Executives Temper Criticism of Immigration Enforcement Fallout

A smattering of corporate comments have largely struck a cautious tone while Minnesota protests continue after the killing of two civilians by federal agents, as executives look to balance showing concern with staying out of the conflict.

First came a letter signed by more than 60 CEOs of Minnesota-based companies and organizations, including Target, 3M and Land O’Lakes, calling for the “immediate deescalation of tensions” and “focused cooperation” among officials. The letter didn’t directly mention actions by immigration enforcement officials, and didn’t name Renee Good or Alex Pretti, who were killed.

Likewise, in an internal memo to employees, Apple CEO Tim Cook also called for deescalation and wrote, “I believe America is strongest when we live up to our highest ideals, when we treat everyone with dignity and respect no matter who they are or where they’re from,” Bloomberg reported Wednesday.

Michael Fiddelke, the incoming CEO of Target, said in a video message to employees, “the violence and loss of life in our community is incredibly painful.”

Those statements—which do not mention Immigration and Customs Enforcement by name—largely stop short of the rhetoric many companies used less than six years ago, when they publicly proclaimed commitments to racial justice.

More than two dozen of the companies and organizations that joined Sunday’s CEO letter also were part of a statement in May 2020 condemning the killing of George Floyd. “His death while being restrained by Minneapolis police officers is yet another senseless loss of life—one that reflects deeply ingrained, long-standing injustice within our society,” the statement said. The organizations also pledged to promote racial equity within their organizations.

There have been exceptions to the muted tone. OpenAI’s Sam Altman said, “Part of loving the country is the American duty to push back against overreach.” His comments were first reported by the New York Times’ DealBook. Patagonia CEO Ryan Gellert is calling for lawmakers to vote against further ICE funding.

Companies considering whether to make political statements are caught in a difficult tug of war, worried about angering someone no matter what they do.

Americans are divided in their support for the way ICE operates—61% of voters said the agency has gone too far while 37% said it was “about right” or not far enough, according to a recent New York Times and Siena Research Institute poll.

And the second Trump administration has been quick to retaliate against perceived slights.

Even the question of whether to speak at all is fraught. A 2025 Pew survey showed Americans are equally divided on whether corporate statements on political and social issues are important.

“You’ve got a range of choices, all of which are terrible,” said Alison Taylor, an NYU Stern School of Business professor. “The result is something that annoys everybody.”

“Political Posturing”

Many people—and companies—feel corporations have a responsibility to get involved in such situations, because they have a large platform and a powerful voice, said Jill Fisch, a professor of business law at the University of Pennsylvania.

“I think it’s hard to resist” commenting, she said. But comments can lead to backlash.

Fisch described companies making public comments about political or social issues without effecting actual change as “political posturing”—for example, releasing a statement in support of diversity, but not instituting a diversity program.

“Signing this letter is exactly what we try to describe as political posturing,” Fisch said. “It’s making a political statement that doesn’t really add information content.”

Avoiding Trump’s Wrath

President Donald Trump’s second term has seen companies and industries targeted by the administration.

That’s helped shift the mood since 2020, Taylor said. Now, the corporate creed is simpler: Keep your head down.

The content of the Minnesota CEOs’ letter reflects that cautious attitude, said Lucian Bebchuk, director of Harvard Law School’s Program on Corporate Governance, in an email.

“In recent times, companies have been relatively reluctant to express views on social issues, and especially careful not to take positions that attract the wrath of the administration,” he said.

Companies’ charge right now isn’t deciding who’s right, it’s advocating for the safety and functionality of the places where they operate, said Lawrence Cunningham, director of the Weinberg Center for Corporate Governance at the University of Delaware.

Public frustration with the tone of the Minnesota-based CEOs’ letter is understandable, said Tom Lin, a professor at Temple University’s Beasley School of Law.

“These business leaders are walking a very thin tightrope across a very charged terrain in their backyard,” Lin said. “Figuring out how best to communicate in a way that moves the ball forward is really critical, even if it means leaving some folks frustrated.”