How to Weaken ICE: Cut Off the Corporations That Make Deportations Possible: Unified Strategy to Join, Support, or Build Boycott Campaigns Against ICE Vendors and Suppliers
The killing of Renee Nicole Good by an ICE agent in Minneapolis has intensified a question many Americans are asking with urgency: how do ordinary people actually constrain ICE’s power? Protests, litigation, and mutual aid remain essential. But recent events point to a leverage point that is both practical and historically effective: cutting ICE off from the private-sector supply chain that allows it to function: Boycott ICE vendors.
ICE is not a self-contained enforcement machine. It depends on airlines, hotels, technology firms, data brokers, detention contractors, and logistics providers. If those corporate pillars weaken, ICE’s operational capacity—and political insulation—weakens with them.
This article lays out a single, coherent strategy that explains:
how to join existing Boycott ICE campaigns,
how to support and amplify other groups’ efforts, and
how to build your own disciplined, lawful, and effective boycott campaign against Boycott ICE vendors and suppliers, focusing on the importance of targeting Boycott ICE vendors and their impact on immigration enforcement.
This is not about symbolic outrage. It is about documented accountability.
Quick answer
Yes—boycotting companies that support ICE can work, but only when it is accurate, sustained, and strategically targeted.
By targeting Boycott ICE vendors, we can effectively reduce the resources available to ICE.
ICE does not operate independently. It relies on a large private-sector ecosystem—technology vendors, data analytics firms, detention operators, transportation providers, hotels, and logistics companies. These relationships can be pressured through consumer behavior, worker action, investor scrutiny, and reputational risk.
Understanding the role of Boycott ICE vendors is crucial for effective advocacy.
Why boycotts matter more than statements
Public protest raises visibility. Boycotts raise costs.
Corporations can ignore criticism. They cannot easily ignore:
sustained brand damage,
employee dissent,
shareholder pressure,
and credible documentation tying profits to harm.
Recent wins demonstrate this clearly:
sustained pressure forced Avelo Airlines to exit deportation charter flights;
sustained community action supporting Boycott ICE vendors has proven to mobilize broader public awareness.
organized campaigns pushed Minneapolis-area hotels to stop renting rooms to ICE agents.
Each victory removed a real logistical input ICE depends on—and sent a warning to other vendors.
HLG background on boycott pressure and corporate response:
If the goal is to reduce ICE capacity or raise the cost of aggressive enforcement, you must understand where ICE buys power.
1) Technology, data, and surveillance infrastructure
Modern immigration enforcement depends on platforms that collect, link, analyze, and act on identities at scale—often using AI-assisted tools and cloud infrastructure.
During enforcement surges, ICE relies heavily on airlines and hotels. These companies are often consumer-facing, making them especially vulnerable to boycott pressure.
A disciplined conclusion builds credibility for future campaigns.
How to join and support existing Boycott ICE campaigns
You do not need to start from scratch.
Join existing national efforts
1. BoycottICE.com — ICEBREAKERS Movement
Campaign / Community Hub
A community-led movement advocating against ICE and promoting boycott campaigns targeting companies tied to immigration enforcement. The site hosts boycott lists, educational resources, and volunteer opportunities.
Participate in local actions coordinated through the site
2. Not With My Dollars — “ICE Out of My Wallet”
National Boycott Campaign
A Gen Z–led national boycott campaign targeting corporations alleged to enable or profit from ICE through contracts or cooperation. The campaign emphasizes economic pressure, coordinated demands, and sustained action.
A long-running campaign opposing technology and data companies providing tools to ICE and CBP. The campaign focuses on worker pressure, public accountability, and contract termination.
Use campaign toolkits to organize on campuses or within tech workplaces
Share verified campaign materials
4. Reddit: Community-Led Boycott ICE Discussions
Grassroots, Localized Boycott Threads
Reddit hosts numerous community-driven discussions where users compile local boycott lists, document ICE activity, and share organizing ideas. These are informal but often useful for regional research.
Monitor subreddits such as r/Immigration, r/PoliticalDiscussion, and local city subreddits
Contribute verified local information
Coordinate offline actions with community members
5. Social Media–Based Boycott ICE Communities
Facebook & Instagram Grassroots Networks
Numerous community groups on social platforms share boycott targets, protest coordination, and calls to action. These vary in structure and verification level.
