Minneapolis man charged with with anti-ICE threats
Author: Sarah Nelson and Louis Krauss
Nelson, S and Louis Krauss. Minneapolis Star Tribune. (2026, February 5). Feds charge Minneapolis man with threats after early morning raid. https://www.startribune.com/kyle-wagner-charged-antifa-ice-threats/601577296
0 General Document comments
0 Sentence and Paragraph comments
0 Image and Video comments
Minneapolis man charged with with anti-ICE threats
www.startribune.com/kyle-wagner-charged-antifa-ice-threats/601577296
February 5, 2026
A Minneapolis anti-ICE activist has been arrested on charges that he cyberstalked and threatened federal agents on his social media accounts, according to the Justice Department.
- In U.S. law, “cyberstalking” usually means using electronic tools (social media, email, texts, DMs, etc.) to repeatedly target a specific person with threats, harassment, or surveillance that would reasonably make them feel unsafe (U.S. Department of Justice, Cyberstalking, n.d.).
- The person doesn’t have to post home addresses or live locations for it to count; direct or implied threats, doxxing, or constant targeted harassment can all fit under federal and state cyberstalking laws (U.S. Department of Justice, Cyberstalking, n.d.).
- News articles often summarize the charge with a broad label like “cyberstalking,” but the detailed conduct—what was actually posted, whether locations were shared, what exact threats were made—shows up later in the affidavit, complaint, or indictment, not always in early press coverage (U.S. Attorneys’ Offices, Press Releases, n.d.).
- Your reaction—that the term feels scary and vague when the specific behavior isn’t spelled out—is a reasonable media-literacy move: it’s fair to withhold trust until you can see the actual charging documents and evidence the label is based on.
If you had the complaint or indictment in front of you, what one or two concrete details about Wagner’s online behavior would you most want to look for to decide whether the “cyberstalking” charge feels justified—and do you want to click Continue with AI to think that through here, or go to Create Document to paste in an article and start annotating or writing your own response there?
Kyle Wagner, 37, was charged in U.S. District Court in Eastern Michigan after investigators allege his Facebook and Instagram posts showed a progression of “escalating threats” toward law enforcement amid the federal immigration agent deployment to Minnesota in the past month.
According to the criminal complaint, Homeland Security investigators reviewed several videos posted to Wagner’s Facebook and Instagram accounts that they allege showed an effort to mobilize others “to take direct action against federal officers.”
On Jan. 8, the complaint said Wagner posted a video on his Instagram directly threatening Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents, saying “we’re [expletive] coming for you.” The following day, investigators in the complaint said he published a Facebook post with instructions to follow ICE agents and their vehicles, including directions to “hunt ice — vehicles can be sacrificed — disable their vehicles surround them and disarm them — arm yourself and work in crowds.” He continued that “ICE needs to be locked down and disarmed and detained until a national Investigation is conducted.”
- You’re noticing the intensity of his language and also separating that from whether it legally counts as a “true threat,” which is a smart distinction to make.
- In First Amendment law, courts often ask if a reasonable person would see the words as a serious expression of intent to commit violence, not just anger or exaggeration (see (Legal Information Institute, “True threat,” n.d.)).
- You’re also weighing his anger against the larger violence he’s responding to, which brings in context and power, not just the words on the screen.
- One choice you’re making is to emphasize his “right to express these things” more than the possible fear or danger ICE agents might feel—do you want to keep that balance, or tilt a bit more toward the risk his words could create?
If you read back over what you just wrote, what’s one sentence or phrase you’d add or adjust right now to show more clearly how you think courts (or the public) should handle posts like this—and do you want to click Continue with AI to work that out here, or go to Create Document to build a longer response of your own?
Investigators referred to one of Wagner’s videos posted following the fatal Jan. 24 shooting of Alex Pretti as an act of “violent resistance” against ICE. The complaint said Wagner identifies himself in the video as antifa, short for anti-fascist, to “go and [expletive] fight them.”
- You’re noticing that the article shows Wagner as really upset and maybe you’re wondering if that anger makes sense given a fatal shooting and ICE’s role.
- One thing to ask yourself is: what do you already know or feel about ICE, police violence, and antifa, and how is that shaping how you read the word “angry” here?
- You might also look at what facts the article actually gives you (what happened, who was harmed, who had power) versus what it just suggests with phrases like “violent resistance” or by pointing out he called himself antifa.
- It can help to separate two questions: whether someone’s feelings (like anger) are understandable, and whether what they chose to do with that anger feels justified to you.
If you pause right now, what’s one sentence you could write about whether Wagner’s anger feels understandable to you—and why—and then either click Continue with AI to explore your thinking more, or go to Create Document to start drafting or upload a source you want to read and annotate?
