Undercover Federal Agents Infiltrated Anti-ICE Activist Groups in Minnesota, Records Show

Newly disclosed internal Department of Homeland Security records reveal that undercover federal agents posed as concerned community members to spy on residents and activists opposing ICE crackdowns in Minnesota (The Guardian). The records, filed in federal court and reviewed by reporters, were released as part of the Department of Justice's ongoing prosecution of 15 Minneapolis protesters accused of conspiring to impede ICE operations.

DHS designated its investigation into anti-ICE activity as 'Operation Puppet Master.' As part of the operation, DHS dispatched undercover agents to community meetings, infiltrated Signal chats, and obtained financial records of left-leaning non-profit organizations and labor unions (The Guardian; Minnesota Reformer). Investigators also secretly recorded conversations during the probe of anti-ICE protests in the Minneapolis metro area.

The surveillance escalated during widespread anti-ICE protests in Minneapolis following the killings of Renee Good and Alex Pretti in January. An FBI inquiry into Minneapolis activists, which preceded the broader DHS probe, was initiated after FBI Director Kash Patel said it followed a far-right influencer's post about anti-ICE Signal chats (The Guardian).

An undercover agent identified as agent 9843, working for Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) — the investigative arm of ICE — used the username 'peanutbutterjelly' in Signal chats with activists. In December 2025, agent 9843 was deployed to participate in virtual and in-person meetings. The agent kept records of Signal conversations, screenshotting chats about protest plans and offering to help with fundraising efforts and volunteer recruitment (The Guardian).

A February DHS report summarized that the objective of agent 9843 was to 'gather intelligence regarding any organized networks of conspirators – operating online and in person – who may be providing material support to violent opportunists and individuals engaged in impeding federal law enforcement' (The Guardian).

The undercover agent attended a virtual 'ICE watch' training on 3 December, during which community members discussed how to monitor ICE officers' activities and organizers urged participants to observe nonviolently and obey law enforcement commands. Four days later, the agent attended an in-person 'legal observer' training, reporting there were no signs of 'threats to public safety' (The Guardian).

Another undercover DHS agent photographed demonstrations and protest planning meetings. Subjects of those photographs included demonstrators in frog costumes, a poster mocking JD Vance with heavy eye makeup, and a protester writing an anti-ICE message in chalk. Additional DHS agents trailed a protester as he left his home, got coffee, and went to a church (The Guardian).

A nationwide alliance of churches said DHS's undercover operations at a Minnesota church earlier this year violated an order banning agents from the property (MPR News).

Civil rights groups and the protesters' attorneys argued the government was surveilling people without justification and is criminalizing lawful protest activity. In response to questions about previously released records in the case, a DHS spokesperson said HSI 'does not comment on the existence or status of specific on-going investigations, nor on investigative methods' (The Guardian).

The broader context here involves the intersection of federal counter-enforcement tactics and First Amendment protections. The deployment of HSI undercover assets to monitor groups explicitly urging nonviolent legal observation, and the cataloging of constitutionally protected satire and chalk messaging as intelligence, sets up a direct clash between the government's asserted investigative mandate and civil liberties boundaries. Furthermore, the alleged violation of a church protective order introduces potential statutory and administrative compliance failures for DHS, independent of the underlying prosecution's merits. The evidentiary weight of these surveillance methods, and whether they survived judicial scrutiny at the warrant stage, will be a central point of litigation as the DOJ's case proceeds.

Think of it this way: the First Amendment guarantees the right to assemble and speak freely, but courts have long debated where lawful protest ends and threats to public safety begin. What makes these records unusual is that the government's own surveillance reports described nonviolent activity — training sessions urging compliance with law enforcement, costumed demonstrations, chalk messages — yet classified all of it as intelligence worth gathering. Whether that gap between what agents observed and what they were authorized to investigate becomes a legal vulnerability for the prosecution is a question the courts will now have to weigh.