The United States Justice Department has launched a criminal investigation into Minnesota officials, including Governor Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, over allegations that they conspired to impede federal immigration officers. Subpoenas for both officials have reportedly been prepared, although it remains unclear whether they have been formally served, according to an anonymous source familiar with the inquiry.
The investigation, first reported by CBS News, stems from public statements made by Walz and Frey in response to the recent deployment of thousands of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) officers and Border Patrol agents to the Minneapolis region. The federal surge, ordered by President Donald Trump, has drawn sharp criticism from state and local leaders who argue the operation has created unnecessary chaos on the streets.
Governor Walz, who unsuccessfully sought the vice presidency in the 2024 election won by Trump, took to social media Friday to denounce the investigation as a politically motivated tactic. “Two days ago it was Elissa Slotkin. Last week it was Jerome Powell. Before that, Mark Kelly. Weaponising the justice system against your opponents is an authoritarian tactic,” Walz said in a post.
Walz’s comments referred to US Senators Elissa Slotkin of Michigan and Mark Kelly of Arizona, who recently released a video urging military personnel to resist unlawful orders, as well as Federal Reserve Chairman Jerome Powell, whom Trump has criticized over interest rate policy. Critics say the governor’s remarks suggest a pattern of federal overreach in targeting political figures who oppose Trump’s agenda.
Mayor Frey also spoke publicly about the investigation, framing it as an attempt to intimidate him and local leadership. “This is an obvious attempt to intimidate me for standing up for Minneapolis, local law enforcement, and residents against the chaos and danger this Administration has brought to our city,” Frey said in response to a CNN report on the inquiry.
The Justice Department declined to comment on the ongoing investigation. However, US Attorney-General Pam Bondi posted on X Friday evening, writing, “A reminder to all those in Minnesota; No one is above the law.” Legal experts note that criminal cases based on statements made by public officials regarding government policies are highly unusual and would face significant procedural and constitutional hurdles.
The federal deployment of nearly 3,000 agents to Minnesota began last week, sparking angry protests and confrontations in Minneapolis, the state’s largest city. Tensions escalated after an ICE agent fatally shot Renee Good, 37, a US citizen, on January 7. Good was reportedly behind the wheel of her car when the shooting occurred. Her death triggered daily demonstrations in Minneapolis, which have since spread to other cities, drawing attention to the broader national debate over immigration enforcement tactics.
Governor Walz has consistently urged protestors to remain peaceful while also encouraging residents to document encounters between ICE agents and civilians. He said the footage would help create a database for “potential future prosecution” of law enforcement misconduct. Walz and Frey have repeatedly called on President Trump to end the ICE deployment, describing the operation as reckless and dangerous. They argue that the militarized deportation drive is less about enforcing immigration law and more about generating media headlines and sowing fear among communities.
Deputy US Attorney-General Todd Blanche, speaking earlier this week, placed partial blame on Walz and Frey for the unrest. “We are focused on stopping these confrontations by whatever means necessary,” Blanche said, signaling that federal authorities view local officials’ actions as a direct impediment to enforcement operations.
The situation has reignited a broader debate over the limits of federal power and the role of state and local officials in pushing back against federal immigration actions. Constitutional scholars note that public officials enjoy certain protections for statements made in the course of their duties. Prosecutors pursuing a criminal conspiracy case would need to prove that Walz and Frey took deliberate, illegal steps to obstruct federal officers, rather than merely voicing criticism or policy objections.
Political reactions to the investigation have been swift. Democratic leaders have criticized the Justice Department’s action as an escalation of partisan tactics. Republican supporters of Trump, however, have applauded the move as a necessary step to uphold the rule of law in the face of local resistance to federal authority.
Minneapolis residents remain caught in the crossfire of the escalating dispute. Many community members have expressed fear and frustration as the presence of federal agents grows increasingly visible. Local businesses and schools have been affected by daily protests, with some events canceled or delayed due to security concerns. Civil rights groups have also weighed in, highlighting the potential risks of unchecked federal intervention in urban communities.
The investigation into Walz and Frey raises questions about the broader strategy of federal law enforcement under the Trump administration, which has increasingly relied on deploying federal agents to cities across the country in recent months. The approach has been met with mixed results, often heightening tensions rather than resolving underlying issues related to immigration enforcement.
As the legal process unfolds, both Walz and Frey have signaled their intent to fight any charges. Legal analysts anticipate a complex and protracted case, given the unusual nature of criminalizing policy-related statements by elected officials. Meanwhile, federal agents continue their operations in Minneapolis, and residents brace for further confrontation, reflecting the deep divisions surrounding immigration policy and federal authority in the United States.
