SUBPOENAS FLYING— Top Democrats in Federal Crosshairs

Highlighted definition of 'subpoena' in a dictionary

The Justice Department has launched a criminal probe targeting Minnesota’s top Democratic officials for allegedly conspiring to obstruct federal immigration enforcement, marking an unprecedented escalation in the clash between the Trump administration’s border security push and sanctuary-minded state leaders.

Story Snapshot

DOJ served grand jury subpoenas on January 20, 2026, to Governor Tim Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, and other Minnesota officials investigating alleged conspiracy to impede ICE operations
The probe invokes the same federal statute (18 U.S.C. § 372) used to prosecute January 6 Capitol rioters, targeting obstruction during Operation Metro Surge that deployed 3,000 federal agents to the Twin Cities
Minnesota officials filed a lawsuit calling the massive ICE deployment an unconstitutional “invasion” after protests erupted following the fatal shooting of a Minneapolis mother by an ICE officer on January 7
Legal experts express skepticism about potential indictments, warning the investigation risks criminalizing policy disagreements and chilling local opposition to federal overreach

Federal Law Enforcement Targets Democratic Leadership

The FBI delivered grand jury subpoenas to six Minnesota Democratic officials on January 20, 2026, demanding records and communications regarding their response to Operation Metro Surge. The subpoenas target Governor Tim Walz, Attorney General Keith Ellison, Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey, St. Paul Mayor Kaohly Her, and officials from Ramsey and Hennepin Counties. Attorney General Pam Bondi visited Minnesota the same day, underscoring federal determination to investigate whether state leaders conspired to impede immigration enforcement. Frey’s office confirmed it must appear before the grand jury on February 3, 2026.

Massive ICE Deployment Sparks Constitutional Showdown

The Department of Homeland Security deployed approximately 3,000 ICE and Border Patrol agents to the Minneapolis-St. Paul area in early January 2026, a force nearly five times larger than the Minneapolis police department. The operation arrested over 3,000 individuals suspected of immigration violations and investigated fraud allegations. Minnesota officials responded by filing a lawsuit on January 12 alleging constitutional violations, with Attorney General Ellison characterizing the deployment as an “invasion” that violated free speech and due process rights. The confrontation intensified after ICE officer Jonathan Ross fatally shot Renee Good during a January 7 operation, sparking daily protests that included federal agents deploying tear gas against demonstrators.

Legal Precedent Raises Stakes for Policy Disagreements

The investigation relies on 18 U.S.C. § 372, a conspiracy statute previously used to prosecute participants in the January 6, 2021, Capitol breach—cases from which President Trump granted clemency to over 1,500 individuals upon taking office in 2025. This approach represents a significant shift in federal-state relations, potentially criminalizing opposition to immigration enforcement. Former federal prosecutor Gene Rossi warned that subpoenas cannot lawfully target First Amendment-protected speech and require proof of concrete actions, not merely policy positions. The DOJ’s court filings dismiss Minnesota’s lawsuit as “legally frivolous,” asserting the state seeks an improper veto over federal immigration law enforcement.

Read "DOJ subpoenas Walz, Frey, others in probe alleging immigration obstruction" on SmartNews: https://t.co/aNdVZosywb

— Maija (@maijajmtc) January 20, 2026

Local Communities Report Profiling and Constitutional Concerns

Brooklyn Park Police Chief Mark Bruley reported that federal agents racially profiled off-duty officers and citizens of color during operations, raising serious constitutional concerns beyond immigration enforcement. Minneapolis residents, particularly communities of color, expressed fear about aggressive tactics that appeared to disregard legal status. Judge Katherine Menendez ruled that federal agents cannot target peaceful protesters, acknowledging constitutional limits on enforcement operations. President Trump initially threatened to invoke the 1807 Insurrection Act to expand federal authority but publicly retreated from that position. These developments highlight tensions between legitimate immigration enforcement and protecting constitutional rights of all residents, regardless of status.

Political Intimidation or Legitimate Oversight

Mayor Jacob Frey characterized the subpoenas as federal “weaponization” threatening democratic governance, vowing his office would continue serving Minneapolis residents despite DOJ pressure. Governor Walz’s office confirmed receiving the subpoena but declined further comment, while Attorney General Ellison’s office had not confirmed receipt as of January 20. The DOJ maintains the investigation legitimately examines whether state officials conspired to obstruct lawful federal operations that enhanced public safety through mass arrests. Legal experts remain skeptical about indictment viability without evidence beyond political rhetoric. This confrontation signals the Trump administration’s willingness to aggressively challenge sanctuary-style policies nationwide, potentially setting precedent for prosecuting state resistance to federal immigration enforcement and influencing dynamics heading into the 2026 midterm elections.