Why do American businesses mostly remain quiet when federal immigration agents show up at their doors?

When the US Border Patrol Agents entered a Target store In Richfield, Minnesota, in early January, two employees were detained, marking a new chapter in the relationship between corporate America and the federal government.

Throughout the Twin Cities, federal immigration enforcement operations have turned businesses into sites of confrontation — with customers in store parking lots Rounding up day laborersarmed Raids on restaurants And inspection of the work permit Conducted in tactical gear.

Some retailers Revenue decreases by 50% to 80% As customers stay home out of fear. Along Lake Street and in East St. Paul, areas within the Twin Cities, and An estimated 80% of companies They closed their doors sometime since beginning operations.

Then came the killings of American citizens Rene Judd and Alex Peretti, the latter of which came after a day of widespread protests and a day of protests. Trade blackout involving More than 700 facilities.

The reaction of corporate America to these killings has been instructive, both in terms of what was said and what was not said. After Pretty was killed, more than 60 CEOs from Minnesota’s largest companies — Target, 3M, UnitedHealth Group, US Bancorp, General Mills, Best Buy and others — gathered. I signed a public speech I organized By the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce. The letter called for “peace” and “focused cooperation” between local, state and federal officials, and a “quick and permanent solution” so families, workers and businesses can return to normal.

What she did not do was name Pretty, mention federal immigration enforcement or criticize any specific policy or official. It looks less like ethical leadership and more like corporate risk management.

your A researcher who studies corporate political participationI believe the Minnesota CEO’s speech represents a window into a broader transformation. For years, Companies can take forward positions with limited risk Activists would punish them if they remained silent on an issue, but conservatives rarely retaliated when they spoke up. This asymmetry has collapsed. Minneapolis shows what corporate activism looks like when the risks go both ways: hedged language, no-names, and calls for calm.

Variable style

In 2022, after the Supreme Court overturned Roe v. Wade, Corporate America has been noticeably quiet Compared to her vocal stances on LGBTQ+ rights or the war in Ukraine.

Explanation: Companies tend to hedge on contentious and polarized issues. in My research with my colleagues In terms of companies taking positions on LGBTQ+ rights in the United States, I found that companies define their positions narrowly when issues are unsettled—focusing on workplace concerns and internal constituencies like employees rather than broader advocacy. Only after issues are settled legally or socially do some companies turn to more visible activism, adopting the language of social movements: injustice, moral obligation, and calls to action.

By this logic, the caution shown by Minnesota’s CEOs makes sense. The Trump administration’s federal immigration enforcement policy is Hotly contested. There is no clear legal or social settlement in sight.

But something else has changed since 2022, something that goes beyond any particular issue.

For many years, corporate activism has operated under a convenient asymmetry that has allowed it to take public positions on controversial topics without significant negative consequences.

That is, activists and employees pressured companies to speak out on progressive issues and remain silent Bear real costs. On the other hand, conservatives largely supported the views of Milton Friedman, the free market economist You see that as the only social responsibility businesses to increase their profits. They generally did not demand corporate positions on their issues, nor did they organize sustained punishment for progressive corporate rhetoric.

This asymmetry has collapsed

During the 2020 Black Lives Matter protests, companies Hurry to announce and their commitments to racial justice, diversity, and social responsibility. Many of these The same companies have since been quietly dismantled and diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, backed away from their public commitments and remained silent on issues they once called moral imperatives. It appears that their alleged strong values ​​were conditional on a favorable political environment. When the risks shifted, the values ​​evaporated.

It may have been the turning point Disney opposes Florida’s “Don’t Call Gay” law in 2022. The company faced criticism from employees and activists for not doing enough, and then fierce retaliation from the Florida government. Which stripped Disney of its self-government privileges It has stood for 55 years.

In other high-level examples, delta Lost Tax Breaks in Georgia After ending discounts for members of the National Rifle Association after the Parkland shooting. And bud light Billions lost in market value After one social media promotion featured Dylan Mulvaney, a transgender influencer.

Conservatives have learned how to play the game invented by progressive activists. In contrast to consumer boycotts, government retaliation carries a different weight.

Minneapolis unveils new calculus

What makes Minneapolis special is that the federal government is not a distant political actor debating legislation in Washington. It is the physical presence in the daily operations of businesses. When federal agents can come into your store, detain your employees, raid your parking lot, and review your employment records, the calculus about whether to criticize federal policy looks very different than when the worst-case scenario is an angry tweet from a politician.

Search finds Politicians are less willing to deal with CEOs who take controversial positions – even in private meetings – regardless of local economic conditions or the politicians’ views on business. The cooling effect is real. like One observer notedMinnesota companies reached out through industry associations specifically “to avoid direct exposure to potential retaliation.”

So, “de-escalation” has become a favorite corporate buzzword because, as one Wall Street Journal news report noted, “He appears humane while remaining politically noncommittal“It refers to the goal of a process – reducing conflict, restoring order – rather than a contested diagnosis of responsibility.

This is the triple dilemma facing businesses in Minneapolis: Pressure from the federal government on the one hand, and pressure from activists and employees on the other handAnd the economic devastation caused by the implementation itself – Comparable in some areas For the Covid-19 pandemic – crushing them in the middle. It’s a situation that rewards silence and punishes principle, and most companies make the predictable choice.

However, the situation within companies is also full of internal tensions, whether they are companies headquartered in Minnesota or not. At the technology company Palantir, which has contracts with US Immigration and Customs Enforcement, The staff took to internal Slack channels after Preeti’s death to express how they felt “not proud” to work for a company associated with what they described as “evil people”. Similar feelings can To be seen elsewherewith rank-and-file employees expressing much more open anger than their bosses.

What comes next?

The Minnesota CEO’s speech is what corporate political engagement looks like when risks run in every direction: no framing of injustice, no attribution of blame, no name-calling — just calls for stability and cooperation.

As a local A Minneapolis writer put it in an op-ed: “Stand, or sit… because Minnesotans who stand? We don’t recognize you.”

It’s not cheese, exactly. that it What the research predicts When an issue is contested and the costs of speaking both ways.

But it means that Americans should not expect corporations to take the lead when government power is directly at stake. The conditions that enabled corporate activism on LGBTQ+ rights – an asymmetry where speaking out was relatively low risk – are not present here.

Until the political landscape changes, a cautious statement and cautious coalition rhetoric is the new normal. It turns out that corporate activism may have always been more about positioning than principle.