Federal Actions Impacting Cities

The State of Minnesota, City of Minneapolis, and City of St. Paul are suing the Department of Homeland Security to end Operation Metro Surge and any unlawful conduct of federal agents. The federal court denied Minnesota’s request for a temporary restraining order on Jan. 31, 2026. The case will proceed in federal court. There may be opportunities for cities to participate. 

• Email the League’s Research team for more information about this case.
• Access documents related to federal court cases in the Public Access to Court Records (PACER).

To assist in the lawsuit, the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office has created a form for reporting incidents or effects related to or caused by recent federal actions in Minnesota, including but not limited to:

• Violations of constitutional rights (racial profiling, excessive force, retaliation against protestors, observers, and media).
• Business closures.
• Reduced healthcare access.
• Reduced education access.
• Other issues impacting:
  • Public safety and civil liberties.
  • Federal funding cuts, federal grant terminations, terms and conditions tied to federal program participation, and other administrative actions by federal agencies.

Learn more about how to report incidents and access the federal action reporting form.

Access the Minnesota Attorney General’s Office litigation tracker for a list of all the cases involving the State of Minnesota. 

Federal officials operating in non-emergent situations appear to have the same rights of access to public spaces as other users. This would include traditional public spaces on city property. The law is unclear, however, as to the nature and scope of access for staging areas on public property for time established immigration enforcement activities. Recently, some cities have attempted to prevent or limit such use of city property by federal officials by adopting ordinances or executive orders defining the use of public spaces. Cities should work closely with their city attorney if attempting to limit the use of public property by federal agencies.

There is no clear timeline on how long the federal government will continue its increased presence in Minnesota. On Feb. 12, 2026, White House border czar Tom Homan announced the end of Operation Metro Surge. As a result, most of the 3,000 federal agents in Minnesota are expected to leave the state. A small group of agents and ICE leadership will stay in the state as the operation wraps up.

The Minnesota Attorney General has issued an opinion determining that Minnesota Statutes, section 629.30 and Minnesota Statutes, section 629.34 prohibit state and local law enforcement agencies from holding someone based on an immigration detainer if the person would otherwise be released from custody.

The U.S. Department of Justice has filed a lawsuit challenging the opinion of the Minnesota Attorney General.

Cities are encouraged to work with their city attorneys to understand the nature of immigration detainers and what rights those orders grant federal officials.

City leadership, in consultation with the city attorney, should provide guidance to city staff on how to respond to such requests.

Form I-9 is the Employment Eligibility Verification employers use to verify that an employee has the legal right to work in the United States. Federal officials have the legal authority to view these forms and cities should be prepared to respond to a request.

Staff responsible for human resources functions should ensure that a completed Form I-9 (Employment Verification) is on file for each individual on city payroll or receiving compensation in exchange for services and retained for the required period after an employee’s employment ends. 

What you can do today to ensure your city is in compliance:  

• Secure storage of Form I-9s. Ensure completed Form I-9s and corresponding documentation are stored in a secure file separate from personnel files to ensure the city can respond to Form I-9 inspections timely and accurately without sharing other private personnel data.
• Timely respond to Form I-9 inspections. Regardless of whether a city stores completed Form I-9s electronically or in paper format, it must be able to produce requested records to government inspectors within three business days of a request. These records may include Form I-9s and supporting documentation, which may include, but is not limited to, copies of the employer’s payroll records, lists of active and terminated employees, articles of incorporation, and business licenses.
  • Read more in the fact sheet about Form I-9 inspection from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
  • See the U.S. and Immigration Services website for additional information on proper storage and retention.

• Understand who may request inspection. Officers from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), Homeland Security Investigations within the Department of Homeland Security, the Immigrant and Employee Rights Section (IER) at the Department of Justice, and the federal Department of Labor may request to inspect Form I-9s. Immigration officials do not need a warrant or subpoena to conduct an I-9 audit, but use of these enforcement tools is not precluded. Instead, they issue a Notice of Inspection at least three days before the audit and may request that records be submitted or reviewed on-site. Read more in the fact sheet about Form I-9 inspection from U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.
• Follow record retention requirements. Federal regulations require employers to retain a Form I-9 for each employee for three years after the date of hire, or one year after employment ends, whichever is later. Read more about retaining Form I-9 from the U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement.  
• Consider conducting a self-audit. A helpful starting point for an employer’s internal audit is to compile a list of current and former employees to verify a completed Form I-9 is on file for each individual. The U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement provides guidance for conducting an internal Form I-9 audit, including procedures for correcting any discovered deficiencies. Read more about guidance for employers conducting internal employment eligibility verification Form I-9 audits (pdf).