Frequently Asked Questions: Boycotting ICE Vendors and Corporate Collaborators
1. How can boycotting companies weaken ICE?
Boycotting companies weakens U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement by targeting the private corporations that supply detention beds, transportation, surveillance technology, food, hotels, and logistics. ICE does not operate independently; it relies on corporate partners to carry out deportations. When companies face consumer backlash, reputational harm, investor pressure, and media scrutiny, they may terminate or refuse ICE contracts—directly disrupting enforcement capacity.
2. What kinds of companies do business with ICE?
ICE contracts with a wide range of private companies, including:
Private prison and detention operators
Airlines, bus companies, and transportation vendors
Hotel chains and short-term lodging providers
Technology, data analytics, and surveillance firms
Food service, medical, and facility management vendors
These companies often operate consumer-facing brands, making them vulnerable to coordinated boycott campaigns.
3. Does boycotting ICE vendors actually work?
Yes. Boycotts have historically succeeded when they are focused, sustained, and strategically coordinated. Past campaigns against immigration detention contractors, financial institutions, and hospitality brands have resulted in:
Contract non-renewals
Public policy reversals
Corporate divestment from detention and deportation services
Economic pressure is most effective when paired with media exposure and shareholder engagement.
4. How do I find out which corporations are supporting ICE?
You can identify ICE-connected corporations by reviewing:
Federal contract databases (such as USAspending)
Corporate disclosures and investor reports
Investigative journalism and watchdog reporting
Advocacy organization research and vendor tracking
Many ICE suppliers are not obvious, as contracts are often routed through subsidiaries or subcontractors.
5. Can I join an existing boycott campaign instead of starting my own?
Yes—and joining an existing campaign is often more effective. Established boycott efforts already have:
Clear demands
Legal vetting
Media relationships
Coordinated messaging
Supporting existing campaigns through consumer action, amplification, donations, and organizing increases leverage without fragmenting efforts.
6. How do I start a boycott campaign against an ICE contractor?
An effective boycott campaign requires:
A clearly identified corporate target
Verifiable evidence of ICE involvement
Specific, achievable demands
A public narrative tied to brand reputation
Coalition support and message discipline
Unfocused or purely symbolic boycotts are far less effective than campaigns tied to measurable outcomes.
7. Is it legal to boycott companies that work with ICE?
Yes. Peaceful boycotts, consumer advocacy, and public criticism are protected activities under U.S. law. However, campaigns should avoid:
Defamation or false statements
Harassment or threats
Interference with lawful operations
Legally sound campaigns rely on documented facts and nonviolent pressure.
8. What makes a company vulnerable to boycott pressure?
Companies are most vulnerable when they:
Depend on consumer trust or brand reputation
Operate in competitive markets
Have ESG-focused investors
Are sensitive to negative press or social media scrutiny
Consumer-facing brands generally face higher reputational risk than obscure subcontractors.
9. Why focus on corporations instead of ICE directly?
ICE is a federal agency with broad statutory authority and limited accountability to public pressure. Corporations, by contrast:
Depend on customers, investors, and public goodwill
Can choose whether to accept or renew contracts
Are sensitive to reputational and financial risk
Targeting corporate collaborators shifts pressure to actors who can exit the system voluntarily.
10. Can small or local boycotts still have impact?
Yes. Local and regional campaigns can:
Trigger national media attention
Pressure franchise operators and regional managers
Create internal corporate escalation
Many national corporate decisions begin with localized controversies.
11. How can journalists use boycott campaigns as sources?
Journalists frequently rely on boycott campaigns for:
Documented corporate-government relationships
On-the-record advocates and experts
Verified contract data
Case studies illustrating enforcement infrastructure
Well-documented campaigns often shape national immigration narratives.
12. What role do investors and shareholders play in ICE boycotts?
Investors can apply pressure through:
Shareholder resolutions
ESG risk assessments
Public divestment campaigns
When ICE contracts become liabilities rather than assets, corporate leadership is more likely to disengage.
13. Can boycotts stop deportations immediately?
Boycotts rarely stop deportations overnight. Their impact is structural and cumulative, aimed at:
Increasing operational costs
Reducing vendor availability
Forcing policy and contract changes over time
They are most effective as part of a long-term pressure strategy.
14. How can supporters avoid burnout in long boycott campaigns?
Successful campaigns rotate leadership, share responsibilities, set realistic timelines, and celebrate incremental wins. Sustainable pressure matters more than viral moments.
