Minneapolis and the expansion of ICE operations: a chronicle of protests, repression and opposition.

Photo by José Santana Murias on Pexels.com

In the first weeks of 2026, Minneapolis, Minnesota, became a focal point of protests, social tension and institutional conflict linked to operations carried out by the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and to the broader federal immigration enforcement strategy adopted by the White House. The sequence of events, community reactions, legal actions and the national policy backdrop reveal a complex situation that goes well beyond individual incidents of violence.

The escalation began on 7 January 2026, when an ICE agent shot and killed Renee Nicole Good, a 37-year-old U.S. citizen, during an enforcement operation in Minneapolis. Federal authorities described the shooting as a response to a perceived threat, but multiple videos circulated by media outlets and witnesses quickly challenged that account, suggesting that Good was driving away and did not pose an immediate danger. Her death triggered immediate protests across the city and solidarity demonstrations in other U.S. cities, drawing tens of thousands of people despite freezing winter temperatures.

That initial killing acted as a catalyst for a broader wave of mobilization. Between 8 and 23 January, activists, labor unions, faith groups and unaffiliated residents took part in daily marches, sit-ins and rallies, often under the slogan “ICE Out for Good.” The protest movement extended beyond street demonstrations. On 23 January 2026, many businesses, schools and institutions in Minneapolis and across Minnesota participated in an “economic blackout,” closing voluntarily for the day to express solidarity with those affected by federal immigration operations and to demand an end to ICE activity in local communities.

At the same time, local and state officials publicly criticized the federal strategy. Minnesota’s governor and the mayor of Minneapolis condemned the scale and tactics of the immigration operations, describing the heavy federal presence as destabilizing and harmful to civil rights. Some local leaders supported or initiated legal actions against the Department of Homeland Security, arguing that federal agents had exceeded their authority and engaged in excessive use of force, including arrests without warrants.

The protests rapidly spread beyond Minneapolis. Cities such as San Francisco, New York, Boston and Los Angeles saw solidarity demonstrations opposing ICE operations nationwide. These rallies, attended by hundreds or thousands of participants, called for accountability, transparency and changes to federal immigration enforcement practices.

Alongside mass protests, the legal landscape evolved. In mid-January, a federal judge imposed restrictions on ICE agents’ actions against peaceful protesters, prohibiting the use of chemical irritants and arrests in the absence of clear criminal conduct. The ruling aimed to balance public order concerns with the protection of constitutional rights, particularly freedom of assembly and expression.

These developments are inseparable from the broader national context of U.S. immigration policy under President Donald Trump’s second administration (2025–2026). The federal government significantly expanded detention and deportation efforts, increased ICE funding and recruitment, and launched one of the most extensive internal enforcement campaigns in recent history, known as Operation Metro Surge. Thousands of federal agents were deployed to Minneapolis and the surrounding Twin Cities area, despite opposition from local authorities who warned that the operation would undermine community trust and public safety. (ANSA)

Public debate also focused on civil and human rights implications. Critics highlighted reports of families and minors affected by enforcement actions, including cases in which children as young as two and five years old were detained alongside their parents. Media investigations documented an increase in immigration arrests carried out with limited or no coordination with local authorities, intensifying tensions between federal and municipal governments.

Tensions between federal and local authorities escalated further when President Trump publicly suggested the possible use of extraordinary legal powers, referencing historic legislation that could allow the deployment of military forces domestically if protests were deemed to obstruct ICE operations or constitute “insurrection.” While no such measures had been implemented by 23 January 2026, the statements contributed to an already volatile atmosphere.

As of 23 January 2026, Minneapolis and the state of Minnesota remained at the center of a national confrontation over how immigration enforcement is carried out in the United States and how to balance public order, civil liberties and community response. Protests continued, legal challenges were ongoing and the debate over the role, scope and accountability of ICE remained a defining issue in the national conversation on immigration.

written by Sara Maggetto