The Justice Department also accused Wagner of publishing the phone number and address of a person in Michigan described as a “pro-ICE supporter,” as well as the address of their parents’ home on his Instagram account.
- Your questions are tracking the ethical stakes here: posting someone’s phone and two home addresses is a serious move because it opens that person up to harassment or worse, even if he never says “go hurt them.”
- One way to read his thinking is: he sees this person as part of the same system as ICE (a “pro‑ICE supporter”), so doxxing them fits into the pattern of targeting not just agents but anyone he thinks is aligned with ICE.
- That connection helps you answer your own question: the doxxing isn’t random; it extends his earlier threats against ICE agents to civilians who, in his mind, support ICE’s power and actions.
- You’re also circling an important legal question: even if he felt like he was just “calling someone out,” the act of publishing addresses and phone numbers can be interpreted as a form of intimidation or implied threat, especially in a context where he has already made violent statements about ICE.
If you had to write 2–3 sentences right now that answer your own last question—how this doxxing connects to his threats against ICE agents—what would you say in your own words? You can either click Continue with AI to talk it through with me more, or go to Create Document to start building this into a paragraph.
“Wagner’s alleged actions were an attempt to spread fire into our peaceful community. That is not going to happen,” U.S. Attorney Jerome Gorgon Jr. for the Eastern District of Michigan said in a prepared statement.
Scene of the raid
Word of a federal raid on Franklin, as well as videos spread on social media as images of masked agents marching past shattered glass were shared, prompting critics to question whether immigration officials were truly drawing down forces or tempering their tactics, as border czar Tom Homan said the day before.
- You just made a sharp, clear claim about the raid as a show of force, not just a routine action.
- The phrase you used points to purpose and audience: it hints that officials wanted the public (and critics) to feel that power, even after talking about “drawing down.”
- You might ask yourself: whose power is being performed here, and who is supposed to “get the message” from this move?
- If you keep going with this idea, you could trace how the social media images (masked agents, shattered glass) support your point that the raid works like a message more than just an operation.
If you read back over the sentence and your comment, what’s one more line you could write right now that explains what “We’re still here” means for the people being targeted or for the people watching—click Continue with AI to draft that line with support, OR go to Create Document to upload a source to read and annotate or to start writing your own response.
“Less than 24 hours ago, Tom Homan announced the end of large convoys in Minnesota,” Minneapolis City Council Member Aisha Chughtai posted from the scene.
Homan had also said agents would focus more on targeting known suspects.
Jose Piedra, a worker tasked with cleaning up the broken glass outside the apartment building, was finishing putting up plywood where agents had broken a glass panel to gain entry Thursday morning.
Upon entering the single-bedroom apartment to clean the inside, Piedra said he saw a copy of a search warrant.
He noticed that agents had taken electronic devices from the apartment including a TV that was hanging on the wall above a stereo.
“They opened everything,” Piedra said. “They were looking for something.”
Ellen, a resident of the building who did not give her last name out of fear of retribution, said she slept through the arrest but heard from neighbors that at least four federal squad cars showed up and about 15 agents armed with rifles raided the building.
- The detail about “at least four federal squad cars” and “about 15 agents armed with rifles” really shapes the meaning of that sentence: it paints the arrest as a small military-style operation, not a routine pickup.
- Writers and officials know that numbers like “15 agents with rifles” will sound big and dramatic to readers, so including that fact can definitely feel like a message: we are powerful, and we are willing to use that power in public view.
- Whether that was the intended message or not, the effect on many readers (and on you) is to raise questions about proportionality—why so many weapons for one building, and what does that say about how the state views protesters or residents in that area?
- Those questions you’re asking—about “show of power” or “warning to protesters”—are really about how policing and protest are framed in the media: is this framed as keeping order, or as intimidating people who dissent?
If you were going to write 2–3 sentences of your own reaction right after reading that line—almost like a quick note to your future self—what would you say, and do you want to click Continue with AI to explore that thinking more here or go to Create Document to start your own piece about policing and power?
The detainee, whom she only knew as Kyle, presented himself on social media as a member of antifa.
“He’s been a pretty vocal person on Instagram,” Ellen said.
She got a text just before 6 a.m. of the agents storming the apartment building. Ellen added that she felt bad for the man’s dog who was inside when the arrest took place, and that she felt the number of agents and their weaponry was unnecessary.
“I mean, come on, like, rifles? That’s crazy,” she said.
about the writers
Sarah Nelson
Reporter
Sarah Nelson is a reporter for the Minnesota Star Tribune.
General Document Comments 0
on the uploaded document.
0 archived comments