15. Where can I learn more or get legal guidance before acting?
Before launching or joining a campaign, it is wise to consult reliable legal and advocacy resources to ensure accuracy, discipline, and lawful conduct—especially when engaging media or corporate leadership.
.
Final takeaway
Effective boycotts are engineered, not improvised.
They combine:
verified facts,
disciplined messaging,
economic leverage,
media strategy,
lawful escalation,
and coordinated public participation.
If the goal is to constrain ICE, the most practical path forward is to systematically weaken the corporate relationships ICE relies on—one contract, one vendor, one local supplier at a time—while building the connective tissue for national coordination.
Resource Directory: How to Organize, Join, and Support ICE Boycotts
A. How to Set Up a Boycott (Legal, Strategic, Practical)
These resources focus on lawful boycott strategy, economic pressure campaigns, and organizer protections.
National Lawyers Guild – Legal Support for Organizers
Practical guidance on lawful advocacy, protest safety, and campaign discipline. https://www.nlg.org/resources/
Center for Popular Democracy – Corporate Accountability Playbooks
Frameworks for organizing economic pressure campaigns against corporations. https://populardemocracy.org/tools
B. Active Organizations and Campaigns Targeting ICE and Its Corporate Partners
These groups are already engaged in campaigns to weaken ICE by pressuring corporate collaborators.
Never Again Action
Direct action and boycott-style campaigns targeting companies tied to detention and deportation. https://neveragainaction.com
Mijente
National campaigns focused on dismantling ICE infrastructure and corporate accountability. https://mijente.net
Detention Watch Network
Coalition tracking detention expansion and supporting pressure campaigns against ICE contractors. https://www.detentionwatchnetwork.org
RAICES
Legal aid organization that partners with broader movements calling for corporate disengagement from ICE. https://www.raicestexas.org
C. Documented ICE Boycott Campaigns & Victories
Concrete examples showing how boycott pressure works in practice.
“Not With My Dollars” – National ICE Boycott Campaign
Public campaign targeting corporations accused of supporting ICE through contracts or cooperation. https://www.commondreams.org/news/trump-ice
Hilton, ICE, and Minneapolis-Area Hotels: What We Know, What It Means, and How “Boycott ICE” Campaigns Are Reshaping Corporate Behavior
Quick Answer
DHS/ICE allege that a Hilton-branded Hampton Inn near Minneapolis canceled government hotel reservations tied to immigration enforcement operations, including the hilton hotel ice reservation cancellation, triggering a fast-moving national controversy that sits inside a broader “Boycott ICE” ecosystem—where companies are pressured either for cooperating with ICE (privacy/data sharing, detention logistics) or for refusing ICE (service denials, alleged discrimination, operational disruption). For immigrants and families, the practical significance is not the brand drama—it is the enforcement reality: surges change the risk environment, increase encounters, and can produce collateral arrests and rapid removals.
The Minneapolis-area incident is being framed as a service/refusal controversy (hotel allegedly canceling DHS/ICE reservations), while many earlier hotel controversies were framed as cooperation/complicity controversies (hotels allegedly enabling ICE through guest-list sharing or hotel-based holding).
Hilton and multiple reports emphasize the key structural point: many Hilton-branded hotels are independently owned and operated franchises, meaning corporate brand policy and property-level conduct can diverge quickly.
The “Boycott ICE” universe increasingly targets vendors and logistics providers (retail, airlines, hotels, data, private contractors). The pressure is not only about politics—it is about money, reputational risk, and operational friction.
If you are an immigrant, a visa holder, or a family member in a surge environment, your best defense is risk planning: know your exposure points and prepare before any USCIS, ICE, or court encounter.
Reservation cancellations tied to DHS/ICE personnel
Why Hilton says it matters
Property is independently owned/operated; conduct allegedly inconsistent with brand standards
Why it matters beyond hotels
Hotels are enforcement logistics; controversies become national instantly
What “Boycott ICE” does
Targets companies viewed as supporting enforcement (or now, obstructing it)
What immigrants should do
Plan for enforcement volatility; do not “wing it” at appointments or travel
What Happened (Minneapolis / Lakeville Timeline)
Multiple reports describe DHS/ICE alleging that a Hilton-branded Hampton Inn in the Minneapolis area canceled reservations tied to immigration enforcement personnel, with DHS presenting screenshots and framing the issue as inappropriate interference with law enforcement lodging.
