How Minnesota’s Multi-Front Strategy Pressured ICE to Withdraw
Immigration and Customs Enforcement announced it was ending Operation Metro Surge—a massive immigration raid that federal officials called “the largest immigration enforcement operation ever carried out”—less than a week after Border Patrol agents killed Alex Pretti, an intensive care nurse at a Veterans Affairs hospital. It was the second fatal shooting by immigration officers in three weeks.
The rapid conclusion of an operation that had deployed 3,000 federal agents across Minnesota didn’t happen because the Trump administration achieved its goals. It happened because a broad coalition made it impossible for the government to continue.
What made Minnesota different wasn’t the size of the protests—though 50,000 to 100,000 people marching in negative 16-degree weather is remarkable. It was how labor unions, faith leaders, immigrant rights advocates, and community organizers pressured the government in many different ways at once: mass street protests, economic disruption through business closures, civil disobedience by clergy members, political pressure from state and local leaders, and ongoing organizing that showed the resistance wouldn’t end.
The Raid and Two Fatal Shootings
On January 6, 2026, the Department of Homeland Security deployed approximately 2,000 ICE officers and 1,000 Customs and Border Protection agents to the Minneapolis-Saint Paul area as part of Operation Metro Surge. According to federal testimony, ICE arrested 3,000 people in Minneapolis by late January.
Governor Tim Walz called the deployment “a federal invasion” unlike anything the state had witnessed. The scale was dramatic—3,000 federal agents at its peak, conducting raids at schools, workplaces, and homes across the metropolitan area.
On January 7, federal agents fatally shot Renée Good, a 37-year-old U.S. citizen, near an elementary school. Federal officials claimed she had attempted to run over agents, but video footage released subsequently showed her vehicle positioned sideways in the street with agents surrounding it. Good was watching and documenting what ICE was doing when the fatal encounter occurred.
The second fatal shooting on January 24 demonstrated a pattern. Alex Pretti, the ICU nurse and union member, was shot approximately ten times in five seconds by Border Patrol agents near 26th Street and Nicollet Avenue. Federal officials claimed Pretti had approached agents with a handgun and attempted to disarm them.
But when the BBC, Reuters, and the New York Times looked at the video, they found no evidence supporting these claims. Looking at the video frame by frame showed Pretti held a cell phone, not a firearm, and that he appeared to be protecting women nearby from pepper spray when agents opened fire.
January 23: When the City Shut Down
The killing of Renée Good triggered what organizers called a “Day of Truth and Freedom” on January 23, 2026. The turnout was historically significant—comparable to or larger than the 2017 Women’s March turnout in major cities, according to one analysis. And this happened in weather that dropped to negative 16 degrees Fahrenheit.
The morning began with approximately 100 clergy members from Catholic, Protestant, Jewish, Buddhist, and Muslim traditions gathering at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport. They blocked the Delta terminal, kneeling in prayer in temperatures approaching negative 21 degrees, singing and praying for immigrants while blocking the airport from working.
The religious leaders picked this location deliberately. Clergy members linked their faith traditions to sanctuary for immigrants and referenced civil rights-era religious leadership. Nearly 100 were arrested and charged under a federal law usually used in abortion cases but applied here to prevent interference with religious worship.
The afternoon brought the larger street demonstration. Beginning with a march from U.S. Bank Stadium in downtown Minneapolis, approximately 50,000 to 75,000 participants converged on Target Center. The march route was chosen deliberately—organizers passed Target headquarters to show how corporations were helping ICE.
Inside the arena, SEIU International President April Verrett told assembled protesters: “We are here because our communities are under attack. We are here because we know what we must do in moments like this, don’t we? We stand up and we fight back!”
American Federation of Teachers President Randi Weingarten connected the moment to historical civil rights struggles, declaring “We are all Minnesota today!” and linking ICE violence to the murders of George Floyd and Philando Castile.
The Economic Pressure Campaign
A key part of the January 23 response was an economic boycott coordinated across the Twin Cities. Estimates ranged from 300 to over 700 businesses closing for the day in solidarity.
Labor union members convinced employers to close. Grocery cooperatives coordinated shutdowns. Museums and cultural centers including the Walker Art Center and Minneapolis Institute of Art suspended operations. Immigrant-owned businesses in areas like Karmel Mall and Hmongtown Marketplace participated.
Minneapolis estimates suggested that small businesses and restaurants lost $81 million in January due to Operation Metro Surge. Workers lost $47 million in wages because they were afraid to leave home. Hotels lost $4.7 million in revenue from cancellations.
The business closure campaign worked through unions pressuring employers and workers supporting each other rather than orders from leadership. United Food and Commercial Workers Local 663 members at Half Price Books and Peace Coffee pressured their employers to close, with store managers putting pressure on parent companies. UNITE HERE Local 17 members marched on employers demanding closure and ran petitions asking workers who took the day off to return without discipline.
