Which states has ICE been sent to
Executive summary
Federal immigration authorities under the Department of Homeland Security have staged concentrated enforcement deployments in Minnesota — notably the December 2025–January 2026 “Operation Metro Surge” in Minneapolis–St. Paul — and officials in Minnesota and Illinois have publicly sued to block or limit those actions ICE-Deployment" target="blank" rel="noopener noreferrer">[1] [2]. Beyond Minnesota, reporting shows the administration has moved ICE agents into multiple U.S. cities and states, is expanding detention capacity across several states, and maintains cooperative enforcement agreements with local agencies in roughly 40 states [3] [4] [5].
1. Where the largest, most visible deployments occurred: Minnesota as ground zero
The clearest, best-documented deployment in the sources is Minnesota, where roughly 2,000–3,000 ICE and other DHS agents were sent to the Twin Cities under “Operation Metro Surge,” sparking protests, lawsuits from Minnesota and Minnesota cities, and high-profile deadly encounters between ICE agents and residents [1] [6] [2].
2. Other named states and cities tied to federal deployments or litigation
Reporting ties Illinois to the broader campaign: the state government and Chicago-area officials joined Minnesota in legal action and public pushback against federal deployments, and some large-scale federal activity or planning prompted litigation involving Minnesota and Illinois officials [2] [3]. National outlets and aggregations describe stepped-up operations in at least 10 cities and the use of “strike teams” that have moved agents into multiple metropolitan areas, though the sources do not provide a definitive list of every state where agents were staged [3].
3. A nationwide enforcement footprint via local partnerships: 287(g) and task forces
ICE’s presence is not limited to ad hoc surges; the agency delegates immigration authority through 287(g) agreements that reach a wide swath of the country — memorandums of agreement covering roughly 40 states as of late January 2026 — meaning ICE-authorized immigration enforcement activity is institutionally anchored in many states even when federal surge teams are not publicly visible there [5].
4. Expanding detention and logistics in multiple states
Separately from street deployments, the administration has pursued physical detention and logistics capacity in several states: reporting says DHS moved to acquire industrial buildings in at least eight states and toured large facilities including a Kansas City warehouse, while ACLU documents show ICE is considering seven new detention sites including facilities in Virginia and North Carolina [4] [7]. Those acquisitions and plans signal intent to operate a mass-detention footprint across multiple states, not just where immediate raids are reported.
5. Mixed messaging and shifting tactics: arrests, numbers, and focus
Federal officials have at times framed actions as targeted arrests of noncitizens with criminal records and claimed large arrest totals, while state and city officials — and some national outlets — report broader, more disruptive street operations; reporting notes efforts to shift to more “focused” arrests if local cooperation is obtained, illustrating contested portrayals of where and how ICE is being used [8] [2] [9].
6. What the sources do not establish definitively
The assembled reporting makes clear Minnesota is the primary, publicly contentious deployment site and that ICE operations or partnerships touch many states, but the sources do not supply a single exhaustive list of every state where ICE agents were physically sent during the current campaign; some pieces reference “at least 10 cities,” “agents from across the country,” and institutional footprints in roughly 40 states via 287(g) agreements, while detention-acquisition activity spans at least eight states [3] [5] [4]. Given those limits, it is accurate to say ICE has been overtly deployed to Minnesota and has been moved or positioned in multiple other cities and states through surge teams, local partnerships, and facility acquisitions — with Illinois repeatedly appearing in the litigation and reporting — but a comprehensive state-by-state roster is not provided in the cited material [1] [2] [4].