What We Know About Minneapolis Incinerator Activist Surveillance

Newly released emails show Hennepin County officials in Minneapolis collected information on environmental justice activists who are campaigning to close a waste incinerator, according to a report published by activist groups and reviewed by The Guardian. The groups say county staff shared some of that information with the company that owns the facility.

Here is what is known so far, based on emails obtained through a public records request and reporting from The Guardian.

What do the newly released emails show?

The emails, obtained by the Zero Burn Coalition and the Minnesota Environmental Justice Table (MNEJT) through a Freedom of Information Act request, show county officials collecting intelligence on activists and sharing it internally among top county environmental staff, the Guardian reported. In some instances, that information was passed along to industry, including the company that owns the incinerator, according to the emails cited in the groups' report.

What is HERC, and why do activists want it closed?

The facility at the center of the dispute is the trash incinerator known as HERC, which burns waste and emits pollution into low-income neighborhoods nearby, according to the Guardian and a protest sign pictured in its report reading "Shut down HERC." Activists have argued the plant is outdated and should have been shut down years ago.

Minneapolis organizer Audua Pugh, who says she was among those surveilled, pressed county leaders on the issue at a board meeting this week. "Why are public resources and county staff time being directed toward monitoring community members who are simply organizing to shut down an aging, outdated trash burner that should have been closed nearly a decade ago?" Pugh asked, according to the Guardian.

How did county employees try to collect information on activists?

The emails describe several tactics, the Guardian reported. County officials allegedly sent an employee who is also an environmental justice activist to gather intelligence on organizing efforts. The county also allegedly directed other employees to build relationships with activist groups for the purpose of collecting information, and compiled reports and dossiers on local environmental justice leaders, according to the emails cited in the report.

In a separate episode, a recording shows a county employee presenting himself as an ally while allegedly trying to learn the identity of a whistleblower, the Guardian reported.

What happened to the state legislation the activists supported?

According to the emails, information gathered through these efforts helped county and industry officials successfully block state-level environmental legislation that was opposed by the incinerator's leadership. The same information was also used to anticipate and respond to activist campaigns and planned protests, the report alleges.

Who obtained the emails, and what has the county said?

The Zero Burn Coalition and MNEJT obtained the records and published a selection of the emails in a report supporting their allegations, the Guardian reported. Hennepin County, through a spokesperson, provided a statement to the Guardian addressing the allegations. The county has not detailed point by point how it disputes or confirms each specific claim in the emails.

Timeline of events

• Activist groups file a public records request with Hennepin County seeking internal communications related to the incinerator.
• County staff produce emails in response, which the Zero Burn Coalition and MNEJT later compile into a report.
• Organizer Audua Pugh raises the surveillance allegations directly with county board members at a meeting this week, according to the Guardian.
• The Guardian publishes its report on Oct. 29, 2026, citing the emails and the activist groups' findings.

What happens next?

Residents near the incinerator and activists statewide are watching for several things in the coming weeks:

• Whether Hennepin County issues a fuller public response addressing the specific allegations of surveillance and information-sharing with industry.
• Whether county board members call for an internal review of staff conduct described in the emails.
• Whether the Zero Burn Coalition and MNEJT release additional records from their public records request.
• Whether the episode affects momentum for state legislation on the incinerator that activists say was previously blocked with county and industry input.

No court filings or formal investigations tied to the emails were described in the available reporting as of Oct. 29, 2026. The Guardian's full report, including additional details from the emails, is available here.