The effectiveness of this approach relied partly on Minnesota’s Earned Sick and Safe Time law, which required most employers to provide paid leave for illness, injury, preventative care, and school closures—allowing workers to participate without losing pay.
The broader economic impact extended far beyond the January 23 day of action. Minneapolis officials released an early estimate showing $203.1 million in total economic impact: the $81 million in small business and restaurant losses, $47 million in lost wages for workers afraid to leave home, $15.7 million in rent assistance needed by 35,000 low-income households, and ongoing costs for increased mental health services and food assistance for 76,200 people experiencing food insecurity.
These figures, acknowledged by city officials as too low based on surveys of only 82 of nearly 1,300 restaurants, created pressure on federal officials.
The Coalition Structure
The January 23 mobilization reflected a broad and coordinated coalition. The organizing brought together established groups—major labor unions, immigrant rights organizations, and religious denominations—with newer community groups and protest organizers focused on ICE abolition.
Labor unions helped organize everything. SEIU Local 26 (representing healthcare and public sector workers), UNITE HERE Local 17 (hospitality and cultural workers), AFSCME Council 5 (public employees), and the Minneapolis Federation of Educators organized their members’ participation. These unions brought ways to reach thousands of workers, lawyers and legal help built over decades, and relationships with sympathetic political officials.
Multiple union sources confirmed they encouraged members to participate by raising safety concerns, utilizing sick days and personal days, and finding ways around no-strike rules.
Faith communities organized separately but worked together with labor and immigrant rights groups. The Coalition of Religious Leaders organized the clergy action at the airport, drawing from multiple faith traditions.
Reverend Mariah Furness Tollgaard, senior pastor of Hamline United Methodist Church in St. Paul, described January 23 as “holy—like Resurrection morning, like Pentecost fire on the prairie wind—the unity, the singing, the prayers.”
Immigrant rights organizations including CAIR-Minnesota, the Coalition for Humane Immigrant Rights, the National Day Laborer Organizing Network, and community-based groups in neighborhoods with significant Somali, Latino, Hmong, and other immigrant populations provided organizing networks and leadership. These organizations had existing trust within affected communities, understood what different communities needed, and provided communication in multiple languages.
Legal Challenges Created Institutional Pressure
At the same time as street protests and economic pressure, legal challenges made it harder for federal agents to operate. In late January, Minnesota federal judges issued a series of orders showing that Operation Metro Surge violated the Constitution.
Chief Judge Patrick Schiltz issued an order on January 28 finding that ICE had violated at least 96 court orders in Minnesota in January alone. Schiltz wrote that “ICE has likely violated more court orders in January 2026 than some federal agencies have violated in their entire existence,” and called ICE’s violations “extraordinary.”
Judge Nancy Brasel issued an emergency restraining order on February 13 finding that DHS had violated detainees’ constitutional rights to access attorneys by blocking private phone calls, preventing lawyer visits, and rapidly transferring detainees out of state before they could contact counsel.
These court orders, while not ordering an end to the raid, made it harder for federal agents to operate. The requirement that detainees receive access to attorneys within one hour of detention and before out-of-state transfer, combined with the judges’ skepticism about the legality, made the federal surge harder and more expensive.
The Federal Retreat
The announcement by Tom Homan, Trump’s “border czar,” that the raid would conclude was a major shift. Homan had been brought to Minnesota on January 26 to take over, apparently to address the escalating conflict and deaths.
On February 4, Homan announced a withdrawal of 700 officers from the state. On February 12, he announced the complete conclusion of the raid, with remaining agents continuing to withdraw over the following week.
In his final statement, Homan said they were ending it because they’d accomplished their goals: “We arrested over 4,000—illegal aliens here, many of them public safety threats, not all of them,” and “better cooperation than ever before between federal officials and state and local leaders” made continued large-scale operations unnecessary. (This figure is higher than the 3,000 arrests reported by late January, suggesting either additional arrests in early February or differing counts.)
But Homan downplayed how much the resistance mattered. He stated that “unlawful and violent agitator activity” had needed to “wind down as a condition for further draw down of law enforcement personnel,” describing protesters as problems he solved rather than reasons for the decision.
The movement’s response was thoughtful rather than celebrating. Minneapolis City Council Member Jason Chavez stated: “I am proud of you and our immigrant residents. Your resiliency, strength, and dedication have led to the announcement that ‘Operation Metro Surge’ will end soon. It’s clear that the commitment of our neighbors made it impossible for ICE and federal agents to continue to operate its occupation of our city and state.”
But Chavez also warned: “I cannot confidently tell you that it’s safe yet,” and demanded continued patrols, observation, recovery funding, and criminal prosecution of officers involved in shootings.
