Key Takeaways
• On May 29, 2025, DHS labeled Minnesota and 500+ jurisdictions as sanctuary, blocking immigration enforcement.
• Minneapolis risks losing $54 million federal funds due to noncompliance with Trump’s executive order.
• Minnesota filed lawsuits arguing federal funds conditionality violates state autonomy and the U.S. Constitution.
On May 29, 2025, a major conflict erupted between the federal government and Minnesota over immigration enforcement. Kristi Noem, the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS), publicly accused Minnesota of “harboring criminal illegal aliens” and refusing to follow federal immigration laws. This accusation, which specifically named Minnesota, its largest cities (Minneapolis and St. Paul), and 20 counties, placed the state at the center of a nationwide debate over so-called “sanctuary jurisdictions.” The dispute has immediate and far-reaching consequences for local governments, immigrant communities, law enforcement, and the future of federal-state relations in the United States 🇺🇸.
What Happened: The Federal Accusation and Sanctuary List
On May 29, 2025, DHS released a list of over 500 jurisdictions across the United States 🇺🇸 that it claims are “sanctuary jurisdictions.” These are cities, counties, and states that, according to DHS, block federal immigration enforcement and protect people the agency calls “dangerous criminal aliens” from being deported. Minnesota was one of the most prominent states on this list, with Minneapolis, St. Paul, and 20 counties—including Anoka, Carver, Ramsey, Hennepin, Scott, Watonwan, Lyon, Martin, Cottonwood, Nobles, and Todd—specifically named.
This move followed an executive order signed by President Trump on April 28, 2025. The order directed DHS to publish the names of sanctuary jurisdictions and threatened to suspend or cut off federal funding—including disaster relief, infrastructure grants, and other federal support—for those that do not comply with federal immigration enforcement demands.
Why Minnesota Was Targeted
Kristi Noem, as DHS Secretary, has been outspoken about her belief that sanctuary policies put public safety at risk. In her statement, she said, “We are exposing these sanctuary politicians who harbor criminal illegal aliens and defy federal law. President Trump and I will always put the safety of the American people first. Sanctuary politicians are on notice: comply with federal law.”
The Trump administration argues that sanctuary policies allow people with criminal records or final deportation orders to remain in the country, making communities less safe. According to DHS, there are an estimated 1.5 million immigrants nationwide under final orders of deportation, and the agency claims that local non-cooperation makes it harder to remove those who pose a threat.
What Are Sanctuary Jurisdictions?
A “sanctuary jurisdiction” is a city, county, or state that limits its cooperation with federal immigration authorities. This can mean refusing to hold people in jail for extra time at the request of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), not sharing certain information with ICE, or having local laws that prevent police from asking about immigration status.
Supporters of sanctuary policies say they help build trust between police and immigrant communities. They argue that when people are afraid of being deported, they are less likely to report crimes or cooperate with police, making everyone less safe.
The Threat to Federal Funding
One of the most immediate impacts of the DHS action is the threat to federal funding. Minneapolis alone could lose more than $54 million in federal support if it does not comply with the executive order. This money supports emergency services, infrastructure projects, and public safety programs that benefit all residents, not just immigrants.
The Trump administration has made it clear that it will review and potentially suspend or terminate grants and contracts to any jurisdiction on the sanctuary list. This includes not only disaster relief and infrastructure grants but also funding for law enforcement and community programs.
Legal Pushback from Minnesota
Minnesota officials have not taken these threats lightly. On May 13, 2025, Minnesota Attorney General Keith Ellison, joined by 18 other state attorneys general, filed lawsuits against the Trump administration, DHS, the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), and the Department of Transportation (DOT). The lawsuits argue that conditioning federal funds on local immigration enforcement is unlawful and goes beyond what the federal government is allowed to do.
Keith Ellison stated, “It is both wrong and unlawful for the Trump Administration to demand Minnesota law enforcement step away from their patrols, investigations, and community-engagement work to instead enforce federal immigration law. … This makes Minnesota less safe, and I will not allow that to happen.”
Local officials, including Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, have also refused to comply with the executive order. Mayor Frey pointed to a city ordinance that bars local law enforcement from enforcing federal immigration laws, saying the order is illegal and undermines public safety.
How the Process Works: Step by Step
To understand what’s happening, it helps to break down the process:
1. DHS Designation: DHS identifies and publishes a list of sanctuary jurisdictions based on their policies and cooperation with federal immigration authorities.
2. Formal Notification: Jurisdictions receive formal notice that they are considered noncompliant and may be violating federal statutes.
3. Funding Threats: Federal agencies begin reviewing grants and contracts, with the possibility of suspending or terminating funding to listed jurisdictions.
4. Legal Response: States and localities can file lawsuits to challenge the legality of these funding conditions, as Minnesota has done.
5. ICE Enforcement: ICE increases enforcement actions, seeks more cooperation from local law enforcement through 287(g) agreements (which allow local officers to perform some federal immigration duties), and ramps up deportation operations.
The Impact on Immigrants and Communities
The threat to federal funding and increased enforcement has real consequences for people living in Minnesota and other sanctuary jurisdictions. Local officials and immigrant advocacy groups warn that these actions could:
- Reduce trust in police: Immigrants may be less likely to report crimes or cooperate with investigations if they fear deportation.
- Divert police resources: Local police may be forced to spend time on federal immigration enforcement instead of focusing on local crime and community safety.
- Increase fear and anxiety: Families may worry about separation, and communities may feel targeted or unsafe.
- Harm public services: Loss of federal funding could mean fewer resources for emergency services, infrastructure, and public safety programs.
