January 26, 2026
jetcityimage2/Depositphotos.com
Is Silence Target’s Best Response To Backlash Over Minnesota ICE Raids?
Target is facing social media outcry and boycott threats largely over not making its own public remarks after immigration officials detained two Target employees during their shift in a Minnesota store.
Videos of the employees’ arrest by about a half-dozen masked ICE agents quickly spread on social media. The employees, both U.S. citizens, were later released.
The detentions on January 8 came a day after an ICE agent shot and killed Minneapolis resident Renee Good, an act that has sparked widespread protests throughout the city.
Local faith groups, immigrant rights supporters, and other community organizers are calling for Target to:
- Condemn the enforcement operation and call for an immediate end to the ICE operations in the state.
- Put up signs forbidding ICE agents from entering stores without a signed warrant and training employees on how to handle ICE agents who enter stores illegally.
- Pressure Congress to hold immigration officials accountable.
The recent events have caused renewed backlash against Target, nearly a year after boycotts began over the company rolling back its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
Target May Not Have Much Latitude Regarding the Current Conflict
Target, however, may be limited as to how it can respond because ICE agents are able to operate in public places, such as stores. John Medeiros, a corporate immigration lawyer at Nilan Johnson Lewis, a Minnesota law firm, told the New York Times, “You can ask them to leave, but there’s not necessarily a constitutional violation of them doing that because of the location.”
Employees of Target retail locations in the Minneapolis-St. Paul region, according to a report from Bloomberg, have reportedly been calling out of work more frequently in recent weeks. Corporate workers at Target, which is headquartered in Minneapolis, have postponed scheduled in-office work due to anxiety over the clashes between heavily armed federal agents and protesters.
Workers on internal Slack channels have raised concerns that the lack of a statement from corporate is sowing confusion, although other employees are encouraging management to stay neutral — as taking a public stance risks making the company a bigger target for immigration operations.
With polls showing voters split along party lines on whether they support President Trump’s immigration crackdown, corporations have been careful not to alienate large numbers of their customers by taking a side. They also risk angering Trump, who has publicly rebuked companies and executives he believes have crossed him.
Last Thursday, Target’s Chief Human Resources Officer, Melissa Kremer, sent out in a internal memo to employees indicating that the company’s security teams are increasing communication with Minneapolis-based workers about “expected disruptions near its locations.” Senior leaders are also engaging with government officials, community partners, faith leaders, and other stakeholders, according to the memo.
She shared that Target does not have cooperative agreements with any immigration enforcement agency. Kremer stressed, “We’re listening and working to de-escalate where possible—while staying clear on what we need to safely operate our business and care for our team.”
Outgoing CEO Brian Cornell also met with local faith leaders last Thursday, although details of the meeting haven’t been disclosed.
On Sunday, incoming CEO Michael Fiddelke joined the CEOs of more than 60 other major Minneapolis-based businesses — including Best Buy, General Mills and Cargill — in signing a letter calling for an “immediate de-escalation of tensions” in the state. The letter, which came a day after federal agents shot and killed a second protester, stopped short of calling for specific action, including condemning ICE actions or urging protesters to change their behavior.
Target Is Placed in a Difficult Political Position
Target’s latest moves aren’t expected to appease critics.
Michael Howard, a Minnesota state representative and a Democrat, told the Guardian, “I keep hearing more from my constituents about their frustration for how Target, in particular, has chosen silence. Target has been light on actual action steps, especially on anything that would be public-facing, and it’s a fallacy to say Target doesn’t have actions it can take to safeguard employees and customers against ICE.”
Target may also be taking lessons learned from past backlash that led by boycotts over its DEI programs, as they tried to appease both progressives and conservatives on polarizing issues. Dorothy Crenshaw, the head of Crenshaw Communications, a public relations firm, told the New York Times that silence around the immigration crackdown “might be a legally safe option, but it’s reputational kryptonite.”
BrainTrust
Tom Ryan
Managing Editor, RetailWire
Recent Discussions
Discussion Questions
Is Target making the right move in staying relatively neutral around the ICE action?
What should Target have learned from past boycotts over controversial issues?
Poll
Loading …
With headlines like : Target’s incoming CEO calls Minneapolis violence ‘incredibly painful,’ does not mention Trump or shootings by federal agents” I don’t expect any change from Target. Even after their own US citizens were arrested on the sales floor. it is outrageous on so many levels. Target lost the moral high ground years ago and now being punished for it. Are they just trying to be the next “target” for activist investors like Richard Baker?
