Tom Homan Arrives in Minneapolis to Lead Federal Immigration Operations

(MINNEAPOLIS, MN) — Tom Homan, the Trump administration’s White House–aligned “border tsar,” arrived in Minneapolis on January 29, 2026 to take direct control of federal immigration operations in the Minneapolis–Saint Paul metro, a step that signals tighter command oversight after weeks of backlash over how the crackdown has been carried out.

Section 1: Arrival of Tom Homan and leadership shift in Minneapolis

Homan’s presence changes the chain of command on the ground. A senior official tied closely to the White House rarely takes hands-on control in one metro area unless the administration believes tactics, messaging, or coordination need correction.

That is the practical meaning of “direct control” in Minneapolis–Saint Paul. It points to more centralized decision-making, faster discipline of field priorities, and less tolerance for actions that create political or legal exposure.

Gregory Bovino’s removal set the stage for that shift. Bovino, a Border Patrol commander, was sidelined after intense criticism tied to public claims about Alex Pretti that were later challenged by bystander video.

Replacing a prior commander after that kind of backlash typically signals two things at once. Enforcement will continue; command will be more controlled, with a narrower target set and tighter rules for encounters likely to be recorded.

Minneapolis also presents a hard test of federal-local friction. Federal agencies can operate without city approval, but local government choices still affect logistics, crowd control, and public confidence.

That interplay is now part of Homan’s assignment.

Section 2: Official statements and notable quotes

Homan has framed his trip as a corrective mission, not a retreat. Speaking in Minneapolis on January 29, 2026, he said, “I’m not here because the federal government has carried this mission out perfectly,” and added that the administration has recognized “certain improvements could and should be made.”

He also described an enforcement style built around precision: “When we hit the street, we know exactly who we’re looking for.” He vowed to stay until “the problem’s gone.”

That language matters because it sets expectations for how operations may look day to day. “Precision” often means fewer broad stops and more planned actions tied to specific identities.

It also implies more reliance on records checks, address verification, and coordinated arrest teams rather than ad hoc encounters.

DHS Secretary Kristi Noem has defended the crackdown in sweeping terms, arguing that DHS law enforcement has made very large numbers of arrests of people described as having criminal histories, and tying that claim to criticism of Minnesota leaders Tim Walz and Jacob Frey.

Readers should treat those public figures as assertions about scope and priorities, not as a substitute for case-by-case court review.

An internal ICE directive adds a different layer. The memo instructed agents to avoid “agitators” and warned that an antagonistic posture “serves no purpose other than inflaming the situation.”

Just as important, it ordered officers to target only those with criminal records. That is a marked posture change from earlier reports of broad sweeps, and it can shape who gets approached, where teams deploy, and how stops are justified in reports.

Section 3: Key operations and policy initiatives

Operation Metro Surge is a surge enforcement model. It means a short-term concentration of federal personnel, focused on arrests and removals, supported by intelligence, transport, and detention logistics.

Surges typically bring in teams that already know how to work together, then plug into local field offices for addresses, targets, and processing capacity. The operational effect is visibility. So is speed.

Operation PARRIS (Post-Admission Refugee Reverification and Integrity Strengthening) is different in purpose and legal posture. It is a USCIS-led reverification initiative aimed at people already admitted as refugees.

Reverification, from a USCIS program perspective, generally means reopening identity and eligibility checks after admission. It can include interviews, re-checking fingerprints and biographic data against databases, reviewing prior files, and requesting updated documents.

In many cases, reverification does not change status by itself. Yet it can trigger referrals, notices, or enforcement interest if the government alleges fraud, misrepresentation, or disqualifying conduct.

That is why PARRIS draws scrutiny. When a civil, benefits-linked process appears to blend into warrantless arrests or detention decisions, courts often examine the boundary between USCIS administrative work and ICE arrest authority.

Internal “targeting” guidance also affects how people experience these programs. A criminal-record focus may reduce contacts with people who have no criminal history, but it does not eliminate fear in communities.

