Hilton apologized after a Minnesota hotel under the Hilton brand canceled reservations for federal immigration agents this month, saying the refusal violated its own policies, according to statements released after the dispute became public.

The U.S. Department of Homeland Security accused the global Hilton hotel chain of a “coordinated” effort to refuse service to its employees. DHS posted screenshots of what it said was a message sent Friday from a Hilton email address, indicating that immigration agents would not be allowed to stay at the Hampton Inn Lakeville property, about 20 miles (32.19 kilometers) south of Minneapolis, and that their reservation was canceled.

In the DHS post, the department said: “When officers attempted to book rooms using official government emails and rates, Hilton Hotels maliciously CANCELLED their reservations.” DHS also accused Hilton Hotels of deliberately undermining and impeding law enforcement from enforcing immigration laws.

Hilton and local operators of the Hampton Inn Lakeville property released statements within hours apologizing and saying the messages refusing to serve agents focused on immigration enforcement did not reflect their policies.

A Hilton representative said the Hampton Inn locations are under the Hilton brand but that the property is independently operated. The representative also said the majority of Hampton Inns are owned and operated by franchisees.

Everpeak Hospitality, the company that operates the Hampton Inn Lakeville property, said in a statement that the cancellation was inconsistent with its policy of being a welcoming place for all. Everpeak said it does not discriminate against any individuals or agencies and apologized to those impacted.

Everpeak said it was in touch with the impacted guests to ensure they are accommodated. It also said it moved swiftly to address the matter because it was inconsistent with the company’s policy.

Hilton and Everpeak’s statements did not address DHS’s characterization of a coordinated effort, but both sides framed the hotel’s actions as not aligned with the operator’s stated policies.