New data show shifting trends across rural and urban Minnesota — and the critical role of international migration.
February 2025
Each year, the Center for Rural Policy and Development publishes our State of Rural report. We typically release it in January, once the latest state and federal data are available. This year, the release of American Community Survey data was delayed due to the federal government shutdown, which pushed our timeline back slightly. But the wait is worth it. With the newest population estimates in hand, we can take a fresh look at one of the most persistent and often misunderstood topics in rural policy: migration.
For decades, the dominant narrative has been simple: people leave rural areas and move to cities. That storyline has shaped public perception, media coverage, and even policy conversations. But when you look closely at the data, the story becomes far more complex — and far more interesting.
Moving Beyond “Rural vs. Urban”
At the Center, we rely on the Minnesota State Demographic Center’s county groupings based on the USDA Economic Research Service’s Rural-Urban Commuting Area (RUCA) codes. These categories combine population size with commuting patterns to better reflect how people actually live and work across Minnesota.
Using those definitions, Minnesota’s 87 counties fall into four categories:
- Entirely rural (14 counties)
- Town/rural mix (35 counties)
- Urban/town/rural mix (25 counties)
- Entirely urban (13 counties)
Figure 1 shows the categories for each county in the state.
Figure 1: The USDA ERS Rural-Urban Commuting Area categories use a combination of population and workforce commuting patterns to establish their categories at the census tract level. The MN State Demographic Center aggregates those to create county-level categories. Data: MN State Demographic Center – Greater Minnesota: Refined & Revisited
This breakdown alone challenges the idea that Minnesota can be neatly divided into “rural” and “urban.” Most counties fall somewhere in between. Commuting patterns, regional hubs, and economic linkages blur the lines.
And so does migration.
The 2000s: A Difficult Decade for Rural Minnesota
From the early 2000s through the Great Recession, migration trends were challenging for much of Greater Minnesota.
Figure 2 shows that every entirely rural counties and town/rural mix counties experienced net out-migration for much of that period. Even the urban/town/rural mix counties — often regional centers — saw their early-2000s net gains erode, slipping into net losses around the time of the recession. Entirely urban counties held relatively steady during this time, generally posting modest net in-migration.
Figure 2: Annual net migration trends saw significant shifts from the 2000s and into the mid-2010s. Data: U.S. Census Bureau – Annual Population Statistics
In short, the 2000s reinforced the common narrative: rural Minnesota was losing people.
The Mid-2010s Shift
But something changed in the mid-2010s.
Beginning around 2015–2016, entirely rural and town/rural counties began to see declines in their net out-migration. Soon after, many of these areas moved into net in-migration territory. This was not a short-term blip — it marked a meaningful shift in trajectory.
Figure 3 shows that by the mid- 2010s, all RUCA categories were trending positively.
Figure 3: Annual net migration trends saw significant shifts fin the mid-2010s. Data: U.S. Census Bureau – Annual Population Statistics
Then the pandemic hit.
The Pandemic Spike — and the Reset
During the early pandemic years, migration patterns shifted dramatically. Rural areas experienced a surge in net in-migration. At the same time, entirely urban counties — particularly the Seven-County Twin Cities region — experienced significant out-migration.
Figure 4 shows the net annual migration every year going back to 2000. Focusing in on 2021, large increases in in-migration occur for much of non-entirely urban RUCA groups.
Figure 4: The pandemic created a blip in the data – rural areas saw huge increases in their in-migraiton while the entirely urban group experienced a severe out-migration. Data: U.S. Census Bureau – Population Estimates
For some observers, this appeared to confirm a permanent reshuffling of where Minnesotans wanted to live.
But as the most recent data show, the spike was temporary. Migration patterns have largely returned to their pre-pandemic trajectories. Rural areas continue to perform better than they did in the 2000s, but nowhere near pandemic levels, and urban counties are rebounding from their pandemic-era losses.
The key takeaway: the pandemic accelerated existing trends rather than creating entirely new ones.
Domestic vs. International Migration: Not All Growth Is the Same
Net migration is made up of two components:
- Domestic migration (movement between states or counties within the U.S.)
- International migration (movement from other countries)
These components matter — because the balance between them differs significantly by geography.
Figure 5 shows that across nearly all RUCA categories, international migration plays a substantial positive role. In fact, for entirely rural, town/rural mix, and entirely urban counties, net domestic migration is often negative — meaning more people are moving out to other parts of the U.S. than moving in. However, strong international in-migration more than offsets those losses.
Urban/town/rural mix counties are the exception: they generally see both positive domestic and positive international migration.
Figure 5: Positive net-migration trends are largely due to large gains in international migration across all of Minnesota. Data: U.S. Census Bureau – Annual Population Estimates
This distinction is critical for policy conversations. Population stability and growth in many parts of Minnesota — rural and urban alike — depend heavily on international newcomers.
Regional Differences: Northern and Southern Minnesota
Looking at Minnesota’s planning regions reveals even more nuance.
Figure 6 shows that since the mid-2010s, every planning region has experienced a significant positive shift in net migration. Even Southwest Minnesota — historically one of the most consistent net out-migration regions — has seen measurable improvement.
Figure 6: Since the mid-2010s all Minnesota planning regions have seen a significant positive shift in their net migration. The 2024 numbers continue to align with that shift. Data: U.S. Census Bureau – Population Estimates
But the type of migration varies. Figure 7 provides the annual net migration by type – international, domestic and net.
In Northern Minnesota, domestic migration plays a larger role in recent growth. For example, in 2024, one northern region saw approximately 1,512 net domestic in-migrants compared to 987 international migrants. Growth there is being driven in substantial part by Minnesotans and other Americans relocating within the country.
Southern Minnesota tells a different story. There, strong international in-migration offsets persistent domestic out-migration. Without international newcomers, several southern regions would likely still be experiencing net population decline.
Meanwhile, the Seven-County Metro is rebounding from its pandemic-era domestic losses and continues to see strong international migration.
Figure 7: Domestic migration plays a larger positive role in Northern Minnesota while international migration plays a significant positive role in Southern Minnesota.
The geography of migration is not uniform — and neither are its drivers.
Why This Matters
Migration trends affect workforce availability, school enrollment, housing demand, health care access, and long-term economic vitality. When we oversimplify the story to “rural decline,” we miss critical opportunities.
Three key insights stand out:
- The rural out-migration narrative is outdated.
While some communities continue to struggle, the broad trend since the mid-2010s has been improvement across nearly all geographies. - International migration is essential statewide.
From rural counties to the Twin Cities, international newcomers are a central component of Minnesota’s population stability. - Policy responses must be region-specific.
Northern Minnesota’s migration patterns look different from Southern Minnesota’s. The Metro’s trajectory differs from both. A one-size-fits-all approach won’t work.
The Bigger Picture
Migration is not a simple rural-versus-urban story. It never was.
Minnesota’s population dynamics reflect economic restructuring, housing markets, remote work, immigration policy, aging demographics, and regional amenities. They reflect both opportunity and challenge.
What the data show clearly is this: Minnesota’s migration story is one of adjustment, resilience, and increasing complexity.
As we finalize this year’s State of Rural report, we’ll continue to dig deeper into what these trends mean for policymakers, community leaders, and residents across the state.
Because if we want to build a strong Minnesota — rural and urban alike — we need to understand who is moving, where they are going, and why.
.