The federal government is pulling back most of its immigration enforcement officers from the Minneapolis-Saint Paul area in Minnesota, but a small federal security force will stay behind for a while. This decision came after months of controversial actions by immigration agents, widespread community protests and national debate over how the operation was handled.
For about ten weeks, thousands of officers from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and other federal agencies were sent to the Twin Cities as part of an initiative called Operation Metro Surge. Officials said the goal was to step up immigration enforcement and investigate alleged fraud in government programs. The government also linked part of the effort to a fraud scheme involving childcare funds.
At its peak, this effort was one of the largest federal immigration enforcement operations ever carried out in a U.S. city. Federal authorities said that the operation resulted in thousands of arrests and removals. But the surge also brought intense criticism from local residents, elected leaders, civil rights groups and immigrant advocates. Many people said the presence of heavily armed agents disrupted daily life for families, children and businesses.
The federal deployment became even more controversial after several violent incidents involving the officers. In at least two cases, U.S. citizens were shot and killed by federal agents during enforcement actions. These shootings drew national attention and sparked deep outrage in the Twin Cities and beyond. Critics said the use of deadly force raised serious questions about how the operation was being carried out and whether the agents were following proper procedures.
As criticism grew, protests became common in Minneapolis and neighboring communities. People marched, held vigils and organized community efforts to support immigrants and oppose the federal presence. Some residents formed networks to warn others about approaching enforcement operations or to document agents’ actions. Local leaders—including the mayor of Minneapolis and Minnesota’s attorney general—publicly questioned the scope and conduct of the enforcement effort.
In response to the backlash, the federal government began reducing the number of officers in Minnesota. On national television, Tom Homan, the White House border czar overseeing immigration policy, said that more than 1,000 agents had already left the Twin Cities area and that hundreds more would depart in the near future. But Homan also said that a “small” security force would remain temporarily. He described this force as needed to protect officers, coordinate with local law enforcement and intervene if protests became disruptive. He did not give an exact number for how many personnel would remain.
Homan emphasized that the drawdown did not mean the end of immigration enforcement. He said federal agents would continue their work across the country and that federal strategies would adjust as needed. Some agents would be reassigned to other parts of the United States, while others would stay in Minnesota to finish investigations into fraud and other cases.
The decision to keep a smaller force in Minnesota drew mixed reactions. Some local officials welcomed the reduction of federal presence but were cautious about the continued deployment of any armed agents. Community advocates expressed concern that even a smaller group of officers could intimidate residents and stoke fear in immigrant communities. Others argued that federal resources should be focused on clear public safety threats rather than widespread enforcement in urban neighborhoods.
Meanwhile, national conversations about immigration policy have continued. Polls show that many Americans feel that federal immigration enforcement has become too aggressive, and lawmakers from both parties are calling for changes to how enforcement is conducted. Some members of Congress have demanded more oversight, restrictions on the use of force and requirements for transparency and accountability.
As the situation evolves, the Twin Cities are entering a new phase. With the major surge of federal agents mostly gone, local leaders and community groups are focusing on healing and rebuilding trust, while federal authorities maintain a smaller, focused presence to manage specific cases and coordinate with state and local partners.
