Recent reporting describes President Donald Trump using harsh language about Somali immigrants and highlights a planned federal immigration enforcement operation in Minnesota that, according to an unnamed source, would “primarily focus” on Somali immigrants living unlawfully in the United States. Those stories are already being shared widely across the country, including in Minnesota’s Somali community and far beyond. At the Appalachian Post, our goal is not to tell readers what to think about those developments, but to separate what is fully documented in first-hand sources from what is reported through unnamed intermediaries or interpretation. This report focuses on the actual record: what the President has said in his own words, what policy documents say, what is, and is not, confirmed about the Minnesota operation, and how those pieces fit together: we will not speculate, we will not accuse, we will simply lay the first-hand record beside the reported claims so readers can see, for themselves, where the evidence is clear and where it is not.
The Associated Press reports that in recent remarks, President Trump used contemptuous language about Somali immigrants in Minnesota, describing them in terms that Somali Americans and local leaders have publicly condemned. That reporting says these comments “shocked” the large Somali community in the Minneapolis–St. Paul area and notes that Minnesota is home to the largest Somali population in the United States, often cited around 80,000 people. In a related piece, AP reports that federal authorities are preparing a targeted immigration enforcement operation in Minnesota that would “primarily focus on Somali immigrants living unlawfully in the U.S.,” concentrating on people with final deportation orders in the Twin Cities. That description of the operation is attributed to “a person familiar with the planning,” not to a public statement by THE U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS) or U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (ICE). In other words: the existence, timing, and focus of the Minnesota operation, as described in those reports, are based on anonymous sourcing, not on a public directive or written order that has been released by DHS or ICE at this time. That does not mean the reports are false; it does mean they are not yet supported by first-hand government documentation that the public can read directly.
Alongside those reports, there is a broader first-hand record of how President Trump describes his immigration views in official remarks and documents. For several years, both in his first term and now in his second, he has repeatedly framed his position as welcoming legal immigration while demanding strict enforcement against illegal entry and unlawful presence. For example, in past remarks before departing the White House, the official transcript from THE WHITE HOUSE records him saying: “I do agree that family members should be allowed in, but they have to come in legally. I want a lot of people to come in… and we want people to come into our country. That’s what people don’t understand about me. But they have to come in on a merit basis.” In another press availability, the official transcript from THE WHITE HOUSE shows: “We want people to come into our country, but they have to come into our country legally… we need people in our country, but they have to come in legally, and they have to have merit.” In a 2019 speech in Pennsylvania, archived remarks from THE WHITE HOUSE record him repeating the same theme: “We want people to come into our country. They have to come in legally and we want them to come in through merit.” And more recently, during his February 26, 2025 Cabinet meeting, the archived remarks from THE WHITE HOUSE show him saying: “We set records for, and we want people to come into our country, by the way, but if they want to come in, they have to come in legally.”
These statements do not speak to every policy decision, but they do establish a consistent public message: the administration claims to welcome immigration in principle, while insisting that it be lawful and, in many cases, merit-based. That same framing appears in formal policy documents. On January 20, 2025, President Trump signed Executive Order 14159, titled “Protecting the American People Against Invasion.” The text of that order, published by THE WHITE HOUSE, sets out the overarching immigration enforcement policy for the current term. It states: “It is the policy of the United States to faithfully execute the immigration laws against all inadmissible and removable aliens, particularly those aliens who threaten the safety or security of the American people.” The order further directs federal agencies to revoke prior guidance that narrowed enforcement and to “employ all lawful means to ensure the faithful execution of the immigration laws of the United States against all inadmissible and removable aliens.” In plain language: the administration’s formal written policy describes enforcement against status categories, “inadmissible and removable aliens,” with special emphasis on those considered security threats, not against a particular nationality or ethnicity by name. That is what can be seen in the text itself.