City leaders, in consultation with your city attorney, should provide guidance to city staff on how to respond to requests from immigration officials in a manner that protects the rights of all parties.

Yes, law enforcement members of LMCIT’s PATROL — Peace officer Accredited TRaining OnLine program, can learn about immigration law and their responsibilities as an officer. This course was updated in April 2025. Read more about the PATROL program.

HSTFs are to be established by the U.S. Attorney General and Secretary of Homeland Security and include representation from other federal agencies with law enforcement officers, or agencies with the ability to provide logistics, intelligence, and operational support. In addition, HSTFs are to include representation from relevant state and local law enforcement agencies.

As stated in President Trump’s order (Protecting the American People Against Invasion), the objective of each HSTF is to “end the presence of criminal cartels, foreign gangs, and transnational criminal organizations throughout the United States, dismantle cross-border human smuggling and trafficking networks, end the scourge of human smuggling and trafficking, with a particular focus on such offenses involving children, and ensure the use of all available law enforcement tools to faithfully execute the immigration laws of the United States.”

While there is no statutory definition of a sanctuary city, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) maintains a list of sanctuary jurisdictions throughout the country. In determining a sanctuary jurisdiction, the DOJ looks at the following characteristics.

• Public declarations
• Laws, ordinances, executive directives
• Restrictions on information sharing
• Funding restrictions
• Non-cooperation with federal immigration enforcement
• Limits on ICE detainers
• Jail access restrictions
• Immigrant community affairs offices
• Federal benefit programs

No Minnesota cities were named in the DOJ list of sanctuary jurisdictions. However, the state of Minnesota was named as a sanctuary jurisdiction.

The DOJ’s list of sanctuary jurisdictions will be reviewed regularly to include additional jurisdictions and remove jurisdictions if necessary.

On Sept 29, 2025, the DOJ filed a lawsuit (pdf) against the State of Minnesota, the City of Minneapolis, the City of St. Paul, and Hennepin County over their sanctuary city policies.

The U.S. Department of Justice has not identified any Minnesota cities as sanctuary jurisdictions. However, the DOJ has filed a lawsuit (pdf) against the State of Minnesota, the City of St. Paul, the City of Minneapolis, and Hennepin County challenging what it claims are sanctuary policies.    

Congressional Research Service has published a Legal Sidebar “Sanctuary” Jurisdictions: Legal Overview, giving a more in depth analysis of the issue. 

On Jan. 16, 2026, in a Notice to Airmen (NOTAM), the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) issued a temporary flight restriction (TFR) creating no-fly zone near Department of Homeland Security (DHS) facilities and mobile assets. The TFR applies to the use of drones by cities.

The no-fly zone restriction classifies areas within 3,000 feet horizontally and up to 1,000 feet of altitude of federal DHS, Department of Defense, and Department of Energy facilities and mobile assets as “national defense airspace” and prohibits any flights in these spaces. Language in the NOTAM clarifies that this restriction applies to “vessels and ground vehicle convoys and their associated escorts.” This would appear to include DHS agents and their vehicles. The NOTAM states that the specific covered facilities and mobile assets for the agencies listed in the NOTAM “may” be available at the FAA website. It is unclear whether the website will provide active data or visualization on DHS mobile assets and ground convoys. Access the FAA webpage on unmanned aircraft system (UAS) data.

The NOTAM includes language allowing drone operators who need to indicate in the no fly zone for “overriding reasons of public interest or necessity (such as in direct support of … law enforcement, firefighting, search and rescue, or disaster response mission)” to coordinate in advance with their appropriate federal agency entity or by contacting the System Operations Support Center for real-time authorization at (202) 267-8276. The FAA also has an online waiver process for emergency situations.

The NOTAM states that the U.S. Government may pursue criminal charges or administrative action, including imposing civil penalties and revoking FAA certifications. The NOTAM also warns that any unmanned aircraft system (UAS) operator deemed to pose a credible safety or security threat to protected personnel or assets may be mitigated pursuant to law including the interception, seizure, or destruction of any drone.

Recent federal actions and messaging from the Trump Administration have raised the possibility of broad federal funding freezes to certain states and cities. If enacted, this may impact Minnesota beginning in February 2026.

Minnesota received an estimated $43 billion in federal funding during the 2024-2025 biennium. Proposed funding freezes and payment withholdings to the state of Minnesota and Minnesota cities include, but are not limited to, funds from following federal agencies and programs:

• U.S. Department of Agriculture, excluding the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) and National School Lunch Program.
• The Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services, including 14 Medicaid programs.
• U.S. Department of Health and Human Services, including the Child Care and Development Block Grant, Temporary Assistance for Needy Families, Social Services Block Grant, and others.