The immigration enforcement ramp-up in Minneapolis has put Target in an impossible position. The minute the news broke about ICE activities in Minneapolis, I thought “Oh no… Target territory.”
It’s not that Target stores are only located in Minneapolis or that this will significantly impact sales directly. It’s a growing perception problem. Target is facing another round of criticism for perceived inaction, even though there’s little it can do legally in this situation.
Target’s become the lightning rod that’s taking Walmart off the hook in the public sentiment department. It seems people are almost anxious to blame Target for everything. And it all stems from Target’s previous prevaricating on social justice and DEI issues.
Target can’t catch a break, and that’s partly their own making from past indecisiveness, but it’s also a function of being in the public crosshairs when your business fundamentals aren’t rock solid. I see the Minneapolis blitz doing far more damage to Target than most would think. And they’re not in a strong position to battle it.
By kowtowing to Trump early on, Target adopted an air of acquiescence that will be impossible to shake without decisive push-back soon. The administration’s increasingly outrageous actions demand a response from good citizens everywhere, especially Target.
Exactly.
The events taking place in Minneapolis are beyond disturbing. It’s clear that anyone who speaks out will face the wrath of the current administration. I think Target did the right thing by adding their voice to the chorus of corporate voices that have condemned these actions. Target is damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
Target hasn’t exactly been silent. It has, along with many other companies, asked for an immediate deescalation. While some want to drag Target deeper into politics there is absolutely no mileage in Target making expressly political statements, nor can it obstruct the law. Target exists to allow people to shop and to make money for investors. It is not a campaigning or political vehicle, and the moment it becomes one it will find itself in serious trouble. The other thing to note is that Target, like a lot of other Minnesota businesses, are doing things behind the scenes to calm the situation. They are also keeping employees appraised of their rights.
I had a glib response ready – “youbetcha” – but I’ve had second thoughts: while I don’t think it should be politicizing the issue of immigration – i.e. commenting on it generally – this seems to be an instance of a policy affecting them specifically ; so I’m not sure silence is the best idea. That having been said, exactly what they should say I don’t know, since many readying their virtual pitchforks (in protest over Target’s zipped lips) certainly want them to address the issue generally…the very thing I think they shouldn’t do.
Target’s decision to remain mostly neutral in response to the recent federal immigration enforcement actions in Minneapolis — including the widely shared videos of ICE agents detaining two Target employees and fatal shootings by federal agents — is understandably drawing backlash from workers, community members, and activists calling for corporate leadership to speak out on what’s happening in the company’s own backyard. In situations where community trauma is acute, and the lines between public safety and civil liberties are intensely contested, staying silent can feel like indifference to customers, employees, and neighbors who are looking for empathy and responsible leadership from brands they frequent.
There are definitely risks when retailers wade into controversial public policy debates — they can alienate parts of their customer base or be accused of overstepping their role — but there are also times when standing mute on the sidelines is the very thing that creates a “bad look” for a corporate entity, particularly in retailing and especially when innocent people in your home community have been killed or harmed. Asking for space to mourn the loss of life, acknowledging pain in the community, and challenging all parties to lower the temperature and seek de-escalation is not a partisan stand; it’s a human one that resonates across political lines and reflects values of safety, dignity, and respect — what many customers and employees want in moments of crisis.
At a minimum, retailers in these situations need to think deeply about how their silence is perceived, not just whether they have a formal position on federal policy. Thoughtful, empathetic communication that acknowledges grief and affirms a commitment to employee well-being and community safety doesn’t require taking sides on every aspect of a complicated policy issue. But ignoring the lived reality unfolding in the streets, and the fears expressed by workers and residents alike, can harm trust and brand equity — particularly when the company is being called on by its own workforce and local leaders to show leadership during a painful moment for the community.
Let’s put this in the right perspective. Target is based in Minneapolis, but has fewer than 1% of its total store count in that city. From all OBJECTIVE research I am doing, I believe that there is a great deal more emotion about ICE in Minneapolis-St. Paul than there might be in any other metro in the nation.
With that in mind, Target will be foolish to jump into this firepit with any public view at all, and believe me when I tell you that the percentage of real customers who expect a retailer to take a public view on something the retailer has nothing to do with, is VERY small.
