Minnesota Counties Quietly Agree To Turn Over Violent Illegal Aliens

What Happened

According to White House Press Secretary Karoline Leavitt , nearly all counties in Minnesota have reached agreements to transfer violent illegal aliens from local jails into federal custody rather than releasing them back into the community. Leavitt said that the effort was coordinated by ‘border czar’ Tom Homan.

Under these arrangements, county sheriffs and jail officials notify federal authorities when an inmate who is in the country illegally and has a violent criminal record is being held. Instead of being released after serving local time or posting bond, those inmates are transferred to federal immigration custody for removal proceedings.

The cooperation reportedly covers nearly all counties in the state, including jurisdictions that previously resisted immigration-enforcement partnerships. Leavitt said the agreements were reached through direct coordination with local officials rather than through new legislation or mandates.

Details about the exact legal mechanisms vary by county, but the core principle is the same: local jails hold qualifying inmates long enough for federal authorities to take custody, preventing their release back into local communities.

Why It Matters

Immigration enforcement has long been shaped as much by local cooperation as by federal policy. But when counties decline to work with federal authorities, immigration violations go unaddressed once an inmate leaves local custody. That dynamic has been especially controversial in cases involving violent offenses.

Current Investors: Act By 2/26

With our first phase of growth completed, EnergyX is offering current investors a limited-time opportunity to reinvest at $11/share by 2/26 as we drive towards the future.*

With lithium demand projected to grow 5x by 2040, we're advancing our technology at Project Black Giant™ and moving toward commercialization.

With one of the lowest cost lithium production models in the world, our economic edge means a more resilient cost structure and positions us to be a leader in an industry vital to defense system technology, AI power storage, and renewable energy.

Reinvest at our website before 2/26.

The Minnesota agreements point to a more practical arrangement rather than a major policy rewrite. Counties will continue to run their jails, while federal authorities take responsibility for immigration enforcement once custody is transferred. The idea is to keep individuals with violent records from being released without asking local law enforcement to expand its role.

The agreement and all the conflict that preceded it also highlight the long-standing disconnect between immigration law and its day-to-day enforcement. Detainers and transfer requests exist under federal law, but they only work when local jurisdictions choose to cooperate. Where that cooperation breaks down, individuals with unresolved immigration violations can still end up back in the community.

By securing county-level cooperation, federal officials reduce reliance on street-level arrests and workplace raids. Instead, enforcement focuses on individuals already in custody for serious crimes, a strategy often described as lower-risk and more targeted.

How It Affects Readers

Moving forward, any individuals accused or convicted of violent crimes who are also in the country illegally are far less likely to be released back into local communities. The agreements may also reduce pressure on local agencies, since transferring custody to federal authorities allows counties to avoid prolonged detention costs and limits the risk of reoffending by inmates who might otherwise be released.

Beyond Minnesota, the development could influence how other states decide to approach similar arrangements with ICE in their communities. If the model proves workable, it may be quietly adopted elsewhere, especially in jurisdictions seeking to balance public safety concerns with political pressures.

The focus on violent offenders reflects an enforcement priority that polls consistently show has public support. Concentrating resources on individuals with serious criminal records may shape future debates about immigration enforcement more than headline-grabbing actions at the border.

But the agreements do raise questions regarding consistency and transparency. Because they are negotiated at the county level, practices may differ across jurisdictions, and public awareness may lag behind policy changes.

*Disclaimer: This is a paid advertisement for EnergyX's Regulation A+ Offering. Please read the offering circular at invest.energyx.com/. Under Regulation A+, a company has the ability to change its share price by up to 20%, without requalifying the offering with the SEC.