The family of Renée Good, through their attorney, stated they were “cautiously optimistic” about the drawdown but emphasized: “The agents’ departure from Minnesota doesn’t mean the agents shouldn’t be held responsible for their actions during Operation Metro Surge, and we are committed to seeking justice for our clients.”
What Changed—and What Didn’t
The primary immediate goal—forced conclusion of the raid in Minnesota—was achieved. Federal officials did announce the end, and agents began withdrawing.
But skepticism remained about whether this represented genuine withdrawal or tactical repositioning. The remaining 2,000 federal agents in Minnesota meant they could still operate.
More problematic for the movement was that they didn’t achieve other central demands. Criminal prosecution of agents involved in the fatal shootings didn’t occur. In fact, the Trump administration resisted investigation entirely. Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced a federal civil rights investigation into only Alex Pretti’s death, refusing to investigate Renée Good’s killing.
The demand for “fundamental agency reform” or ICE abolition wasn’t achieved. Homan’s statements made clear that enforcement would continue: “President Trump made a promise of mass deportations and that’s what this country is going to get.”
The campaign got huge media and public attention—the fatal shootings and massive protests generated international news coverage. The campaign put enough political pressure to force federal officials to withdraw from Minnesota, showed that local resistance could make things difficult and expensive for federal operations, and made immigration a bigger political issue.
The campaign showed that coordinated business closures and worker participation could disrupt economic activity and push politicians to resolve the situation. For community protection and safety, results were mixed. The conclusion provided some relief from daily ICE raids, but undocumented immigrants were still vulnerable.
Historical Context
Minnesota’s resistance campaign follows patterns from past social movements challenging federal agencies. The Montgomery Bus Boycott (1955-1956) demonstrated the power of coordinated economic pressure—the 381-day boycott achieved desegregation of Montgomery’s bus system by disrupting the economy, which forced politicians to give in.
The 1980s Sanctuary Movement was more similar. Faith communities provided refuge to Central American migrants fleeing political persecution, using churches and their moral standing to challenge federal policy. Sanctuary communities accepted arrests and prosecutions while building broader coalitions for protection. The movement changed federal asylum rules and showed the power of breaking laws for moral reasons combined with legal challenges.
More recent precedents included the 2006 “Day Without Immigrants” coordinated strikes and boycotts, which showed how immigration could bring people together. The 2018-2019 “Abolish ICE” movement made it acceptable to question whether ICE should exist, instead of trying to reform the agency.
Academic research on nonviolent resistance suggests that movements using many different tactics prove more effective than single-tactic campaigns. In Minnesota, law enforcement didn’t violently suppress the January 23 march or other protests, and some local officials opposed federal enforcement—reasons the campaign worked.
Strategies That Could Amplify Future Resistance
Looking at what worked in Minnesota and what historical movements teach, several approaches could strengthen future resistance campaigns.
Taking Turns Shutting Down Different Industries
Rather than attempting simultaneously coordinated national shutdowns that are difficult to execute, movements could organize different industries to shut down in rotation in strategic locations. Coordinate specific industries to shut down sequentially—one week port workers in Los Angeles, the following week service workers in Chicago, the next week healthcare workers in Houston—each focusing on cities with major ICE detention centers or field offices.
The farmworkers’ movement operated for five years through long-running boycotts that changed targets (Schenley Industries, then grapes, then lettuce), keeping people’s attention by regularly doing more. The Montgomery Bus Boycott kept more than 90 percent of people participating for 381 days by communicating constantly and regularly doing more.
Rotating targets stop the government from figuring out how to respond, maintain media attention cycles through novelty, let industries figure out if they can sustain it before committing, and build up national pressure over time. Monthly coordinated actions across different cities would generate regular national news cycles and political pressure.
Building Alliances Across Political Divides
Bringing in conservatives and libertarians around civil liberties concerns could make it harder for the federal government to enforce based on politics. Second Amendment advocates concerned about militarized federal agents, right-to-privacy conservatives, people who believe states should have more power questioning federal authority over states, and business leaders concerned about unpredictable enforcement disrupting commerce all have reasons to oppose aggressive ICE operations.
The civil rights movement built unlikely coalitions around specific concerns—Northern business leaders concerned about violence, white moderates concerned about order, law-and-order advocates concerned about federal overreach—even when they disagreed about basic beliefs.
Coalitions that cross party lines make it harder for the federal government to target people politically. Conservative critiques of federal power make opposition less about Democrats versus Republicans. When business leaders worry about certainty and costs, they pressure federal officials.
Combining Legal Strategy with Protests
Developing legal strategies that treat prosecution of arrested protesters as political campaigns could turn arrests into chances to organize. Organize lawyers to work together, using arrests to get federal documents, expose government overreach in court, win cases that show the government did wrong, sue individual officers and agencies for violating civil rights, and work with oversight agencies on complaints.