Like all other issues these days, the sentiment is split, usually liberal vs. conservative, red vs. blue, Democrat vs. Republican, Pro-Trump vs. Anti-Trump, etc. In this case, liberal Democrats side with protesters, while moderates and conservatives side with ICE.
Retailers have NOTHING to gain by siding with one side or the other. In terms of boycotts, that will often be a threat that is barely carried out, at least not with much impact, because most of the noise comes from people who don’t shop there, are do so very little.
Once again, there is plenty of emotion where Target has fewer than 1% of it stores, but much less emotion (to that same extent) at where 99% of its stores exist. As for on-line sales, Target shoppers shop there for very specific reasons, and very few will leave the ship.
If you aren’t part of the solution, then you’re part of the problem. As true today as it was in 1936.
In a word…NO. The company has demonstrated that it will capitulate at every turn.
In addition to what is documented in this story, I saw some posts showing what looks effectively like a sit in and a protest that occurred after the ICE incident happened inside a Target store. Inside of a store, (or a church for that matter) is not the right place for a protest. Target should decry the violence (check) and remind their associates and their customers that Target is a business, in the business of selling to their customers at competitive prices in a unique retail environment. As such, they are not in the business of either hampering or cooperating with law enforcement at the state or local or federal level unless they are legally forced to. Any statement past that risks placating one group (ICE is Horrible!) or the other (Deport Everyone, go ICE!), which of course puts them in an awkward position either way.
Sad all around.
Target while not taking political sides, has recently stood with dozens of other Minnesota businesses calling all parties involved to be calm, find cooperation and resolution. The challenge taking a stronger stance in the “for” or “against” column will ultimately anger one group of customers, potentially losing significant sales. Since their stores are all over the country in blue, red and purple communities, with products for everyone, staying above it all is best for now. But this doesn’t mean they can’t continue on message with short, simple statements, that they regret the pain all of this is causing in our communities.
More Discussions
What Does the Future Look Like for Private Label?
Has private label reached its peak yet?Will Fabletics Be Able To Achieve Its Goal of Doubling Revenue By 2030?
Will Fabletics be able to double its revenue in just four years?NRF 2026 Rewind: Are Online Marketplaces Proven Winners for Retail?
NRF speakers posed the question: Are online marketplaces proven winners in retail?
With headlines like : Target’s incoming CEO calls Minneapolis violence ‘incredibly painful,’ does not mention Trump or shootings by federal agents” I don’t expect any change from Target. Even after their own US citizens were arrested on the sales floor. it is outrageous on so many levels. Target lost the moral high ground years ago and now being punished for it. Are they just trying to be the next “target” for activist investors like Richard Baker?
The immigration enforcement ramp-up in Minneapolis has put Target in an impossible position. The minute the news broke about ICE activities in Minneapolis, I thought “Oh no… Target territory.”
It’s not that Target stores are only located in Minneapolis or that this will significantly impact sales directly. It’s a growing perception problem. Target is facing another round of criticism for perceived inaction, even though there’s little it can do legally in this situation.
Target’s become the lightning rod that’s taking Walmart off the hook in the public sentiment department. It seems people are almost anxious to blame Target for everything. And it all stems from Target’s previous prevaricating on social justice and DEI issues.
Target can’t catch a break, and that’s partly their own making from past indecisiveness, but it’s also a function of being in the public crosshairs when your business fundamentals aren’t rock solid. I see the Minneapolis blitz doing far more damage to Target than most would think. And they’re not in a strong position to battle it.
By kowtowing to Trump early on, Target adopted an air of acquiescence that will be impossible to shake without decisive push-back soon. The administration’s increasingly outrageous actions demand a response from good citizens everywhere, especially Target.
Exactly.
The events taking place in Minneapolis are beyond disturbing. It’s clear that anyone who speaks out will face the wrath of the current administration. I think Target did the right thing by adding their voice to the chorus of corporate voices that have condemned these actions. Target is damned if they do and damned if they don’t.
Target hasn’t exactly been silent. It has, along with many other companies, asked for an immediate deescalation. While some want to drag Target deeper into politics there is absolutely no mileage in Target making expressly political statements, nor can it obstruct the law. Target exists to allow people to shop and to make money for investors. It is not a campaigning or political vehicle, and the moment it becomes one it will find itself in serious trouble. The other thing to note is that Target, like a lot of other Minnesota businesses, are doing things behind the scenes to calm the situation. They are also keeping employees appraised of their rights.