State agencies in Minnesota are already appealing to the federal government to reverse any proposed freezes. We also expect litigation on the topic should funding freezes be implemented. Courts have previously rejected the Executive Branch’s ability to freeze funding in states and cities based on certain policies.

In addition, on Feb. 25, 2026, the Minnesota Attorney General joined a group of state attorneys general in filing a lawsuit against the U.S. Department of Homeland Security and the Federal Emergency Management Agency for ending Targeted Violence and Terrorism Prevention grants.   

There is no definitive list of grants or programs that have been eliminated due to executive orders. However, several lawsuits have been filed challenging specific programs including:

• Department of Health and Human Services eliminating more than $11 billion to local governments (pdf) to address the effects of the pandemic as well as COVID-related grant programs. Harris County et al v. Kennedy Jr. et al.
• AmeriCorp grants. San Franscisco Unified School District v. AmeriCorps.
• Inflation Reduction Act and Infrastructure Investment and Jobs Act. The Sustainability Institute v. Trump.

The funding pause may cause delays or cancellations of projects and may result in economic uncertainty, and impact both future and local projects already underway. Cities should carefully review their grant agreements for payment obligations. Cities that havenʼt signed grant agreements should reach out to the relevant agencies and expect that responses will vary by program. For new contracts that are contingent upon the cityʼs receipt of anticipated federal funding, cities should consider including a provision that if such funding is not received, is reduced, or is otherwise unavailable because of any action or decision made by an agency providing funding the city may, upon written notice to the other party, suspend performance of or terminate the contract, in whole or in part, without liability or penalty.

Legal challenges both for project delays and the broader constitutional implications should be expected. And finally, cities should inform their agency contacts about any disruptions, and document the related costs or losses (and share this with LMC and your members of Congress).

Through a memo released by the Secretary of the U.S. Department of Transportation (DOT), DOT staff is directed to identify and eliminate all orders, directives, rules, regulations, notices, guidance documents, funding agreements, programs and policy statements, or portion thereof, adopted during President Biden’s term which reference or relate in any way to climate change, “greenhouse gas” emissions, racial equity, gender identity, “diversity, equity, and inclusion” goals, environmental justice, or the Justice 40 Initiative. It is unclear what, if any, affect this memo will have on ongoing funding agreements with DOT. 

In addition, the DOT Secretary issued an order to ensure that all DOT grants, loans, contracts and DOT-supported or assisted state contracts meet specific requirements.  Among other requirements, the DOT Secretary’s order provides that DOT programs, including grants, loan and contracts, shall not be used to “further local political objectives or for projects and goals that are purely local in nature and unrelated to a proper Federal interest.”

The order provides that DOT programs, including loans, grants, and contracts shall prioritize projects and goals that:

• Utilize user-pay models.
• Direct funding to local opportunity zones.
• To the extent practicable, mitigate the unique impacts of DOT activities on families and family-specific difficulties, such as the accessibility of transportation to families with young children and give preference to communities with marriage and birth rates higher than the national average.
• Prohibit recipients of DOT funds from imposing vaccine and mask mandates.
• Require local compliance or cooperation with federal immigration enforcement and with other presidential goals.

Until further guidance is given by DOT, it remains unclear how these changes will affect existing city projects. 

It is common for cities to receive funds from state programs which are funded by the federal government. Cities should check with the state to determine if any of these programs are affected.

The executive order, Council to Assess the Federal Emergency Management Agency, does not require any immediate changes to FEMA responses. The order creates a “FEMA Review Council” charged with assessing and enhancing FEMA’s effectiveness. The review council is to provide an assessment of the adequacy of FEMA’s response to disasters during the previous four years, and compare FEMA’s responses with other state, local, and private sector responses. It is not yet known if any of the council’s recommendations will affect cities. However, the State of New York has filed a lawsuit challenging the federal government’s actions freezing certain FEMA funds.

A recent memo issued by FEMA recommends restricting FEMA funds to sanctuary cities (pdf). However, the limits are not to apply to disaster grants.

Cities should carefully review any grant conditions from the federal government to ensure they are able to meet them. Federal agencies have recently modified their grant conditions to include new terms. 

For example, the Department of Homeland Security’s Standard Terms and Conditions for financial assistance now include requirements that recipients must assist immigration officials and refrain from operating any programs that advance or promote DEI. Similar requirements have been found in grants from the Federal Aviation Administration, Housing and Urban Development, and Department of Transportation.

