2,000 Agents PULLING OUT

Red gone stamp with exclamation point — 2K AGENTS GONE!

After a massive federal ICE surge put thousands of agents into Minnesota—and ended with two U.S. citizens dead—Tom Homan now says the operation is over, raising hard questions about enforcement, accountability, and who really controls immigration policy inside America’s states.

Quick Take

Border czar Tom Homan told senators on Feb. 12, 2026, that “Operation Metro Surge” in Minnesota is concluding, with about 2,000 agents expected to return to their home posts.
The surge produced roughly 4,000 arrests, but the operation triggered intense backlash tied to protest clashes and two fatal shootings of U.S. citizen protesters.
Minnesota’s Democrat leadership fought the operation in court and politically; a judge rejected the state’s bid to halt it, citing weak evidence of unconstitutional coercion.
Homan framed the drawdown as a transition, not an end to enforcement, with reduced personnel staying behind and local cooperation still a major friction point.

Homan announces the drawdown as Minnesota tensions peak

Tom Homan announced that Operation Metro Surge will conclude after months of heavy immigration enforcement centered in the Twin Cities.

Reporting on the briefings and testimony described a large pullback starting the following week, sending roughly 2,000 federal personnel back to other assignments while leaving a smaller presence for a “transition.”

The operation’s scale was unusual: estimates ranged from roughly 2,000 to 3,000 agents deployed over about 10 weeks.

Minnesota immigration enforcement operation is ending, US President Trump's border tsar Tom Homan says
https://t.co/sGpCqOyRmG

— BBC Breaking News (@BBCBreaking) February 12, 2026

The end date matters because Metro Surge became more than an enforcement action—it became a test of federal power, local resistance, and public order.

Supporters of strict immigration enforcement saw a serious attempt to restore the rule of law and protect taxpayers.

Critics argued that the tactics were too aggressive and too broad, especially around sensitive locations such as schools, courthouses, and transit areas, where residents reported feeling afraid and experiencing disruption.

What Metro Surge targeted—and what it produced

Operation Metro Surge grew out of Trump administration concerns about immigration violations and alleged fraud tied to government programs in Minnesota, including scrutiny linked to the state’s large Somali community.

The administration’s allies emphasized that fraud allegations and identity or benefits abuses, when proven, hit working Americans twice—first through illegal entry, then through misuse of programs meant for citizens and lawful residents. Public reporting said the operation ultimately led to about 4,000 arrests.

Even with that arrest total, key facts remain unclear from the public record summarized in the research: officials have not fully detailed how many arrests were for violent crime, how many were for immigration-status violations, and how many were tied directly to fraud investigations versus broader enforcement sweeps.

Without that breakdown, it is difficult for taxpayers to measure the operation’s precision. Limited transparency also fuels political spin from both sides rather than straightforward accountability.

Two fatal protest shootings turned enforcement into a national controversy

The biggest accelerant was the violence surrounding the protests. Reporting cited two fatal shootings of U.S. citizen protesters—Renée Good in early January and Alex Pretti on Jan. 24—during confrontations involving federal agents. After the Pretti shooting, two agents were reportedly placed on leave.

These deaths hardened opposition to the surge and intensified scrutiny of federal tactics, especially as racial-profiling claims and “occupation” rhetoric spread across Minnesota’s political class.

For conservatives who prioritize law and order, the principle is straightforward: lawful enforcement is necessary, but the government also carries a duty to use force within constitutional boundaries.

The research does not establish unlawful conduct by agents, and it does not provide final investigative outcomes.

That uncertainty is precisely why transparent investigations matter—because when citizens die in politically charged operations, unanswered questions corrode trust in institutions that must remain legitimate.

Courts, state resistance, and the limits of “state sovereignty” claims

Minnesota’s Democrat leadership, including Gov. Tim Walz and AG Keith Ellison, fought the surge through lawsuits and procedural resistance.

Politico reported a judge rejected Minnesota’s attempt to end the operation, saying the state failed to show unconstitutional coercion that would justify court intervention.

That ruling highlighted a recurring post-2020 reality: states may object loudly, but federal immigration enforcement—when conducted under federal authority—often survives broad legal challenges.

At the same time, the reporting described practical cooperation disputes, including friction over detainers and over 287(g) agreements that deputize local law enforcement under federal immigration authority.

Minnesota leaders publicly said they were not refusing to cooperate entirely, but they imposed measures such as county board approvals and other guardrails.

Those hurdles became a major flashpoint because enforcement agencies argue that delays can lead to releases, flight, and re-offending before immigration proceedings begin.

What changes now—and what does not

Homan’s announcement points to de-escalation, not surrender. Axios and other outlets described the drawdown as returning the state to more normal enforcement patterns while leaving a limited federal footprint to manage the transition.

Homan also suggested conditions around local cooperation and reduced violence, reflecting the administration’s focus on stabilizing the situation after weeks of protests, lawsuits, and political fallout. The DOJ’s subpoena activity and the status of any broader probe were not clearly updated in the reporting.

The bigger takeaway is that immigration enforcement still hinges on consistent policy and clear metrics. If the goal is deterrence and compliance, Americans need to see what worked: arrests broken down by category, outcomes in immigration court, confirmed fraud recoveries, and disciplinary findings if misconduct occurred.

Without that, states and Washington will keep replaying the same cycle—surge, backlash, lawsuits, and political spin—while communities, including lawful immigrants, are left to absorb the chaos.