I had a glib response ready – “youbetcha” – but I’ve had second thoughts: while I don’t think it should be politicizing the issue of immigration – i.e. commenting on it generally – this seems to be an instance of a policy affecting them specifically ; so I’m not sure silence is the best idea. That having been said, exactly what they should say I don’t know, since many readying their virtual pitchforks (in protest over Target’s zipped lips) certainly want them to address the issue generally…the very thing I think they shouldn’t do.
Target’s decision to remain mostly neutral in response to the recent federal immigration enforcement actions in Minneapolis — including the widely shared videos of ICE agents detaining two Target employees and fatal shootings by federal agents — is understandably drawing backlash from workers, community members, and activists calling for corporate leadership to speak out on what’s happening in the company’s own backyard. In situations where community trauma is acute, and the lines between public safety and civil liberties are intensely contested, staying silent can feel like indifference to customers, employees, and neighbors who are looking for empathy and responsible leadership from brands they frequent.
There are definitely risks when retailers wade into controversial public policy debates — they can alienate parts of their customer base or be accused of overstepping their role — but there are also times when standing mute on the sidelines is the very thing that creates a “bad look” for a corporate entity, particularly in retailing and especially when innocent people in your home community have been killed or harmed. Asking for space to mourn the loss of life, acknowledging pain in the community, and challenging all parties to lower the temperature and seek de-escalation is not a partisan stand; it’s a human one that resonates across political lines and reflects values of safety, dignity, and respect — what many customers and employees want in moments of crisis.
At a minimum, retailers in these situations need to think deeply about how their silence is perceived, not just whether they have a formal position on federal policy. Thoughtful, empathetic communication that acknowledges grief and affirms a commitment to employee well-being and community safety doesn’t require taking sides on every aspect of a complicated policy issue. But ignoring the lived reality unfolding in the streets, and the fears expressed by workers and residents alike, can harm trust and brand equity — particularly when the company is being called on by its own workforce and local leaders to show leadership during a painful moment for the community.
Let’s put this in the right perspective. Target is based in Minneapolis, but has fewer than 1% of its total store count in that city. From all OBJECTIVE research I am doing, I believe that there is a great deal more emotion about ICE in Minneapolis-St. Paul than there might be in any other metro in the nation.
With that in mind, Target will be foolish to jump into this firepit with any public view at all, and believe me when I tell you that the percentage of real customers who expect a retailer to take a public view on something the retailer has nothing to do with, is VERY small.
Like all other issues these days, the sentiment is split, usually liberal vs. conservative, red vs. blue, Democrat vs. Republican, Pro-Trump vs. Anti-Trump, etc. In this case, liberal Democrats side with protesters, while moderates and conservatives side with ICE.
Retailers have NOTHING to gain by siding with one side or the other. In terms of boycotts, that will often be a threat that is barely carried out, at least not with much impact, because most of the noise comes from people who don’t shop there, are do so very little.
Once again, there is plenty of emotion where Target has fewer than 1% of it stores, but much less emotion (to that same extent) at where 99% of its stores exist. As for on-line sales, Target shoppers shop there for very specific reasons, and very few will leave the ship.
If you aren’t part of the solution, then you’re part of the problem. As true today as it was in 1936.
In a word…NO. The company has demonstrated that it will capitulate at every turn.
In addition to what is documented in this story, I saw some posts showing what looks effectively like a sit in and a protest that occurred after the ICE incident happened inside a Target store. Inside of a store, (or a church for that matter) is not the right place for a protest. Target should decry the violence (check) and remind their associates and their customers that Target is a business, in the business of selling to their customers at competitive prices in a unique retail environment. As such, they are not in the business of either hampering or cooperating with law enforcement at the state or local or federal level unless they are legally forced to. Any statement past that risks placating one group (ICE is Horrible!) or the other (Deport Everyone, go ICE!), which of course puts them in an awkward position either way.
Sad all around.
Target while not taking political sides, has recently stood with dozens of other Minnesota businesses calling all parties involved to be calm, find cooperation and resolution. The challenge taking a stronger stance in the “for” or “against” column will ultimately anger one group of customers, potentially losing significant sales. Since their stores are all over the country in blue, red and purple communities, with products for everyone, staying above it all is best for now. But this doesn’t mean they can’t continue on message with short, simple statements, that they regret the pain all of this is causing in our communities.