U.S. Border Czar Tom Homan responded forcefully to calls by Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz and Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey for federal reimbursement of tens of millions in economic impacts tied to Operation Metro Surge, saying the state should instead thank federal agents for removing criminals and enhancing public safety. Homan framed local complaints about the surge’s costs as misplaced criticism rather than legitimate claims for compensation.

Walz and Frey have highlighted the financial strain the ICE enforcement operation placed on city services, residents, and small businesses, with impacts estimated to exceed hundreds of millions of dollars by city officials. State leaders argued that the surge disrupted daily life, strained municipal resources, and eroded trust in public safety outcomes. They have urged the federal government to help offset these expenses and support recovery efforts. 

In contrast, Homan defended the federal deployment as a mission that prioritized public safety and the removal of dangerous undocumented individuals. He emphasized that federal agents acted to enforce immigration laws and protect the community from criminal elements rather than cause economic harm. Homan reiterated that the operation yielded thousands of arrests at its peak, reflecting the administration’s focus on identifying and removing public safety threats. 

Homan’s remarks came as he also announced the drawdown and planned conclusion of the surge operation in Minnesota—after months of intense enforcement activity, protests, and local backlash. The strategy has shifted toward repositioning federal agents while maintaining targeted efforts against individuals with serious criminal records. 

The public debate over Metro Surge remains contentious. While federal officials describe the mission as a success in terms of arrests and reducing sanctuary policies, state and city leaders maintain the operation inflicted widespread economic and social costs that warrant federal assistance. This divide highlights ongoing tensions between local governance and federal enforcement priorities in communities affected by immigration policy changes.

Overall, Homan’s response underscores the administration’s stance that enforcement outcomes should be viewed through the lens of public safety and compliance with immigration laws, even as federal and local leaders differ sharply on the cost burdens and broader community impact of such operations.