Groups like the ICE Out of MN Coalition and Unidos MN have staged protests and other actions in Minnesota following Jan. 8, when federal agents tackled and detained two Target employees outside of a Target store in Richfield, Minnesota. But over the past few days, more groups and activists outside of Minnesota have also been calling out Target’s relative silence on ICE activity in its home state. The American Federation of Teachers this weekend called for Target to publicly denounce ICE. Additionally, other organizations have staged protests at Target stores in Chicago, Philadelphia, Seattle and other cities far from Minneapolis.

Generally, these groups have asked for Target to explicitly call for ICE to leave the state, alongside other demands, such as for Target to deny access to ICE officers, call for Trump to shut down ICE or lobby Congress to deny more ICE funding.

“At Target, the safety of our team and guests is, and will always be, our top priority,” a Target spokesperson said in a statement provided to Modern Retail. “We recognize the importance of peaceful protests as a way for individuals to express their views and be heard.”

Last year, Target faced widespread criticism over its pullback of diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. Now, the retailer’s response to ICE’s growing presence in its home city of Minneapolis is being scrutinized in a similar manner.

Neither situation is unique to Target. Other Minnesota businesses like General Mills and Best Buy have also been largely silent on the issue. Home Depot was also quiet as immigration raids took place near its stores in the Los Angeles area and elsewhere last year.

Being a retailer that used to be very outspoken on issues such as the murder of George Floyd in 2020 while investing in Black businesses and selling a collection of LGBTQ-themed products, however, has put the company in the spotlight for being more restrained in its messaging since the reelection of President Trump.

“To give all that up for political reasons strikes me as dangerous, and I think consumers are reacting to that and will continue to react to that,” said Paul Argenti, professor of corporate communication for the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth. “If you have a set of values, as Target claimed that it did, that are focused on doing the right thing and being a responsible company, how can you abandon that when things get tough?”

On Sunday, coinciding with Fiddelke’s first day as CEO of Target, AFT president Randi Weingarten sent a letter to the newly minted leader with several requests on behalf of its members, who own millions of shares of Target stock through pension funds and shop at Target for school supplies. In the letter, Weingarten requests an in-person meeting with Fiddelke to discuss the company’s response to ICE’s actions in Minneapolis and asks him to clearly state the demand that ICE leave Minnesota.

“The AFT is deeply concerned about the company’s silence on ICE’s continuing operations in Minneapolis following ICE and Border Patrol agents’ murders of two Minneapolis residents,” Weingarten wrote.

Target CEO Michael Fiddelke was among 60 business leaders who signed a letter released last week by the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce calling for a “de-escalation of tensions” and cooperation between local, state and federal leaders. Many customers, analysts and communications professors criticized the letter for not denouncing ICE directly.

“It was a very milquetoast, lukewarm response, and it didn’t get the job done,” said Argenti, the Dartmouth professor. “They would have been better off doing nothing than what they did.”

Weingarten said the letter was “a productive first step” but fell short of demonstrating leadership in ending ICE’s occupation.

“The simple pleas to de-escalate without further clarity about whether ICE and Border Patrol should operate in Minnesota endangers Target’s relationship with the community in the Twin Cities as well as customer relations throughout Target’s markets in the United States and overseas,” Weingarten wrote.

In addition to the joint letter, Fiddelke addressed employees in a video message last Monday — per Bloomberg — saying “the violence and loss of life in our community is incredibly painful,” and that the company would meet with employees and provide support. Still, he has yet to publicly condemn ICE directly.

Weingarten also wrote that the AFT’s executive council passed a resolution to recognize the concerns of activists trying to get Target to recommit to its diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives. “We would like to see Target’s incoming CEO address both issues.”

Protests have taken place at Target stores in Seattle and Philadelphia, according to The New York Times. Last Thursday night, a local organization called The People’s Lobby held a protest at a Target store in Chicago, during which eight protesters were arrested for blocking the store’s doors to prevent shoppers from entering. The organization typically runs legislative campaigns aimed at taking power from billionaires and giving it to poor and working people.

Deana Rutherford, communications and development manager for The People’s Lobby, said the group was following the lead of Unidos MN, which encouraged others to hold protests demanding Target call for ICE to leave Minnesota. Rutherford said, in her opinion, that by letting ICE come into stores, the company has been coordinating with the federal agents. “We are trying to show you [Target] there is an economic cost to being in bed with ICE,” she said.

Still, anyone — including federal agents — can legally enter public spaces such as store aisles, parking lots and dining areas, John Medeiros of the corporate immigration practice at Minneapolis-based law firm Nilan Johnson Lewis told the Associated Press.

Alison Taylor, a clinical associate professor at NYU Stern School of Business who teaches sustainability, professional responsibility and leadership, said that Target continues to be a poster child in conversations around difficult political situations. She compared it to how Target also got a lot of the attention surrounding DEI, when Walmart pulled back on similar policies.

“[Target is] not the only consumer-facing brand in Minneapolis,” Taylor said. “We are all — in our commentary and in who we’re expecting to act — laser-focused on Target, which I think is a consequence of its branding and positioning over the last decade, but it’s not necessarily fair.”

She said that in the classroom, she has noticed that students especially dislike it when brands reverse course on statements they’ve made in the past.

“[Target is] in a really, really tough spot because of the commitments they’ve previously made,” Taylor said. “They’ve had disproportionate attention, and now they’re in a really tough spot just because of where they are geographically and what’s going on.”

Taylor said the company is partly doing what she would advise, in forming a coalition with other brands. But the response shows it may not have gone far enough, she added.

“They’ve got some calculations to be made about the long-term erosion of their brand value, versus specific litigation or retaliation risk, and that’s a reflection I have more broadly about the corporate sector,” Taylor said. “The threat of retaliation is not theoretical. It’s real, but you’ve got to weigh that against more intangible factors relating to consumer and employee trust.”

Dartmouth’s Argenti believes that, to correct course, Target executives should issue a genuine statement about how they feel. “I cannot believe they could possibly be in agreement with what’s going on; that’s not possible,” he said. “And if they’re not, they should have expressed that.”