Federal immigration enforcement has intensified in Minnesota, leading to heightened scrutiny and criticism from historians and social commentators. Notably, prominent Yale historian Timothy Snyder has argued that the recent actions by Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) are part of a narrative pushed by the Trump administration to undermine the state’s welfare system, which he describes as an effective model of governance.
In a Facebook post dated January 22, 2025, Snyder pointed out that Minnesota exemplifies a state that functions well, contradicting the administration’s portrayal of chaos. He asserted, “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.” His comments have sparked significant discussion across social media platforms, including TikTok and Facebook.
The context for Snyder’s remarks comes as approximately 3,000 federal immigration agents have been deployed to Minnesota as part of Operation Metro Surge. This operation has reportedly led to three shootings by federal agents in under three weeks, including the fatal shootings of Renee Good on January 7 and Alex Pretti on January 24, further fueling concerns about the administration’s tactics.
Supporting Snyder’s view, research from the Brookings Institution highlights Minnesota’s robust welfare system. In 2019, a typical single-parent family in the state was eligible for more than $7,500 in combined cash and food assistance, placing it among the most generous states in the country, alongside Alaska and Hawaii. In contrast, states like Mississippi and Alabama offered much lower assistance, under $5,000.
The American Experiment organization reported that in 2022, Minnesota spent approximately $40,280 on public welfare per person living in poverty, ranking it second highest among all states. This spending reflects a commitment to social support, significantly exceeding both the national average and median state expenditures. For individuals with disabilities, Minnesota’s spending reached $53,000 per person, the highest in the nation.
Despite this evidence, the Trump administration has pointed to Minnesota’s welfare programs as symbols of disorder and fraud, particularly in light of the Feeding Our Future scandal. This incident involved federal prosecutors charging 78 individuals with embezzling around $250 million from the Federal Child Nutrition Programme during the COVID-19 pandemic. Snyder’s analysis suggests that successful welfare systems are being targeted, as they contradict the narrative that justifies dismantling such programs.
In his earlier Substack essay titled “Maduro in Minneapolis,” Snyder drew parallels between the Trump administration’s approach to immigration enforcement and the tactics of authoritarian regimes. He warned that “the worst thing that Maduro did is just what Trump is beginning to do: killing civilians and blaming them for their own deaths,” comparing the extrajudicial killings under Venezuelan President Nicolás Maduro to ICE’s operations in Minnesota.
Snyder’s expertise in 20th-century European authoritarianism provides a critical lens for interpreting current events. His caution about the importance of recognizing the signs of democratic decline resonates strongly in today’s political climate, particularly as tensions escalate in Minnesota. By framing Minnesota as dysfunctional, the Trump administration may be setting the stage for broader attacks on social safety nets across the United States.
As federal operations continue, Minnesota is emerging as a focal point for contrasting visions of governance. On one side, there is a model that emphasizes comprehensive social support systems; on the other, there is an aggressive enforcement approach that seeks to portray these systems as ineffective. The implications of this conflict could extend beyond Minnesota, affecting social policies and welfare programs nationwide.
