least ten cities during this campaign and cite joint “strike teams” of ICE and other federal officers moved across metropolitan areas for targeted raids and sweeps [2] [3]. Those national moves have also included temporary support from Border Patrol, National Guard units ordered by the White House in some cases, and Pentagon activations referenced in media coverage of protests and crowd control [3] [2].
2. Not just raids — a nationwide infrastructure of local cooperation
Beyond headline raids, ICE’s operational reach rests on formal delegations and partnerships with state and local agencies: the 287(g) program alone shows agreements or memoranda stretching across roughly 40 states and more than a thousand local agency signups, enabling immigration functions to be carried out by local officers under ICE supervision [6]. That patchwork means enforcement activities — arrests, information-sharing, surveillance — are occurring in jurisdictions of many political stripes because the law and preexisting agreements make it administratively straightforward to extend ICE influence into counties and cities regardless of statewide partisan lean.
3. Are deployments happening in blue or red states — the contested political geography
High-profile surges have disproportionately hit Democratic-run cities like Minneapolis, and the public political framing from state officials there alleges the deployments are retaliatory and partisan, an argument Minnesota’s lawsuit to stop the surge explicitly makes [4] [2]. Media outlets likewise highlight operations in traditionally Democratic urban centers, which has reinforced a narrative that the campaign targets “blue” cities [2] [1]. Yet former ICE officials interviewed by conservative outlets emphasize operational criteria such as sanctuary policies and local cooperation — criteria that can exist in pockets of red states as well as blue — indicating political control alone does not fully determine targeting [5].
4. Tools, tactics and the implications for where ICE operates
ICE’s deployments are supplemented by advanced surveillance tools — biometric databases, cell-site technologies, drone and facial recognition capabilities — that enable agents to extend reach beyond the cities where boots are placed, meaning enforcement can be operationally active in places where agents aren’t visibly marching on a street corner [8] [9]. Civil liberties groups and reporting detail frequent use of such technologies historically and warn that purchases and deployments expand ICE’s practical footprint nationwide, again blurring a simple red/blue map of activity [9] [8].
5. Political reaction, lawsuits and public opinion: why geography matters
Governors, mayors and state attorneys general in affected cities — particularly Democratic leaders in Minnesota and Illinois — have filed suits or publicly condemned the moves as politically motivated and constitutionally suspect, arguing the deployments were meant to pressure local policy rather than meet neutral enforcement needs [4] [2]. Polling shows widespread voter skepticism of ICE and partisan division over immigration enforcement rhetoric more broadly, complicating claims that deployments neatly track partisan geography since public opinion and local law enforcement cooperation vary within states and metros [10].
Conclusion: a complex operational map, not a simple color fill
Reporting shows ICE operations are concentrated in some high-profile blue cities recently, especially Minneapolis, but the agency’s legal authorities, longstanding local partnerships and growing surveillance capabilities create a national network that reaches across both red and blue states; whether a jurisdiction sees visible deployments depends on incident triggers, local cooperation and federal priorities — not solely on whether the state is “blue” or “red” [7] [6] [8].