Protesters in Minneapolis demonstrated outside a hotel, believing it housed federal immigration agents, sparking national interest and debate.
Story Snapshot
- Protesters gathered at a downtown Minneapolis hotel, suspecting ICE agents were staying there.
- The protest followed the fatal shooting of an activist by an ICE agent.
- Police maintained a passive monitoring role during the protest.
- The event is part of broader nationwide protests against ICE’s deportation strategies.
Protest Catalyst and Emergence
On January 10, 2026, hundreds of protesters descended on the Canopy by Hilton hotel in downtown Minneapolis, driven by the belief that it was housing ICE agents involved in a recent and highly publicized fatal shooting. The shooting of Renee Nicole Good, an activist, by an ICE agent had sparked outrage and mobilized protests nationwide. The protesters, armed with drums and noisemakers, aimed to expose and pressure the agents believed to be staying at the hotel, chanting slogans to express their anger and demand accountability.
The protestors’ actions, such as using noise to create a disruptive presence, echoed tactics seen in previous protests where activists sought to drive federal agents out of hotels. This method of direct action has been noted in other cities, like Los Angeles, where similar protests succeeded in forcing agents to relocate. In Minneapolis, while the crowd’s intensity was apparent, the local police chose a stand-back approach, monitoring the situation rather than intervening aggressively.
Wider Context and Tactics
The Minneapolis protest fits into a broader narrative of resistance against ICE’s mass deportation efforts during the second Trump administration. This period saw expanded immigration enforcement and increased visibility of federal agents in cities across the United States. The protests are not limited to Minneapolis; they are part of a networked movement that includes immigrant rights groups and anti-fascist activists, although mainstream reporting often simplifies the participants as anti-ICE protesters.
Historical precedents, such as protests in California where activists successfully disrupted federal lodging, highlight the strategic focus on targeting ICE’s operational logistics. This approach reflects a broader struggle over the legitimacy and ethics of immigration enforcement. The use of hotels as temporary federal lodging places these businesses in a challenging position, caught between contractual obligations with federal agencies and potential backlash from their customer base and local communities.
Implications and Reactions
Protests like the one in Minneapolis can have significant short-term and long-term implications. In the short term, federal agencies may reconsider lodging choices to avoid attracting similar protests, potentially opting for more secure or discreet accommodations. The ability of activist networks to quickly mobilize large groups suggests a well-organized base capable of exerting substantial public pressure.
In the long term, these protests may normalize tactics such as “chasing agents” from hotels, raising questions about security, doxxing, and protest boundaries. Persistent conflicts between federal operations and local resistance can strain relationships between city governments and federal authorities, especially in politically sensitive environments like Minneapolis. The events also contribute to the ongoing polarization of immigration policy debates, further complicating the dynamics between federal enforcement and local communities.
Sources:
Protests against mass deportation during the second Trump administration
Anti-ICE protests held across U.S. cities