Tom Homan Confirms Residual Federal Security Force to Remain in Minnesota as Operation Metro Surge Winds Down
WASHINGTON — Tom Homan has confirmed that a specialized federal security unit will maintain a presence in Minnesota, even as the high-profile “Operation Metro Surge” comes to a close. Homan stated that while the majority of Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) and Border Patrol agents deployed for the surge are withdrawing, a smaller, strategic footprint is required for operational safety.
The conclusion of Operation Metro Surge marks a significant pivot in federal enforcement strategy within the region. The operation was originally launched as an intensive initiative targeted at the Minneapolis-Saint Paul area, characterized by a rapid influx of federal personnel aimed at interior enforcement. The decision to withdraw the bulk of these forces signals a shift from high-visibility saturation to a sustained, lower-profile maintenance phase.
According to Homan, the remaining unit’s mandate is specific and limited. He described the force’s primary objectives as protecting federal personnel who remain in the sector and facilitating coordination with local entities. Homan was emphatic in characterizing this deployment as a necessary protective measure rather than a “full-scale occupation,” explicitly attempting to dispel concerns that the federal government intended to maintain a militarized hold on the state. He cited the need to ensure the physical safety of administrative and operational staff working in what the administration views as a non-permissive environment.
However, the decision to leave a residual security element has triggered immediate objections from civil rights advocates and local officials. Critics argue that retaining a federal “security force”—distinct from standard administrative staff—serves to perpetuate a climate of fear within immigrant communities, regardless of the reduced numbers. Legal observers have raised questions regarding the oversight and jurisdiction of this remaining force, expressing concern that “support for local coordination” could be a euphemism for continued pressure on local law enforcement agencies that have historically resisted federal immigration mandates.
State leaders have also voiced skepticism, suggesting that the continued presence of federal security agents undermines local sovereignty and contradicts the claim that the surge is truly over. As the logistical withdrawal of the main force begins, scrutiny remains high regarding the exact size, duration, and rules of engagement for the agents left behind.