Yes. Online portals for reimbursement of existing federal grant awards have sometimes been unavailable when users attempt to access them. There is generally no warning of this unavailability or notice when the portal will reopen. Minnesota Management and Budget (MMB) suggests that cities regularly check the portals and submit reimbursement requests as soon as eligible.

Yes, Minnesota Management and Budget (MMB) is tracking when the state receives notification that there is a temporary disruption or a permanent cancellation of funds the state was expecting. MMB updates this resource weekdays around 4 p.m. View the MMB federal funding disruptions tracker. 

On Oct. 3, 2025, a USDOT interim final rule took affect removing the use of race- and sex-based presumption of social and economic disadvantage for establishing DBE eligibility.  MnDOT is working on guidance to address the change. Until more guidance is available, State Aid is recommending that bid dates for Federal Aid Projects with a DBE goal of greater than 0% be delayed until Oct. 20, 2025, or later. Cities should work with their city attorney for current projects receiving funding based on DBE programs.  

LMC continues to determine the long-term effects of the new spending bill but programs administered by the Department of Agriculture, Food and Drug Administration, and the Department of Veterans Affairs should continue, at least, through the end of the fiscal year. Most notably, the federal Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) should continue as it is administered by the Department of Agriculture. With the February 2026 deal, all government programs are funded, except the Department of Homeland Security, until September of 2026.  

Impacts of interest include: 

Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA): 

• A significant portion of staff is expected to be furloughed, disrupting disaster response coordination and delaying aid payments. 

• FEMA reports its disaster relief fund now stands at $9.6 billion, down sharply from the $30 billion it told Congress was available earlier in February. 

• The agency no longer has access to $22.5 billion in temporary funding after a short-term spending measure expired. 

Transportation Security Administration (TSA): 

• About 95% of employees are working without pay, increasing the risk of absenteeism, longer airport security lines, and potential flight delays. 

Cybersecurity and Infrastructure Security Agency (CISA): 

• Only critical threat-response operations would continue. Most long-term planning, training, and cyber prevention efforts will pause, and more than half of the workforce is expected to be furloughed. 

In an article from the National League of Cities, it is recommended that city leaders begin by asking three critical questions: 

1. How much federal funding supports your programs and projects, both directly and indirectly through the state? 
2. How many federal employees, including military personnel, live in your community, and could face paycheck disruptions?  
3. How many of your residents receive federal support for nutrition, housing, heating, or other essential services that will be impacted by the lack of federal funding? Can your city and community partners support those residents? 

By working to answer these questions, city leaders can identify priority budget areas, anticipate potential service gaps, and make informed operational decisions to support their residents. 

While it is difficult to determine how many federal employees live and work within a given city, Congressional Research Service has issued a report Current Federal Civilian Employment by State and Congressional District (pdf), which gives a rough idea of the number of federal employees in the state. The report does not include figures for uniformed military personnel or federal contractors. 

City officials are urged to contact their federal representatives and ask them to end the shutdown. The National League of Cities (NLC) has created a tool that allows city officials to easily contact their federal representatives with a template letter. 

The executive order does not require cities to discontinue current DEI programs. However, on July 30, 2025, the U.S. Department of Justice (DOJ) released Guidance for Recipients of Federal Funding Regarding Unlawful Discrimination. The guidance outlines areas of DEI programs the DOJ considers unlawful discrimination. Cities should review this new guidance with their city attorney to determine whether changes to DEI programs should be made. 

In addition, the DOJ has opened an investigation to determine whether the State of Minnesota, including the Minnesota Department of Human Services has engaged in discrimination through its DEI policies. It is not yet known whether this investigation will affect cities.

On Dec. 9, 2025, the DOJ filed a lawsuit against Minneapolis Public Schools over a collective bargaining agreement that sought to increase BIPOC (Black, Indigenous, and people of color) staffing.  

The League does not track this data.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) has provided guidance titled What You Should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination at Work. City staff, in consultation with the city attorney, should review this guidance and determine if changes need to be made to any DEI policies or programs.

In addition, on March 26, 2026, President Trump issued an executive order titled Addressing DEI Discrimination by Federal Contractors. The order provides that a federal contractor shall not engage in any racially discriminatory DEI activities. It defines “racially discriminatory DEI activities” as disparate treatment based on race or ethnicity in the recruitment, employment (e.g., hiring, promotions), contracting (e.g. vendor agreements), program participation, or allocation or deployment of an entity’s resources. While, the order only applies to federal contractors, the definition may be useful for cities in determining programs the federal government deems as a violation of the Civil Rights Act.   

