Hilton Hotels moved quickly to terminate its franchise agreement with an independently owned Hampton Inn in Minnesota after video footage showed the hotel continuing to deny rooms to DHS and ICE agents. The decision came despite the company’s public statements that its properties are intended to be “welcoming places for all.”
Tensions escalated Monday afternoon after the Department of Homeland Security released email communications from a Hampton Inn in Lakeville indicating that hotel staff had researched the identity of at least one law enforcement officer attempting to book a room and subsequently canceled the reservation upon learning the individual was involved in “immigration work.”
“We have noticed an influx of GOV reservations made today that have been for DHS, and we are not allowing any ICE or immigration agents to stay at our property. If you are with DHS or immigration, let us know as we will have to cancel your reservation,” a second email read.
“This is UNACCEPTABLE. Why is Hilton Hotels siding with murderers and rapists to deliberately undermine and impede DHS law enforcement from their mission to enforce our nation’s immigration laws?” a DHS X post demanded to know.
Not long after, the hotel conglomerate issued a statement shortly thereafter, indicating that the location in question is “independently owned and operated” and they would be investigating since Hilton properties “serve as welcoming places for all.”
Hilton moved quickly to distance itself from the controversy, but for many observers, corporate damage control fell short of accountability.
Political influencer Nick Sortor went to the Lakeville Hampton Inn with a camera and found that the hotel’s posture toward federal law enforcement had not changed.
In video posted to X, hotel staff pushed back when Sortor asked about room availability, only relenting once it became clear the rooms were intended for Department of Homeland Security personnel—underscoring concerns that the property was continuing to discriminate against federal agents despite public assurances to the contrary.
“We’re not accepting people from immigration, ICE agents, DHS, onto our property,” the clerk says. “It’s just per management, our ownership.”
Sortor refers to Hilton’s statement, but the front desk manager responds that he has just spoken with the owner, who clarified that the selective policy remains unchanged:
Just under two hours after the video was posted on X, Hilton released another statement announcing that they were severing ties with that specific hotel franchise. They accused the ownership of being dishonest about their efforts to rectify the policy.
“The independent hotel owner had assured us that they had fixed this problem and published a message confirming this. A recent video clearly raises concerns that they are not meeting our standards and values,” the statement reads. “As such, we are taking immediate action to remove this hotel from our systems.
“Hilton is – and has always been – a welcoming place for all. We are also engaging with all of our franchisees to reinforce the standards we hold them to across our system to help ensure this does not happen again,” it added:
As of now, the Hampton Inn in Lakeville still appears in search results on Hilton’s website, but attempting to open the hotel’s details page briefly launches a new window before it disappears. The same link functions normally for other Hilton properties, opening a standard booking page.
The move gives the appearance of a quiet damage-control effort rather than a clean break. With corporate brands increasingly sensitive to consumer backlash, Hilton appears eager to avoid a Bud Light–style public reckoning.
Whether the company has done enough—or acted quickly enough—to address the situation remains an open question.