According to analysis from VisaVerge.com, aggressive federal enforcement and funding threats may drive undocumented immigrants further underground, making it harder for police to do their jobs and increasing risks for everyone.
The Legal Debate: Who Has the Power?
A major question in this conflict is whether the federal government can force states and cities to help enforce immigration law by threatening to cut off funding. Many legal experts argue that this goes against the Tenth Amendment of the U.S. Constitution, which reserves police powers to the states.
Courts have ruled in the past that the federal government cannot “commandeer” state and local officials to carry out federal duties. However, the Trump administration argues that it has the right to set conditions on federal grants, especially when it comes to public safety and immigration.
The lawsuits filed by Minnesota and other states are likely to result in long legal battles. The outcome could shape the future of how immigration laws are enforced and how much control states and cities have over their own policing.
ICE Enforcement and Local Law Enforcement
ICE, the federal agency responsible for immigration enforcement, has about 6,000 law enforcement officers nationwide. The agency relies heavily on cooperation from local police to identify, detain, and deport people who are in the country without legal status.
Through 287(g) agreements, ICE can deputize local officers to perform certain federal immigration duties. However, many local officials in Minnesota and other sanctuary jurisdictions have refused to enter into these agreements, arguing that it would undermine community trust and stretch local resources too thin.
Some law enforcement associations support local discretion, saying that police should focus on local crime and public safety, not federal immigration enforcement. Others back increased cooperation with ICE, believing it helps remove dangerous individuals from the community.
Multiple Perspectives: Federal, State, and Community Views
This conflict highlights deep divisions over immigration policy in the United States 🇺🇸. The federal government, led by President Trump and Kristi Noem, sees sanctuary policies as a threat to national security and the rule of law. They argue that aggressive enforcement and funding cuts are necessary to protect Americans.
State and local governments, especially in places like Minnesota, argue that local control over policing is essential for public safety and community trust. They believe that federal coercion is illegal and counterproductive, making communities less safe.
Immigrant advocacy groups strongly oppose the Trump administration’s actions, warning of increased fear, family separation, and harm to vulnerable communities. They argue that sanctuary policies protect basic rights and help keep families together.
Background: How Sanctuary Policies Developed
Sanctuary policies have grown in popularity over the past decade, especially in cities and states with large immigrant populations. These policies were created to help immigrants feel safe reporting crimes and working with police, without fear of deportation.
Federal-state tensions over immigration enforcement are not new. The Trump administration has consistently targeted sanctuary jurisdictions, but legal challenges and court rulings have limited the federal government’s ability to impose funding conditions in the past.
The current crackdown is the most sweeping to date, with more jurisdictions listed and broader threats to federal funding than ever before.
What Happens Next: Litigation and Uncertainty
The lawsuits filed by Minnesota and other states are likely to result in long legal battles. Courts may issue preliminary injunctions to block funding cuts while the cases are decided. The issue could eventually reach the Supreme Court.
The outcome of these legal challenges will have a major impact on the future of sanctuary policies and the balance of power between the federal government and the states.
Meanwhile, ICE is expected to continue ramping up enforcement, especially in jurisdictions that refuse to cooperate. This could lead to more high-profile raids, deportations, and community tensions.
Practical Guidance for Stakeholders
If you live or work in Minnesota or another sanctuary jurisdiction, here are some practical steps to consider:
- Stay informed: Follow updates from local officials, the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office, and trusted news sources.
- Know your rights: Immigrants should understand their legal rights during encounters with law enforcement or ICE. The U.S. Department of Homeland Security provides official information on immigration enforcement and policies.
- Support community organizations: Many local groups offer legal help, information, and support for immigrants and their families.
- Engage with local government: Residents can contact their city and county officials to express their views and ask questions about how policies affect their communities.
- Monitor funding impacts: Watch for announcements about changes to local services or programs that depend on federal funding.
The Broader Political and Social Impact
Immigration and sanctuary policies remain deeply polarizing issues in the United States 🇺🇸. The current conflict between Kristi Noem and Minnesota is part of a larger national debate over who should control immigration enforcement and how to balance public safety with civil rights.
The outcome of this dispute will have lasting effects not only for Minnesota but for hundreds of other jurisdictions across the country. It will also influence future elections, public opinion, and the direction of U.S. immigration policy.
Conclusion: A Turning Point for Immigration Policy
The standoff between DHS Secretary Kristi Noem and Minnesota over sanctuary jurisdictions is a defining moment in the ongoing debate over immigration enforcement in the United States 🇺🇸. With millions of dollars in federal funding at stake, legal battles underway, and communities on edge, the next steps will shape the future of federal-state relations and the lives of immigrants across the country.
As reported by VisaVerge.com, the situation is rapidly evolving, with significant legal, financial, and community impacts for Minnesota and other jurisdictions designated as sanctuary areas. The coming weeks and months will be critical in determining how these issues are resolved and what they mean for the nation as a whole.
Learn Today
Sanctuary Jurisdictions → Areas limiting cooperation with federal immigration enforcement, aiming to protect immigrants from deportation.
DHS → Department of Homeland Security, U.S. federal agency overseeing immigration enforcement and national security.
Executive Order → A presidential directive that manages government operations and enforces specific policies, such as immigration.
287(g) Agreement → An arrangement allowing local law enforcement to perform certain federal immigration enforcement duties.
Federal Funding → Money allocated by the federal government to states or localities for public programs and services.
This Article in a Nutshell
The 2025 DHS sanctuary jurisdiction list includes Minnesota, conflicting with local laws and risking $54 million federal funding. Lawsuits filed challenge federal overreach amid rising ICE enforcement, highlighting a pivotal battle over immigration enforcement and state-federal powers in the U.S.
— By VisaVerge.com
