Hotels in downtown Minneapolis and St. Paul have begun canceling booked rooms for ICE agents amid anti-ICE protests and threats, creating a fresh problem for federal law enforcement and raising hard questions about public safety, equal treatment, and local leadership’s response to civil unrest.
The situation in the Twin Cities has escalated into something more than local demonstrations; it now affects federal operations directly. Multiple reports indicate that at least two downtown hotels informed ICE personnel their reservations were being canceled and that properties would temporarily close. This is not a minor scheduling hiccup—it’s a disruption tied to public safety claims and pressure from activists in the area.
Fox News reporter Bill Melugin relayed that agents with reservations at downtown St. Paul hotels were notified their rooms were being canceled and hotels were closing “due to heightened public safety concerns in St. Paul.” That same report says hotels referred agents to other lodging while they closed. The cancellations and closures arrive amid ongoing unrest and targeted harassment that make staffing and guest safety legitimate concerns for hoteliers.
NEW: I’m told multiple ICE agents with rooms booked at the St. Paul Downtown Doubletree by Hilton received this notice today that their rooms are being cancelled & the hotel will temporarily close “due to heightened public safety concerns in St. Paul.”
I called the hotel & checked online & they are indeed not taking any bookings right now. They referred me to other hotels.
I’m told this also happened today at the Intercontinental St. Paul, with ICE agents with bookings there notified the hotel will be temporarily closing today due to the ongoing unrest in Minnesota. An agent who talked to the front desk manager there says he was told it was done to protect staff because they have been getting threats from unknown individuals for lodging DHS agents.
There is a clear difference between a hotel choosing temporary closure to safeguard employees and a closure that selectively affects government personnel. NewsNation’s Ali Bradley, cited in reporting, suggested that government employees were required to leave by a deadline while other guests were allowed to remain through their stays. If true, that raises serious fairness and legal questions about discrimination against federal workers performing lawful duties.
NEW: “Due to heightened public safety concerns in St. Paul, we have made the difficult decision to temporarily close our hotel…” Several hotels are now closing in the Twin Cities because of safety concerns—The Double Tree downtown St. Paul sliding this notification under the door of some guests.
I called the hotel and they are indeed closing today.
Sources tell me government employees had to leave by noon today, but other guests were allowed to stay through their reservation.
It is a franchised owned by SP Hotels—I have reached out to the company and Hilton as well. I have not heard back.
Hotel managers face real threats: staff have reportedly been targeted with intimidation for housing DHS or ICE personnel. Protecting employees is noncontroversial and necessary, but so is consistent application of policy. When a hotel treats federal agents differently from ordinary travelers, it sets a concerning precedent that political pressure or mob behavior can override neutral business standards and public safety obligations.
The episode echoes an earlier incident involving a Minneapolis-area hotel and a major brand franchise, where controversy over refusing DHS and ICE guests triggered corporate responses. That prior event already put hoteliers on notice that decisions to refuse government employees carry reputational and contractual consequences. Now, with cancellations and temporary closures spreading, the situation threatens to chill routine coordination between local institutions and federal law enforcement.
This is not purely administrative: it’s about law and order and the working relationship between cities and the federal government. When local environments become unsafe for federal agents to perform immigration enforcement, the result is fewer removals where warranted and less capacity to respond to cross-jurisdictional crime. Minneapolis residents deserve better than policies or practices that let mobs dictate public operations.
State and local officials bear responsibility, too. Choosing rhetoric that excuses or downplays violent intimidation helps fuel the problem. Leaders should be focused on restoring order, protecting residents and workers, and ensuring all lawful actors can operate without being singled out. Anything less risks normalizing threats as an effective political tactic.
Hotels, for their part, must balance employee safety with nondiscrimination and contractual obligations. If threats make temporary closure necessary, that should apply uniformly, and hotels should coordinate transparently with authorities. At the same time, corporate franchisors must be ready to enforce standards and support property managers who face pressure from outside agitators.
The takeaway is straightforward: chaos on city streets should not translate into ad hoc exclusions of federal agents who are carrying out lawful duties. Public safety demands even-handed enforcement and firm leadership. When hotels close or cancel bookings selectively because of who a guest works for, it undermines trust and gives an advantage to those who use intimidation to push political ends.
Add comment