Businesses in the Crosshairs

After U.S. Border Patrol shot and killed Alex Pretti in Minneapolis in late January, the moment crystallized a deepening tension for American businesses. More than 60 Minnesota executives—including leaders of Target, Best Buy, and UnitedHealth—quickly signed an open letter calling for “an immediate deescalation of tensions and for state, local and federal officials to work together to find real solutions.”

Yet the letter carefully avoided naming immigration enforcement directly or acknowledging the widely-circulated videos showing federal agents detaining two Target employees in the same state just days earlier. The executives were caught between two pressures: activists and workers demanding stronger corporate stands against immigration operations, and the increasing presence of those operations themselves in parking lots, storefronts, and warehouses nationwide.

The Scale of Enforcement

The spread of immigration enforcement in the business world has expanded significantly. U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement has rounded up day laborers in Home Depot parking lots and delivery workers on streets across the country. Last year, federal agents detained 475 people during a raid at a Hyundai plant in Georgia. In Minneapolis—described by the Department of Homeland Security as the site of its largest operation ever—hotels, restaurants, and other businesses temporarily shut down or stopped accepting reservations in January amid widespread protests.

The enforcement often proceeds with business cooperation, knowing or unknowing. Companies can refuse entry to ICE agents without a warrant, but few exercise that right. John Medeiros, who leads corporate immigration practice at Minneapolis law firm Nilan Johnson Lewis, offered a blunt assessment: “That’s not what we’re seeing here in Minnesota. What we’re seeing is they still conduct the activity,” even without legal warrant or consent.

The legal landscape governing ICE operations in private businesses is complex and shifting. ICE agents can enter public-facing areas of any business—a restaurant floor, an office lobby, a parking lot—without a warrant, the same way any member of the public can. But to enter spaces with a reasonable expectation of privacy—a locked office, a closed kitchen—federal immigration agents are supposed to have a judicial warrant signed by a judge, not an administrative warrant signed by immigration officers.

That standard is increasingly contested. In an internal memo obtained by the Associated Press, ICE leadership stated that administrative warrants are sufficient for federal officers to forcibly enter people’s homes when a final order of removal exists. Immigration rights lawyers say this position upends established legal precedent and violates constitutional bedrock principles.

The practical easiest path for ICE into private spaces remains straightforward: employer consent. A manager lets an agent past the threshold, and legal protection dissolves.

The I-9 Audit Shift

Since the start of Trump’s second term in January, attorneys across the country have reported a sharp uptick in ICE agents physically appearing at businesses to initiate I-9 audits—the process of verifying employees’ work authorization. The agency has always had authority to conduct these audits, but David Jones, a regional managing partner at labor and employment law firm Fisher Phillips in Memphis, said agents now approach the audits with aggressive posture. “ICE is still showing up in their full tactical gear without identifying themselves necessarily, just to do things like serve a notice of inspection,” Jones said.

The shift matters operationally. Employers have three days to respond to an I-9 notice, but when agents show up in tactical gear without clear identification, business managers may assume immediate action is required—compounding confusion and fear among workers and management alike.

Corporate Silence and Pressure

The response from major corporations has been muted. Target, the Minneapolis retailer whose employees were detained on video in January, made no public comment about the incident. Its incoming Chief Executive, Michael Fiddelke, did send a message to the company’s 400,000 workers calling recent violence “incredibly painful” and saying Target was doing “everything we can to manage what’s in our control.” He did not mention immigration enforcement.

Fiddelke did sign a Minnesota Chamber of Commerce letter calling for broader deescalation, a document that also drew support from the Business Roundtable, a lobbying group representing more than 200 CEOs. That collective voice carried institutional weight—but also maintained strategic distance from the direct object of the activists’ pressure.

Home Depot and Hilton did not respond to comment requests from activists with “ICE Out of Minnesota” who asked them to take stronger public stances. Home Depot’s parking lots have become known sites of ICE operations over the past year. Hilton properties, protestors said, had housed federal agents in Twin City-area hotels.

Some smaller business owners have spoken more directly. The National Immigration Law Center’s Jessie Hahn noted the broader stakes: “We know that the raids are contributing to things like labor shortages and reduced foot traffic,” Hahn said. “Fears to push back on this abuse of power from Trump could ultimately land us in a very different looking economy.”

Worker and Union Response

While major corporations hedged, worker organizations spoke plainly. Ted Pappageorge, secretary-treasurer of a Culinary Union chapter in Las Vegas, said members were shocked by “a widening pattern of unlawful ICE behavior” and recognized that “anti-immigrant policies hurt tourism, business, and their families.” The United Auto Workers expressed solidarity with Minneapolis residents “fighting back against the federal government’s abuses and attacks on the working class.”

The worker-organization responses named the enforcement directly, without the strategic distance the largest corporations maintained. They articulated both the moral concern and the economic impact in a single breath.

What Lies Ahead

For companies navigating this terrain, the options are limited. Businesses can post signs labeling private spaces and establish protocols for ICE arrival. Some have begun conducting I-9 self-audits to identify compliance gaps before federal agents appear. But these are defensive measures.

The deeper choice remains unresolved: whether to speak publicly about the impacts of immigration enforcement on their workers, customers, and operations. Silence protects corporate standing with certain political actors and customer bases. Speaking invites other pressures and potential retaliation. The CEO letter signed after Pretti’s death represented a middle path—visible action that stopped short of direct challenge to the enforcement itself.

The immigration operations continue. Businesses remain simultaneously in the crosshairs and under public scrutiny, caught between enforcement pressure and activist pressure they have not yet found a way to reconcile.