Why Is ICE in Minnesota? Trump Administration Wants You To Believe State Doesn't Work, Says Historian

Why is ICE targeting Minneapolis and Minnesota? According to prominent Yale historian Timothy Snyder, it is because the state has a functioning welfare system that directly contradicts the Trump administration's narrative about social programmes. In a Facebook post published on 22 January, Snyder argued that Minnesota represents 'an example of a state that works' and that federal immigration enforcement operations are designed to make Americans believe otherwise.

'Minnesota is an example of a state that works. But ICE and the Trump Administration want you to believe that there's widespread chaos and it doesn't work. That simply is not true,' Snyder wrote in the post, which has garnered significant attention on social media platforms including TikTok and Facebook.

Historian's Expertise Lends Weight to Claims

Snyder, who serves as the Richard C Levin Professor of History at Yale University, is widely recognised as one of the leading experts on authoritarianism and tyranny. His 2017 book 'On Tyranny: Twenty Lessons from the Twentieth Century' became a bestseller following Donald Trump's first inauguration, offering Americans guidance on recognising and resisting authoritarian governance.

The historian's analysis comes amid escalating tensions in Minnesota, where approximately 3,000 federal immigration agents have been deployed since December 2025 as part of Operation Metro Surge. The operation has resulted in three shootings by federal agents in less than three weeks, including the fatal shootings of Renee Good on 7 January and Alex Pretti on 24 January.

Minnesota's Robust Social Safety Net

Data support Snyder's characterisation of Minnesota as a state with a functioning welfare system. According to Brookings Institution research, a typical single-parent family in Minnesota was eligible for more than £5,500 ($7,500) in combined cash and food assistance in 2019, placing it amongst the most generous states alongside Alaska and Hawaii. This compares to less than £3,667 ($5,000) in states like Mississippi, Alabama, and Arkansas.

The American Experiment organisation reported that in 2022, Minnesota spent the equivalent of £29,525 ($40,280) on public welfare per person in poverty, ranking second highest amongst all 50 states. The state spent approximately 70 per cent more than both the US average and the median state. For people with disabilities, Minnesota's spending reached £38,850 ($53,000) per person in 2022, ranking first nationally—over £11,000 ($15,000) more than second-ranked New York.

Trump Administration's Narrative Under Scrutiny

The Trump administration has repeatedly cited Minnesota's welfare system as evidence of chaos and fraud, particularly focusing on the Feeding Our Future scandal, in which federal prosecutors charged 78 individuals with stealing approximately £183 million ($250 million) from the Federal Child Nutrition Programme during the COVID-19 pandemic.

However, Snyder's assertion challenges the administration's framing, suggesting that successful social programmes have become targets precisely because they demonstrate that robust welfare states can function effectively. In his earlier Substack essay titled 'Maduro in Minneapolis', Snyder drew parallels between the Trump administration's approach to immigration enforcement and authoritarian tactics. 'The worst thing that Maduro did is just what Trump is beginning to do: killing civilians and blaming them for their own deaths,' Snyder wrote in the 9 January essay, comparing the Venezuelan dictator's extrajudicial killings to ICE operations in Minnesota.

Understanding the Broader Context

Snyder's expertise in 20th-century European authoritarianism provides a unique lens through which to view current events in Minnesota. His warning that Americans should learn from historical examples of democratic collapse has resonated particularly strongly since Trump's re-election. The historian's interpretation suggests that successful governance at the state level can become a liability when it contradicts federal narratives about the necessity of dismantling social safety nets.

By portraying Minnesota as chaotic and dysfunctional despite evidence to the contrary, the Trump administration may be laying groundwork for broader attacks on similar programmes nationwide. As federal operations continue and tensions escalate, Minnesota has become a testing ground for competing visions of American governance—one emphasising robust social support systems, the other prioritising aggressive enforcement and smaller government.