admin
Federal border czar Tom Homan announced this week that roughly 700 immigration and border officers will be pulled out of the Minneapolis–St. Paul area, a drawdown he framed as possible because of increased cooperation from some state and local authorities. The reduction trims the federal presence from about 3,000 to roughly 2,300 officers, and Homan said the move is effective immediately as part of an effort to streamline enforcement without abandoning the mission.
The pullback comes amid intense scrutiny after two U.S. citizens were killed during confrontations with federal officers, a grim development that intensified protests and pushed the conflict into the national spotlight. Those tragedies have made the optics combustible, but they have not changed the administration’s stated goal of prioritizing public safety and targeting violent criminals.
Homan was explicit that the drawdown is conditional, tied to whether jails and local agencies will alert Immigration and Customs Enforcement about inmates who meet deportation criteria — a commonsense coordination step that would reduce the need for a massive federal street presence. This is a reasonable compromise: when localities refuse to cooperate, federal agents have little choice but to step in; when local authorities do their jobs, fewer boots on the ground are necessary.
Predictably, Minneapolis and state leaders cast the smaller federal footprint as insufficient and demanded a full exit, but their rhetoric ignores the fundamental problem that began this mess: sanctuary-style policies and elected officials who protect illegal actors instead of victims. Local resistance and performative outrage cannot substitute for responsibility; public safety suffers when politicians prioritize politics over law and order.
Officials in Washington made clear that the administration is not backing down and that approximately 2,000 officers will remain until the environment is deemed safe enough for a larger withdrawal, with the ultimate endgame tied to measurable cooperation. Homan emphasized that this is not a surrender of the president’s enforcement mission, but a tactical recalibration aimed at sustaining long-term operations.
Conservatives should welcome an outcome that preserves enforcement while rewarding practical cooperation, but vigilance is still needed: the federal government must keep pressure on jurisdictions that enable criminality, and it must insist on clear, enforceable policies that protect communities. If America is to restore order and respect for the law, leaders in both Washington and the states must stop grandstanding and start delivering results that put safety first.
