A growing controversy surrounding a federal prosecution in Minnesota is raising serious questions about government surveillance, political dissent and civil liberties in the United States. Newly disclosed court records suggest that Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), through its Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) division, conducted an extensive intelligence-gathering operation targeting anti-ICE activists in Minnesota and beyond.

The investigation centres on 15 Minnesota residents facing federal conspiracy charges. Their attorneys argue that the case is part of a broader campaign against opponents of President Donald Trump’s immigration policies, with surveillance tactics that echo some of the most controversial government operations in American history.

Documents obtained during the legal proceedings reportedly include intercepted Signal messages, internal emails, photographs, audio transcripts, database searches and investigative reports. Former law enforcement officials who reviewed the records told WIRED that the operation appears to be part of a wider intelligence effort extending beyond Minnesota.

A Nationwide Campaign Under Scrutiny

The investigation unfolded amid Operation Metro Surge, the Trump administration’s immigration enforcement campaign in the Twin Cities during the winter of 2025–2026.

Local activists organized volunteer networks to monitor federal agents and their vehicles. They used encrypted Signal groups, vehicle databases and a centralized dispatch system to coordinate their activities.

Federal prosecutors allege that these networks participated in a conspiracy to obstruct immigration enforcement, identify and stalk federal agents, and commit assaults. Defense attorneys, however, contend that the serious charges do not match the conduct attributed to their clients.

The case has drawn comparisons to COINTELPRO, the FBI’s controversial counterintelligence program that targeted civil rights activists, anti-war campaigners and other political movements from the 1950s through the early 1970s.

Critics argue that the Minnesota investigation reflects a similar pattern of using surveillance and undercover operations against domestic political opposition. Although the comparison remains a claim made by attorneys and former officials, the newly disclosed records have intensified concerns about the scope of federal investigative powers.

The operation was conducted under investigations known as Project Whipple Shield and Operation Puppet Master, within the broader framework of National Security Presidential Memorandum 7. Issued after the September 2025 assassination of Charlie Kirk, the memorandum directs federal agencies to use available investigative resources against certain organizations and individuals. The full extent of the investigations associated with it remains unclear.

Undercover Agents Embedded in Activist Networks

A central part of the investigation was Operation Keyhole, an HSI program established in 2008 to finance undercover operations across Minnesota, North Dakota, South Dakota, Iowa and Nebraska.

According to records cited in the report, the program has funded at least 77 investigations involving drug trafficking, child sexual abuse, financial crimes and counter-proliferation activities.

By June 2026, Operation Keyhole was supporting six active investigations in the Minneapolis–Saint Paul area. One of them was Project Whipple Shield, launched in February to investigate allegations of assault, stalking and doxing involving federal employees.

Court records indicate that approximately 120 HSI agents were assigned to the Minnesota investigation, including at least 11 undercover operatives.

These agents allegedly attended marches, community meetings, general strikes and training sessions where activists learned about their legal rights. They also infiltrated encrypted communications groups used to identify suspected undercover vehicles and coordinate efforts to follow them.

Investigators reportedly monitored activist conferences in Seattle, Chicago, New York and Michigan. They photographed vehicles near meeting locations, checked license plates and collected drone footage showing activists moving around the Twin Cities.

More than 50 HSI agents reportedly participated in surveillance activities, including personnel from the agency’s Special Operations Group. Investigators with experience in financial crimes, drug trafficking, human trafficking and organized crime were also brought into the case.

The breadth of the deployment has raised concerns about whether a criminal investigation expanded into the systematic monitoring of political organizing.

Digital Surveillance and Financial Investigations

The operation extended well beyond physical surveillance and undercover infiltration. Investigators reportedly examined financial transactions, online activity, commercial databases and communications records to identify people connected to the activist networks.

One particularly striking detail concerns approximately 15 terabytes of intercepted Signal conversations collected during the investigation.

According to the report, HSI also reviewed wire transfers, PayPal reimbursements, website traffic and information obtained from commercial data brokers.

In one instance, an activist shared a license-plate search tool hosted on Fly.io, a cloud computing platform, in an infiltrated Signal group. Investigators reportedly combined technical records from the platform with Stripe information, Minnesota motor vehicle records and data from Thomson Reuters’ CLEAR database.

The information allegedly enabled investigators to assemble detailed profiles containing driver’s license information, address histories, phone numbers, property records and vehicle registrations.

The investigation also involved financial inquiries through the Treasury Department’s Section 314(a) program, which was established under the USA PATRIOT Act to facilitate the exchange of information related to suspected money laundering and terrorism financing.