De-escalation guidance can lower the odds of confrontations, yet it still leaves residents facing document checks, identity questions, and uncertainty about which agency is in charge at a given moment.

Section 4: Legal actions and court rulings

January 9, 2026 is the start date that anchors Operation PARRIS as a defined program action by USCIS. January 28, 2026 is the date the federal court intervened with a Temporary Restraining Order (TRO).

Timing matters here because a TRO is emergency relief, meant to prevent immediate harm while the court considers fuller briefing and the possibility of a preliminary injunction. A TRO does two things at once.

It constrains government action in the short term. It also signals that the judge believes the challengers have shown a serious legal issue and a risk of irreparable harm.

The order halting arrests and detentions “under PARRIS” is especially consequential because it separates reverification activity from enforcement custody, at least temporarily.

The Refugee Act context is central. Refugee admissions and status carry statutory protections and procedures that differ from many other immigration pathways.

When a court finds that arrests or detentions tied to a refugee reverification initiative are likely illegal under the 1980 Refugee Act, it suggests the government may have crossed a line between reviewing eligibility and using a benefits-linked program as a gateway to detention without the safeguards the statute requires.

Even with the TRO in place, readers should recognize a limit. The order described in reporting targets arrests and detentions under Operation PARRIS. It does not automatically bar all federal enforcement activity in Minneapolis–Saint Paul.

It may not cover arrests based on independent warrants or other authorities. That boundary will matter in day-to-day encounters.

Section 5: Context and governance implications

Jacob Frey and Tim Walz have staked out a non-cooperation posture for city and state roles in the sweeps, including refusing to allow the Minneapolis Police Department to assist in federal actions. That choice can change the practical shape of an operation without stopping it.

Federal teams may rely more on their own perimeter control, transport, and on-scene security. Protests and traffic disruptions can become harder to manage when responsibility is split.

President Trump’s warning that the mayor is “playing with fire” also shows how messaging becomes part of operational strategy. Federal leaders can portray local limits as endangering public safety, while city leaders can portray the same limits as necessary to preserve community trust and reduce fear-driven underreporting of crime.

Leadership changes at the federal level fit into that governance story. Sending Homan, rather than leaving day-to-day control with the previous commander, communicates discipline and a desire to reduce incidents that trigger litigation or public outrage.

It also concentrates accountability. When control is centralized, observers will link outcomes to a smaller set of decision-makers.

Section 6: Impact on affected individuals and communities

Renee Good’s death on January 7, 2026 and Alex Pretti’s shooting on January 24, 2026 changed how residents interpret every new enforcement action. The third death reported during the surge, involving a person who died in ICE custody, adds to that climate.

Fear becomes operational friction. People skip public-facing routines, avoid government buildings, and hesitate to report crime.

Food shelves have reported that families are staying away. Nearly 100 food shelves signed a letter dated January 28 describing “chaos and violence” and warning that residents are afraid to seek help.

Schools and employers can see secondary effects too, including absences and sudden moves.

For refugees caught up in Operation PARRIS, the TRO can translate into releases from custody if detention was tied to the program. Court-ordered releases, however, often come with ongoing obligations.

Many people still face future hearings, check-ins, or paperwork requirements, depending on the posture of their individual case and the government’s asserted authority. Anyone released should keep every document received and confirm deadlines through official channels or counsel.

Local government also faces direct strain. CBS News reported $3 million in overtime costs for the Minneapolis Police Department over 12 days amid protests and public safety demands linked to the federal operation. Those costs can reshape staffing priorities and public services even when the city is not participating in arrests.

For official federal updates on refugee reverification, USCIS guidance, and related announcements, monitor uscis.gov and DHS releases closely—especially after January 28, 2026, because the TRO draws a legal line around what Operation PARRIS can do right now.

This article covers ongoing legal and policy developments. Readers should consult official sources for the latest updates. Legal interpretations are subject to change and may vary by jurisdiction.