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.”