Records described by WIRED show that federal investigators sought information on 29 subjects during queries conducted on March 31, 2026. Emails also reportedly documented the transfer of financial records between HSI agents in Minnesota, Los Angeles and Arizona, including information relating to the Service Employees International Union.

The use of these investigative tools has prompted questions about whether resources developed for serious criminal and national security investigations were appropriately applied to monitoring domestic political activists.

Journalists’ Phone Records Also Targeted

The controversy extends to journalists who covered the immigration enforcement operation.

According to court records described in the report, HSI investigators sought phone records belonging to several journalists reporting on Operation Metro Surge. The Guardian had previously reported on the issue.

Investigators allegedly used an administrative summons process associated with customs and taxation matters rather than traditional warrants or grand jury subpoenas.

That approach has raised concerns about the legal basis for obtaining the records, particularly given the journalists’ reporting activities and the constitutional protections afforded to the press.

The investigation also involved agents connected to other high-profile cases involving protesters and critics of immigration enforcement.

One agent, Ryan Ribner, was accused of assaulting SEIU California president David Huerta during a June 2025 protest. Huerta was arrested, but the charges against him were dropped in July after videos emerged that reportedly contradicted the agent’s account.

Other agents associated with the Minnesota investigation had also participated in proceedings involving anti-ICE activists elsewhere in the country.

Former Department of Homeland Security attorney Spencer Reynolds told WIRED that the operation did not appear to be confined to Minnesota, suggesting that undercover investigations were running alongside the administration’s more visible immigration enforcement activities.

How the Operation Compares With Historical Surveillance

Retired FBI agent Mike German sees similarities between the Minnesota case and earlier federal efforts to monitor left-wing political movements.

He has compared the investigation with the CIA’s Operation MH/Chaos, which examined the anti-Vietnam War movement for possible foreign influence.

The scale of the Minnesota operation stands out. A book published in 2011 by former CIA officer Frank Rafalko states that MH/Chaos had 42 officers working on the investigation at its peak. Court records cited in the WIRED report indicate that 119 HSI agents worked on the Minnesota 15 case alone.

German argues that modern surveillance has a major advantage over earlier operations: access to enormous volumes of digital information.

Social media activity, encrypted communications, financial transactions and commercial databases can be combined to connect people and identify potential investigative targets. Critics warn that this approach can widen an investigation far beyond the individuals initially suspected of wrongdoing.

The historical comparison is especially contentious because COINTELPRO involved documented abuses, including infiltration and efforts to undermine civil rights and anti-war organizations.

The Minnesota case has not been established as legally equivalent to those earlier operations. Nevertheless, the similarities alleged by defense attorneys have renewed debate about the limits of domestic surveillance.

Constitutional Concerns Grow

At the centre of the dispute are fundamental questions about the First and Fourth Amendments.

The First Amendment protects political expression and peaceful assembly, while the Fourth Amendment limits unreasonable searches and seizures. Whether particular surveillance activities violated these protections depends on the legal authority used, the circumstances of the investigation and the evidence obtained.

Defense attorneys contend that the prosecution reflects an effort to criminalize organizing against the administration’s immigration policies. They also argue that the disclosed records point to potentially unconstitutional surveillance.

The records themselves do not establish that every investigative measure was unlawful. However, they raise significant questions about the use of undercover agents, financial intelligence tools and digital surveillance in a case involving political activism.

Attorney Kevin Riach, who represents one of the defendants, described the investigation as part of what he called a “new COINTELPRO.”

He argues that ICE’s visible enforcement operations and HSI’s intelligence-gathering activities represent two sides of the same strategy: one focused on immigration raids and arrests, and the other on investigating the networks opposing them.

A Test of the Limits of Federal Power

The Minnesota 15 prosecution has become a focal point in the debate over how far the federal government can go when investigating people involved in political movements.

The case raises questions about the use of national security investigative tools, the monitoring of encrypted communications, access to financial information and the protection of journalists covering government operations.

Its outcome could help clarify whether the methods used by investigators comply with constitutional requirements. It may also influence how courts assess surveillance programs that involve large networks of activists rather than narrowly identified criminal suspects.

For critics, the central concern is that techniques developed to investigate terrorism and organized crime could be redirected toward domestic dissent. For the government, the prosecution centres on allegations that activists crossed the line from monitoring federal agents into criminal conduct.

The legal proceedings will need to determine which claims are supported by evidence and whether the investigative methods were lawful.