>> Continued From the Previous Page <<
That outrage only intensified when a second email surfaced, further underscoring the hotel’s hostility toward immigration enforcement. In that message, the hotel warned guests, “if you are DHS or immigration, please let us know, as we will have to cancel your reservation.” For many Americans, the idea that a major hotel brand would tolerate such behavior struck at the core of equal treatment and respect for law enforcement.
As public backlash mounted, Hilton Corporate attempted to distance itself from the controversy. The company issued a statement promising to investigate the matter and suggested that the problem stemmed from the hotel’s independent ownership rather than corporate policy. The Hampton Inn Lakeville is owned by Everpeak, a group that operates the property under the Hilton brand.
Hilton later followed up with another statement claiming the issue had been resolved. According to corporate officials, they had spoken directly with Everpeak, which allegedly apologized and assured Hilton that the discriminatory policy had been corrected. The implication was clear: DHS and ICE agents would once again be welcome to stay at the hotel.
However, those claims unraveled almost immediately thanks to Sortor’s decision to verify Hilton’s assurances personally. On Monday night, he traveled to the Hampton Inn Lakeville and approached the front desk with a simple request—booking rooms for DHS agents. Prior to his visit, Sortor had confirmed that at least ten rooms were available.
WATCH:
What happened next exposed a glaring disconnect between Hilton Corporate’s public statements and reality on the ground. The front desk clerk told Sortor that the policy barring DHS and immigration officials was still fully in effect. Even more damning, the clerk stated he had just spoken with the owner, who confirmed that no changes had been made and that the order remained in place.
Sortor’s video documenting the exchange quickly went viral, igniting another wave of backlash and leaving Hilton Corporate scrambling to respond. This time, the company took a far more decisive tone, publicly calling out the hotel’s owner for misleading corporate leadership.
In a sharply worded statement, Hilton acknowledged the seriousness of the situation and announced immediate consequences. “The independent hotel owner had assured us that they had fixed the problem and published a message confirming this. A recent video clearly raises concerns that they are not meeting our standards and values,” the statement read.
Hilton then confirmed it was severing ties with the property altogether. “As such, we are taking immediate action to remove this hotel from our systems. Hilton is and has always been and remains a welcoming place for all.”
For many conservatives, the episode serves as a stark reminder of how deeply politicized even basic services have become under the Biden-era immigration debate. It also highlights the growing role of independent journalists in holding powerful corporations accountable when official statements fail to match reality.
Thanks to persistent reporting and firsthand verification, what might have been quietly brushed aside instead resulted in real consequences. And while questions remain about how such a policy was allowed in the first place, one thing is now clear: public exposure forced Hilton to choose between its brand reputation and an owner who openly defied federal law enforcement.