There is no prohibition on mandatory DEI training. However, the U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission’s (EEOC) guidance, What You Should Know About DEI-Related Discrimination at Work, states that DEI training might create a hostile work environment. Whether a particular training is deemed a violation of Title VII will depend on the content of the training.

The U.S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) sent letters to several law firms asking for information on such employee groups such as “Asian Pacific Islander Resource Group” and “Black Business Professionals Affinity Group.” If a city sponsors or facilitates these types of groups, it is advisable to ensure that participation is optional and open to others regardless of protected characteristics. Read more about the letters the EEOC sent to the law firms.

On March 1, 2025, President Trump issued Executive Order 14224 Designating English as the Official Language of the United States. On July 14, 2025, the Attorney General issued a memorandum for all federal agencies with guidance on implementing Executive Order 14224. The guidance only applies to federal agencies and does not affect city services.

The General Service Administration is seeking comment on a proposed change to the general certifications and representations required to obtain federal funds.  The new terms note that DEI programs must comply with federal law and not discriminate on the basis of race or color.  The proposed terms provide the following practices may be deemed to violate Federal law: 

• Granting preferential treatment based on race or color, such as race-based scholarships or programs, preferential hiring or promotion practices, or access to facilities or resources based on race or ethnicity, including through the use of “cultural competence” requirements, “overcoming obstacles” narratives, or “diversity statements;”  

• Segregation based on race or color, such as race-based training sessions, segregation in facilities or resources, or implicit segregation through program eligibility; 

• Other unlawful use of race or color as criteria, such as race-based “diverse slate” policies in hiring, race-based selection for contracts, or race-based program participation or resource allocation;  

• Training programs that stereotype, exclude, or single out individuals based on protected characteristics or create a hostile environment; or  

• Retaliation by taking adverse actions against employees, participants, or beneficiaries because they engage in protected activities related to opposing DEI practices they reasonably believe violate federal antidiscrimination laws. Protected activities include raising concerns or filing complaints about, or objecting to or refusing to participate in, discriminatory programs, trainings, or policies. 

If adopted, cities will need to review their current programs with their city attorney to determine if changes are needed to receive federal funds.  

Generally, the executive orders do not apply to local policies. However, cities should review any federal grants and assistance they receive to determine if local policies and procedures will jeopardize those funds. It is always important to work with your city attorney if review or revision to an individual city’s policies or procedures is being contemplated.

In addition, in the Executive Order, Strengthening and Unleashing America’s Law Enforcement to Pursue Criminals and Protect Innocent Citizens, President Trump directs the Attorney General to prioritize prosecution of local officials who:

• Direct the obstruction of criminal law, including “prohibiting law enforcement officers from carrying out duties necessary for public safety,” and
• Engage in discrimination or civil-rights violations “under the guise of ‘diversity, equity, and inclusion’ initiatives that restrict law enforcement activity ….”

It is unclear what types of programs or policies the administration will be reviewing pursuant to this order.

The Federal Student Aid Office is reviewing the recent executive orders regarding the PSLF. Currently, there are no changes to PSLF.

Yes, read the League resource on communicating about difficult or controversial issues.

It is possible that suppliers will attempt to raise prices of goods due to tariffs issued by the Trump Administration. Whether these costs can be passed through to a city will depend on the terms of the existing contract. Cities should review current contracts to determine if suppliers are allowed to charge a city more for goods affected by the tariffs.

On Feb. 26, 2026, the Supreme Court ruled that many tariffs imposed by the Executive Branch were outside its authority and therefore improper. Following the court’s ruling, the president imposed additional tariffs pursuant a different legal authority.  The Minnesota Attorney General, along with 24 other states, has filed another lawsuit to block the new tariffs.    

View the White House webpage for more information about the executive actions.

This is a complex and rapidly evolving situation. There are still many uncertainties, and we are working diligently to gather more information. While we are striving to stay nimble and responsive to your needs, we want to ensure that neither we nor you take premature actions before having the clarity and context required to make informed decisions. We also encourage you to work closely with your city attorney as your city develops plans related to executive orders and other federal actions.

In addition to funding limitations, the USDOJ announced the creation of the Enforcement and Affirmative Litigation Branch. The Affirmative Litigation Section will represent the United States by filing lawsuits against states, municipalities, and private entities that interfere with or obstruct federal policies. 

If you have questions related to these FAQs or the federal executive orders in general, contact the League’s Research Department at [email protected].