Why the franchise issue is central (and why readers misunderstand it)
Most major hotel brands are not “one company runs every building.” The brand sets standards; the owner/operator runs day-to-day decisions. That structure creates three predictable outcomes in controversies like this:
The headline names the brand (because that is what consumers recognize).
The legal and operational responsibility is property-level (often an owner/operator or management company).
The reputational damage spreads faster than the facts (especially in surge operations).
This is the same structural dynamic that powered earlier hotel/ICE controversies—just with the polarity reversed (refusal instead of cooperation).
Why Hotels Matter to ICE Operations (and Why This Story Traveled Nationally)
Hotels are not a neutral backdrop during enforcement surges. They can function as:
1) Logistics infrastructure
Surges require rapid staffing shifts, staging, and travel. Hotels become short-notice operational anchors—especially near airports, courthouses, and high-target zones.
2) “Visibility points” for activists and the public
Activism often looks for tangible, nameable corporate chokepoints: a brand, a property, a vendor contract. Hotels are easy to identify and easy to pressure.
3) Community flashpoints
Even when a hotel is not “doing enforcement,” its perceived role can trigger protests, calls for boycotts, or counter-boycotts.
If you are tracking how enforcement surges play out in local communities (including Ohio), see HLG’s broader enforcement context:
Historically, a major hotel boycott narrative has been: “This company helped ICE by sharing data or enabling enforcement.”
The canonical example is the Motel 6 guest-list controversy in Washington, where the state Attorney General described widespread sharing of guest registry information with ICE without requiring a warrant:
Track B: Boycotts (and counter-boycotts) targeting refusal to serve ICE
The Hilton dispute flips the script. Here, DHS is effectively alleging “refusal” or obstruction, and critics frame it as anti-law-enforcement discrimination. That creates:
a reputational crisis for the brand, even if franchise-owned; and
a political mobilization moment (boycott calls and counter-boycott calls).
This is why the story traveled quickly—because it hits both boycott tracks at once:
activists already see hotels as pressure points; and
enforcement supporters see refusal as unacceptable.
Legal/Policy Analysis: Can a Hotel Refuse DHS/ICE Reservations?
This question is often asked incorrectly. The real question is usually one of these:
1) Is the refusal discriminatory under public-accommodation laws?
Hotels generally cannot refuse service based on protected classes (race, national origin, religion, etc.). Being a DHS/ICE employee is not, by itself, a protected class—but facts matter, including whether the refusal is a proxy for a protected characteristic or selectively enforced.
2) Is this a contract/procurement dispute?
If government travel was booked under government rates or specific channels, the legal dispute may look more like:
cancellation policy enforcement,
procurement compliance,
franchise agreement standards, or
tort/reputational claims depending on statements made.
3) Is it a franchise compliance crisis?
Brands can impose standards on franchisees. “Independently operated” does not mean “no brand control”—it means the control tends to be contractual and standards-based, not direct daily management.
Practical takeaway: these incidents often become policy + PR + contract disputes faster than they become courtroom litigation.
Why DHS Publicly Named Hilton — and Why That Is Unusual
Federal agencies rarely single out private companies by name in real time. When they do, it is almost never accidental.
In the Minneapolis-area hotel dispute, DHS did not quietly resolve the issue through procurement channels or private correspondence. Instead, it went public immediately, attaching the Hilton brand to the controversy and amplifying it nationally through media coverage.
This type of escalation usually signals one or more of the following:
1. Deterrence Signaling to Other Vendors
By publicly naming a major hotel brand, DHS sends a message beyond one property in Minnesota. The message is not just about Hilton—it is about all vendors who may interact with immigration enforcement during surge operations.
The signal is simple: Refusals, cancellations, or disruptions tied to enforcement operations may trigger public consequences.
This is a classic federal deterrence tactic, particularly during politically sensitive enforcement periods.
2. Narrative Control During an Enforcement Surge
When immigration enforcement ramps up, DHS is acutely aware of public perception. During surges, advocacy groups, local officials, and media outlets move quickly to shape the narrative.
By going public first, DHS attempts to:
frame the story as operational interference rather than protest,
discourage similar actions by other hotels, and
prevent a broader boycott narrative from gaining early traction.
This mirrors prior DHS behavior during other high-profile enforcement controversies.
3. Precedent Setting for Franchise Operators
Because many branded hotels are independently owned and operated, DHS likely understands that franchise-level decisions are the weakest point in enforcement logistics.