At the same time, there is also a first-hand record of decisions and promises that specifically affect people from Somalia in ways that go beyond general “status-only” language. In late November 2025, AP reports citing on-the-record remarks attributed directly to the President saying he is “immediately” ending temporary legal protections for Somali migrants living in Minnesota. Those protections relate to a legal designation often referred to as Temporary Protected Status or a similar humanitarian shield, which can allow people from crisis-affected countries to live and work in the United States lawfully for a period of time. According to that report, Trump said he would terminate those protections, directly affecting Somali migrants who are currently in the United States under that legal category in Minnesota. Separately, Reuters has reported that the administration has halted processing of immigration applications, including green cards and naturalization, for individuals from 19 non-European countries, including Somalia, citing national security and public safety concerns. That pause reportedly affects legal pathways as well, not only undocumented entry. Taken together, those actions show that while the formal policy language in EXECUTIVE ORDER 14159 refers broadly to “inadmissible and removable aliens,” the administration has also taken steps that have concrete, disproportionate impact on people from Somalia and a set of other countries, including those with legal or semi-legal status.
This brings us back to the planned Minnesota operation described in AP and other stories. The AP report on the enforcement operation says that federal authorities are preparing a “targeted immigration enforcement operation in Minnesota” that would “primarily focus on Somali immigrants living unlawfully in the U.S.,” especially those with final deportation orders. That description, however, is attributed to “a person familiar with the planning,” not to DHS or ICE in a public statement. Other outlets repeat the same basic description and source it the same way, and in some cases reference a U.S. official who confirmed that federal resources are being directed toward enforcing final deportation orders in the Minneapolis–St. Paul region. Even so, no publicly released operational directive, field memo, or written order from DHS or ICE is available for the public to examine. In the public-facing documents we do have, such as EXECUTIVE ORDER 14159, official transcripts, and related enforcement guidance, what appears consistently is language about enforcing immigration laws against all inadmissible and removable non-citizens, with particular emphasis on those considered safety or security threats. There is no publicly released document at this point declaring that “Somalis as an ethnic or national group” are the official, named target of a specific federal operation in Minnesota.
For readers trying to sort through all this without being pulled by fear or outrage alone, the key is to ask whether a claim is coming from a named, official source such as THE WHITE HOUSE, DHS, ICE, or THE DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE, or from an anonymous “person familiar with the planning.” It also matters whether a development is documented in a formal policy that affects all individuals in a status category, or whether it appears as a targeted decision that disproportionately affects a particular community. And finally, it matters whether the information is a direct quote from an official transcript or document, or a characterization or prediction about what may occur next. In the current situation, all four layers are present at once: harsh rhetoric, broad enforcement policy, nationality-specific decisions, and anonymous descriptions of a pending operation. That combination can easily lead to confusion and fear when only part of the picture is presented.
Our role at the Appalachian Post is to put the entire first-hand record on the table and let readers see clearly what the administration itself has written and said, what it has actually done to date, and what is still in the realm of anticipated or anonymously described future actions. We cannot tell communities how to feel about that record, but we can make sure that when people respond, whether in support or opposition, they respond to what is documented, not to headlines that blur the line between confirmed facts and unconfirmed plans. We are not taking a side or accusing anyone or any organization of any malice or wrongdoing, but what we do here is use documented first-hand sources as 100% straight from the horse’s mouth evidence and we try to separate that from things that cannot be confirmed or remain to be seen. We felt it important to go in depth and educate on this matter, as much as possible, because bold claims require the most crucial and careful analysis, and you, our readers, deserve that kind of analysis.
The Appalachian Post is an independent West Virginia news outlet dedicated to clean, verified, first-hand reporting. We do not publish rumors. We do not run speculation. Every fact we present must be supported by original documentation, official statements, or direct evidence. When secondary sources are used, we clearly identify them and never treat them as first-hand confirmation. We avoid loaded language, emotional framing, or accusatory wording, and we do not attack individuals, organizations, or other news outlets. Our role is to report only what can be verified through first-hand sources and allow readers to form their own interpretations. If we cannot confirm a claim using original evidence, we state clearly that we reviewed first-hand sources and could not find documentation confirming it. Our commitment is simple: honest reporting, transparent sourcing, and zero speculation.
Sources
THE WHITE HOUSE
U.S. DEPARTMENT OF HOMELAND SECURITY (DHS)
U.S. IMMIGRATION AND CUSTOMS ENFORCEMENT (ICE)
Secondary attribution-based sources
Associated Press
Reuters
PBS News
CBS News
Appalachian Post 
Leave a comment