A new analysis from the Center of the American Experiment challenges a widely reported claim that ICE's Operation Metro Surge cost Minnesota 32,000 jobs, arguing that official employment data show the state actually added 33,600 jobs during the period in question. The report, published by the conservative Minnesota think tank, examines whether estimates from the Minnesota Budget Project hold up against Bureau of Labor Statistics figures. The analysis concludes that the job loss projection doesn't pass what it calls "the smell test" when compared to actual employment trends.
Between December 2025 and August 2026, Minnesota added 33,600 jobs and the Twin Cities metro area gained 24,300 positions, according to Bureau of Labor Statistics data cited in the report. The Minnesota Budget Project's estimate of 32,000 foregone jobs represents 95% of the total jobs actually created statewide during that span. If both figures were accurate, Minnesota would have added 65,600 jobs over the nine-month period — a total that would rank 10th out of 418 similar nine-month periods dating back to November 1991. The only comparable growth periods in that historical data occurred during the economic recovery from the Covid-19 pandemic between December 2020 and May 2022.
The report notes that the Minnesota Budget Project based its estimate on research linking ICE arrests to economic impacts, pointing to nearly 4,000 arrests in Minnesota during the surge period, with arrests peaking at 2,524 in January 2026 compared to an average of 185 monthly arrests in the first 11 months of 2025. According to the Center of the American Experiment, the Minnesota Budget Project's analysis claims "job creation in Minnesota since December 2025 has been about half what it would have been if Metro Surge hadn't happened."
The report argues that accepting the 32,000 job loss estimate would require believing Minnesota experienced extraordinarily strong underlying job growth that was cut in half by the ICE operation. The authors describe such an outcome as "unbelievably good" and suggest the projection reflects "one of those analyses which generate eye-catching numbers by comparing actual results to those of some supercharged doppelgänger." The report acknowledges that Minnesota has shown "impressive job growth relative to previous rates" since March 2026, calling it "something to be both celebrated and investigated," but maintains that doubling that already strong performance to account for the estimated losses strains credibility. The analysis questions whether economic modeling that produces such outlier projections should be reported without scrutiny.
The report concludes by posing a philosophical question about enforcement: should federal laws be applied only when they impose minimal economic costs? The authors express disappointment that estimates they view as implausible have been "repeated so credulously" by media outlets. The bottom line: Minnesota's actual job gains during the ICE surge period nearly matched the entire number of jobs the Budget Project claims were lost.