Hilton has decided to remove an independently operated hotel in Minnesota from its system after a public dispute involving the Department of Homeland Security and Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents. The move followed accusations from DHS that the hotel refused to provide rooms to federal agents who were in the area as part of the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement efforts.
The controversy began when DHS shared a statement on social media claiming that ICE officers had tried to book hotel rooms using official government email addresses and approved government rates, only to have their reservations canceled. According to the department, the cancellations were intentional and part of what it described as a coordinated effort to deny service to its employees. DHS framed the incident as discrimination against law enforcement personnel and criticized Hilton for allowing it to happen.
Along with the statement, DHS posted screenshots of an email allegedly sent by the hotel’s operators. In the message, the operators said they had noticed a sudden increase in government reservations connected to DHS and stated that they would no longer allow ICE agents to stay at the property. This message quickly spread online and sparked strong reactions, particularly from conservative commentators and supporters of stricter immigration enforcement, who accused the hotel and Hilton of taking a political stance.
As the backlash grew, Hilton issued a public apology and moved to distance itself from the decision. The company explained that the hotel involved was a Hampton Inn by Hilton located in Lakeville, Minnesota, and that it was independently owned and operated. Hilton stressed that the hotel’s actions went against company policy and values. A spokesperson said Hilton works with governments and law enforcement agencies around the world and aims to ensure its properties are open and welcoming to everyone.
Hilton further clarified that while Hampton Inn properties operate under the Hilton brand, most of them are run by franchisees rather than the corporation itself. In this case, the Lakeville hotel was operated by Everpeak Hospitality. Everpeak also released a statement saying it had acted quickly to address the issue and acknowledged that the refusal to host DHS personnel did not align with its standards. The company said it was in contact with the affected guests to make sure they were accommodated elsewhere and apologized for the disruption. Everpeak emphasized that it does not discriminate against any individuals or agencies.
Despite these statements, the situation escalated again when conservative commentator Nick Sortor visited the hotel in person. He posted a video showing a front-desk employee allegedly refusing to book rooms for someone seeking accommodations for DHS agents. The clip reignited criticism and raised questions about whether the hotel had truly corrected the issue, as both Hilton and Everpeak had claimed.
In response to the new video, Hilton issued another, stronger statement. The company said the independent hotel owner had previously assured Hilton that the problem had been resolved and had even released a message confirming that the hotel would comply with brand standards. However, Hilton said the recent footage suggested otherwise and showed that the property was still not meeting Hilton’s expectations.
As a result, Hilton announced it was taking immediate action to remove the Lakeville hotel from its systems. This effectively means the property will no longer operate under the Hilton brand. Hilton reiterated that it has always positioned itself as a welcoming place for all guests and said it could not allow a hotel bearing its name to act in a way that contradicts that principle.
The incident highlights ongoing tensions surrounding immigration enforcement in the United States and how private businesses can become caught in the middle of political and social debates. It also shows the limits of control that major hotel brands have over independently operated franchises, even though those properties carry their names. For Hilton, the decision to cut ties with the Minnesota hotel appears to be an effort to protect its brand image and reinforce its stated commitment to neutrality and inclusivity, regardless of political pressure from either side.
