As the federal government expands immigration detention and removal operations, Guantánamo Bay has reemerged as a site used for holding some immigration detainees. That broader policy came into sharper focus in Minnesota this week, where a Somali asylum seeker from St. Paul was confirmed to be in custody at the U.S. naval base in Cuba. The transfer places a local resident at the center of a national debate over how ICE is using offshore detention in immigration cases.
ICE confirms detention at Guantánamo in a case tied to Minnesota
Immigration authorities transferred Adam Abdullah, a Somali man who had been living in St. Paul, to Guantánamo Bay after arresting him in Minnesota, according to reporting published September 9 by Minnesota Public Radio. MPR reported that Abdullah came to the United States as an asylum seeker in 2023, received a work permit and Social Security number, and had been living legally in the Twin Cities area while his immigration case moved forward. The same report said he had no criminal record.
In a brief phone call described by MPR and later highlighted by Democracy Now!, Abdullah said he was told he would be placed on a deportation flight to Somalia but was instead flown in restraints to Guantánamo about two weeks earlier. Democracy Now! reported that he said he was being held in Camp Six, a detention unit at the naval base. MPR identified the case publicly on September 9, making that the first confirmed date the transfer became widely known.
The scale of confirmed detainees in this specific case remains limited. MPR’s report concerned one named Minnesota resident, while Abdullah said in his phone call that other Somali nationals were also being held there. Federal agencies have not publicly released a full detainee roster tied to this transfer.
What is confirmed in Minnesota is that Abdullah had been residing in St. Paul before his arrest and that his detention connects directly to federal immigration enforcement activity in the state, according to MPR. The report said he worked as an auto mechanic and had been checking in with immigration authorities while pursuing protection in the United States. That makes the case locally significant because it involves a resident with established ties to the Twin Cities rather than a newly arrived border detainee.
What is not yet known is whether other Minnesota residents have also been sent from ICE custody to Guantánamo in recent weeks. Neither ICE nor the Department of Homeland Security has publicly released a comprehensive list of Minnesota detainees transferred to the base. Public reporting available as of September 13 has centered on Abdullah’s case.
The case also lands in a state that has seen sharp scrutiny of federal immigration operations this year. Associated Press reporting in 2026 documented clashes, prosecutions and legal disputes tied to immigration crackdowns in Minnesota. Abdullah’s transfer does not by itself establish a broader Minnesota trend, but it does show that offshore detention is no longer only an abstract national policy issue for residents in the state.
The larger context is the federal government’s revived use of Guantánamo Bay for immigration detention. In a lawsuit filed February 12, 2025, the ACLU of the District of Columbia said the administration began sending immigration detainees to the naval base shortly after President Donald Trump’s inauguration and argued that detainees there were being held in a “legal black box” with limited access to counsel. The case remains open, according to the ACLU’s case page.
That lawsuit helps explain why Abdullah’s transfer is drawing attention beyond Minnesota. The central issue is not only where he is being held, but whether detainees sent there can communicate promptly and confidentially with attorneys and family members. The ACLU said the case challenges access to counsel, legal communications and the practical ability to seek habeas relief while detained offshore.
For Minnesota residents, the immediate takeaway is that one St. Paul asylum seeker is confirmed to be held at Guantánamo and that the government has not publicly provided a fuller accounting of how many others may be there from U.S. communities. The legal fight over the policy is continuing in federal court, and public information about detainee access and transfer procedures remains incomplete.