The Department of Justice has opened a probe into whether Governor Tim Walz and Mayor Jacob Frey tried to obstruct ICE operations after a deadly Jan. 7 enforcement action, a dispute that has sharpened the fault lines between local leaders and federal law enforcement in Minneapolis.
The Department of Justice is reportedly investigating Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey for allegedly obstructing U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations. Two federal officials confirmed to WCCO on Friday that the probe examines whether the officials sought to hinder ICE’s efforts to enforce immigration law. The office of the DOJ is looking at possible legal violations, and that level of scrutiny reflects a serious clash over who calls the shots on public safety.
The investigation follows a fatal Jan. 7 encounter in which an ICE agent shot and killed Renee Nicole Good during an enforcement operation. Reports say the agent was struck by Good’s vehicle and later needed hospital treatment for internal bleeding, while cellphone video reportedly captured by the agent shows Good’s girlfriend urging her to drive forward. That chaotic scene has become the flashpoint for a wider political fight over federal enforcement in the city.
Both Walz and Frey publicly called the shooting murder and used sharp rhetoric that critics say undermines federal authority at a precarious moment. Their public condemnations coincided with the arrival of hundreds of federal agents in Minneapolis after allegations of widespread welfare fraud. What looked like political leadership to some residents reads like obstruction to federal prosecutors trying to enforce the law.
The scale of alleged fraud cited by federal officials is staggering: roughly $9 billion, and investigators even flagged possible links to Al-Shabaab, the Somalia-based terrorist group, prompting a Treasury Department review. In November, President Donald Trump announced plans to end Temporary Protected Status for Somalis in Minneapolis, a decision framed by the administration as a response to the fraud concerns. Local leaders pushed back hard, setting up the conflict now under DOJ examination.
The DOJ’s review reportedly targets whether Walz and Frey conspired to block ICE operations, including potential violations of statutes that bar preventing U.S. officials from doing their jobs through force or intimidation. CBS News and other outlets picked up details that subpoenas went out as part of the inquiry. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche has accused them of “encouraging violence against law enforcement,” according to a post by journalist Jonah Kaplan on Jan. 16.
Mayor Frey dismissed the probe as political pressure and framed his stance as defending the city. He told the Daily Caller News Foundation,
This is an obvious attempt to intimidate me for standing up for Minneapolis, our local law enforcement, and our residents against the chaos and danger this Administration has brought to our streets.
Frey has also said Minneapolis police will not assist ICE, a policy he repeated in a Dec. 7 interview with WCCO. That refusal has raised questions about whether local agencies are abdicating duties when federal officers are targeted or obstructed, especially as footage emerged of anti-ICE rioters confronting federal agents and independent journalists. Republicans argue this sets a dangerous precedent where politics dictates enforcement.
Governor Walz went further in a livestream when he urged residents to record federal agents and called the federal presence an “occupation” of Minnesota. He argued ICE was targeting vulnerable people, language that critics say paints federal agents as the enemy and risks inciting more confrontations. From a law-and-order perspective, that kind of rhetoric crosses a line from oversight into active resistance.
Washington’s response has been firm: enforcing immigration laws and protecting federal officers are core duties of the national government, and obstructing them can carry criminal consequences. Investigators will probe whether local leaders coordinated words or actions that impeded ICE operations, and subpoenas suggest the DOJ is prepared to follow the evidence. If officials did conspire to block agents, accountability will be demanded.
The larger political backdrop matters here: the debate over immigration enforcement has become a proxy for arguments about public safety, fraud, and federal responsibility. Local leaders who refuse to cooperate with federal agents may score political points with some constituencies, but they also risk legal exposure and the erosion of public trust in institutions meant to protect everyone. That tension is exactly what investigators are trying to sort out.
What happens next will hinge on documents, testimony, and whether the DOJ can prove that elected officials crossed from political speech into illegal obstruction. For Republicans focused on restoring rule of law and protecting federal officers, the investigation is a welcome step toward clarity and consequences. The case will test where the line between protest and obstruction lies in practice.