The Sanctuary Movement trials in the 1980s used trials as chances to organize, getting international attention on the government cases, and secured many acquittals or minimal sentences while winning broader public sympathy. Environmental and civil rights movements have used trials to get publicity, turning trials into political stages.
Permanent Systems Where Communities Help Each Other
Making permanent and expanding the community support systems that emerged during January 23 could keep movements going between big protests. Community health clinics operated by healthcare workers, food and housing assistance coordinated through unions and faith communities, legal clinics with immigration attorneys, and education programs for documenting ICE activity all show communities could take care of themselves while helping people understand politics.
The Black Panther Party’s “Breakfast for Children” program began in one Oakland church and expanded nationally, showing communities could take care of themselves while helping people understand politics. Labor movements historically created mutual aid structures—soup kitchens, medical clinics, education programs—that kept movements going during strikes and created ongoing community institutions.
Building permanent systems keeps movements going between big protests, provides help that makes people’s lives better, gives people reasons to stay involved beyond protesting, and shows that communities can do things without government.
Combining Elections with Protests
Developing election strategies where candidates who support the movement run on platform elements (ICE abolition, prosecution of officers, sanctuary policies) while movements keep the ability to disrupt things at the same time through protests could create political power. Winning elections becomes a way to make demands happen developed through protests, while keeping the threat of protests makes elected officials responsive.
The farmworkers’ movement, despite primarily using strike and boycott tactics, used election tactics including ballot initiatives and candidate support when opportunities emerged, winning policy changes by combining approaches. The labor movement’s combination of election work with the ability to strike gave them political power—politicians knew unions could get workers out and keeping the threat of strikes made elected officials responsive.
The Ongoing Struggle
The February 12 announcement of the raid’s conclusion didn’t resolve the basic conflicts or satisfy what the movement wanted. Minneapolis City Council Member Jason Chavez’s statement—”I will not rest until ICE is no longer here in this state” and “we will not rest until this operation ends and ICE is completely abolished”—showed the struggle wasn’t over.
The movement faced questions about keeping people involved after the dramatic victory of making federal agents leave. January 23’s 50,000-person march was the high point of people getting involved. Keeping that many people involved in ongoing resistance was much harder. The January 30 “National Shutdown” tried to turn Minnesota’s success into a national movement but got fewer people and less organized union involvement.
Officials made clear their priorities hadn’t changed despite leaving Minnesota. Tom Homan’s statements made clear that the raid’s conclusion was a change in tactics, not a change in policy. The presence of remaining agents in Minnesota, special ICE teams investigating fraud, and deals with local jails to work together meant ICE would keep operating despite ending the raid.
The movement needed to build on the January 23 victory while working toward longer-term goals. The Minneapolis City Council approved $500,000 for increased legal services and $1 million for rental assistance to help residents impacted by the raid. Governor Walz proposed a $10 million recovery package of interest-free loans that don’t have to be paid back for small businesses affected by the surge.
The question for the movement was whether the January 23 mobilization was a temporary high point in response to dramatic federal violence, or whether the coalition could keep up enough pressure to get what they wanted: prosecution of officers, permanent ICE withdrawal, and major changes to ICE or getting rid of it entirely.
History shows that keeping movements going between big protests has always been hard. The civil rights movement kept going through constant organizing, regular protests, and political pressure. The farmworkers’ movement kept boycotts going for five years by regularly doing more and volunteers staying committed. The labor movement created permanent organizations—unions, groups that helped each other—giving people reasons to stay involved.
Minnesota’s resistance campaign on many fronts showed how using many tactics could make things expensive and difficult enough for the federal government that they had to pull back. The campaign’s success in forcing the end of what federal officials had described as “the largest immigration enforcement operation ever carried out” showed that local communities resisting the federal government could win victories when organized broadly enough and working together.
But the campaign’s partial success—no criminal prosecutions of officers responsible for fatal shootings, ICE continuing in reduced form, the broader mass deportation agenda advancing nationally—showed the limits of resistance in one place when federal authorities can move agents somewhere else and when the president has more power than local communities to enforce policy.
Minnesota’s 2026 resistance showed what could happen when labor unions, faith communities, immigrant rights organizations, student activists, and grassroots community members worked together on specific demands and committed to keeping it up. The way the coalition worked—combining big organizations’ money and connections with community organizing, legal challenges with protests, big protests with local community protection—gave a model for future resistance efforts.
As the Trump administration kept trying to deport large numbers of people nationally, the question for anti-ICE movements was whether they could use Minnesota’s tactics in enough places, working together, to force the federal government to change policy rather than pulling back temporarily. Whether future movements could keep the coalition together, support from big organizations, and long-term commitment that Minnesota showed was uncertain, but important to understand.
This article analyzes protest and activism tactics for educational purposes. We aim to contribute to effective and ethical efforts across the political spectrum, and we present diverse viewpoints and ideas without endorsement.