Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey went on MSNBC Thursday to deliver a carefully constructed message: the Trump administration's immigration enforcement surge in his city is ending, and he had nothing to do with it. No deal was struck, no concessions were made, and his position hasn't changed. That's the story he's selling.
The only problem is that the story doesn't quite hold together.
According to Breitbart, appearing on "All In" with Chris Hayes, Frey was asked directly whether some agreement with border czar Tom Homan had led to the drawdown of federal immigration forces in Minneapolis. Hayes himself acknowledged the skepticism baked into the question, noting Homan had made "intimations" that agreements were reached. Frey's response was a masterclass in political repositioning:
"Our position has remained the same throughout, and I've been saying this for months, if not years, which is this we will work with the federal government to catch murderers and rapists and people that are causing danger in our city. We will work extensively with the DEA and the ATF and the FBI to put people like that behind bars. We will not, however, cooperate on enforcing federal immigration policy. Period. That was our position then. That is our position now. I had two productive, three productive, meetings, with, the Border czar Tom Homan. You know, obviously there's progress in that. They are leaving right now. But as far as some deal that was struck to get them out, the answer is no."
Read that again slowly. Frey confirms he held multiple "productive" meetings with Homan. He acknowledges "there's progress in that." He confirms that federal forces are leaving. And yet—no deal.
The word "productive" is doing extraordinary work in Frey's statement. Mayors don't typically describe meetings as "productive" when nothing comes of them. That's the word you use when both sides moved somewhere. When outcomes were reached. When something was agreed upon.
But Frey needs to thread a very specific needle. He can't look like he capitulated to the Trump administration—that's political death in deep-blue Minneapolis. He also can't pretend the meetings didn't happen, because Homan has apparently been saying otherwise. So the play is obvious: take credit for an unchanged position, acknowledge the meetings happened, wave at the word "productive," and insist it all means nothing.
It's the kind of rhetorical gymnastics that works on a friendly cable news set. It doesn't survive contact with basic logic.
What Frey actually described—stripped of the political packaging—is a city that will cooperate with federal law enforcement on violent criminals but refuses to assist with immigration enforcement. He frames this as principled consistency. It's worth examining what that principle actually requires.
Minneapolis, under Frey's framework, will work with the DEA, ATF, and FBI. It will help catch murderers and rapists. But if a person is in the country illegally and hasn't committed a violent crime, the city's official position is to look the other way. Federal immigration law simply doesn't apply within city limits—not because of any legal authority Minneapolis possesses, but because the mayor has decided it shouldn't.
This is the sanctuary city model dressed up in reasonable-sounding language. Frey isn't saying he opposes law enforcement. He's saying he gets to pick which federal laws his city respects. That distinction matters. A mayor who announced he would not cooperate with ATF enforcement of federal firearms regulations would be treated as a radical. A mayor who refuses to cooperate with federal immigration enforcement gets a sympathetic interview on MSNBC.
There's a deeper contradiction embedded in Frey's position that rarely gets examined. He proudly declares his willingness to work with federal agencies to catch dangerous criminals. But illegal immigrants who commit violent crimes don't arrive in the system pre-labeled. They're identified through the kind of routine enforcement encounters—traffic stops, warrant checks, booking processes—that sanctuary policies deliberately obstruct.
You can't claim you want to catch the murderers while building a system designed to ensure you never find out who they are until after they've murdered someone. The cooperation Frey describes is reactive, not preventive. It waits for the body. It waits for the victim.
The Trump administration surged immigration enforcement resources into Minneapolis. Frey sat down with Homan—not once but two or three times. Federal forces are now leaving. Homan suggested agreements were reached. Frey says no deal was struck.
One of two things is true. Either the meetings were genuinely unproductive—Frey said nothing new, Homan heard nothing new, and the administration independently decided to pull resources from Minneapolis for unrelated reasons. Or some understanding was reached, however informal, and Frey is characterizing it in the way that best serves his political interests.
The audience for Frey's denial isn't the Trump administration. It isn't even the broader public. It's Minneapolis progressives who would view any cooperation with immigration enforcement as betrayal. The denial is domestic politics, not policy.
This is how sanctuary city politics works in the Trump era. Democratic mayors resist publicly, negotiate quietly, and then describe the outcome in language that makes both sides think they won. The progressive base hears "no deal." The federal government points to "productive meetings" and a changed dynamic on the ground. Everyone claims victory. The only people left without a voice are the residents of these cities who are asked to accept that enforcing federal law is somehow optional.
Frey's performance on Thursday was polished. It was also transparent. You don't hold three meetings with the border czar to tell him the same thing you've been saying for years. You hold three meetings because something needed to be worked out.
Whatever that something was, Minneapolis voters will have to take their mayor's word that it was nothing at all.