Publicly naming Hilton—despite its franchise structure—creates pressure up the chain:
on brand compliance teams,
on franchise agreements,
and on operators who may otherwise act independently.
In short, this was not just a reaction. It was a warning shot.
How Hotel Controversies Predict ICE Enforcement Behavior on the Ground
Hotel disputes involving ICE are not isolated PR incidents. Historically, they are early indicators of how enforcement patterns may shift next.
At Herman Legal Group, we have observed a consistent pattern across multiple enforcement cycles:
When Enforcement Logistics Become Contested, ICE Adapts Quickly
When traditional logistics—such as centralized hotel lodging—become unstable or controversial, enforcement agencies do not pause operations. Instead, they adjust tactics.
Common downstream effects include:
1. More Decentralized Operations
Rather than relying on large, visible staging locations, enforcement activity becomes more dispersed and less predictable.
This often results in:
smaller field teams,
less advance visibility, and
fewer identifiable enforcement hubs.
2. Increased Surprise Encounters
As logistics decentralize, enforcement increasingly occurs through:
routine traffic stops,
unexpected workplace encounters, and
collateral arrests unrelated to the original target.
For immigrants with prior orders, overstays, or unresolved issues, this raises encounter risk substantially.
3. Heightened Risk at “Routine” Government Touchpoints
When enforcement operations face friction elsewhere, agencies rely more heavily on existing points of contact, including:
USCIS interviews,
ICE check-ins,
biometrics appointments, and
immigration court appearances.
This is why HLG consistently warns against treating any government appointment as “routine” during surge periods.
When enforcement logistics become politically or operationally unstable, individual risk increases—not decreases.
Immigrants, visa holders, and mixed-status families should assume:
less predictability,
faster decision-making by officers, and
fewer second chances to correct mistakes.
This is precisely when advance legal screening matters most.
If you are unsure about your risk profile—or whether to attend an upcoming appointment—HLG strongly recommends speaking with an immigration attorney before proceeding:
Ohio Local (Cleveland, Columbus, Akron, Cincinnati, Dayton — and Nationwide)
HLG is Ohio-rooted and national in scope. We routinely advise and represent clients in:
Cleveland immigration matters
Columbus immigration enforcement risk
Akron immigration cases
Cincinnati ICE and removal defense
Dayton immigration strategy
But enforcement risk is not “local-only.” If you are anywhere in the U.S. and facing a surge environment, a high-risk appointment, or a complicated history, HLG can advise nationwide:
DHS publicly alleged the cancellation of lodging reservations tied to DHS/ICE personnel at a Hilton-branded property.
Hilton and multiple outlets emphasize the franchise distinction: the property is described as independently owned/operated.
The incident sits within a broader boycott ecosystem that targets vendors for either cooperating with or refusing ICE.
What readers should do if enforcement is increasing in their area
Do not attend appointments “blind.”
Do not travel if your status or history is uncertain.
Get a risk screen from an immigration attorney who understands enforcement realities.
Frequently Asked Questions: Hilton, ICE, and Hotel Boycotts (2026)
Did Hilton hotels really cancel ICE or DHS reservations in Minnesota?
According to DHS and multiple news reports, a Hilton-branded Hampton Inn near Minneapolis canceled hotel reservations associated with ICE personnel during an immigration enforcement surge. Hilton later stated that the property is independently owned and operated and that the conduct described was inconsistent with Hilton’s corporate policies. The hotel reportedly apologized and addressed the situation after it became public.
Was this decision made by Hilton corporate or by a franchise hotel?
Public reporting indicates the hotel involved was a franchise location, not a Hilton-owned property. This distinction is critical because many major hotel brands license their name and standards to independent owners who control day-to-day operations, including reservations and guest communications. Corporate brands may impose standards after the fact, but they often do not make individual booking decisions.
Why did DHS publicly name Hilton instead of resolving this quietly?
Federal agencies rarely escalate vendor disputes publicly unless they are sending a broader signal. Public naming can serve as deterrence, narrative control during an enforcement surge, and a warning to other vendors that refusals or disruptions tied to enforcement may trigger consequences. This type of escalation is unusual and often intentional.
Is it legal for a hotel to refuse service to ICE or DHS agents?
The legality depends on how and why the refusal occurs. Hotels are public accommodations and generally cannot discriminate based on protected characteristics, but being a federal employee is not itself a protected class. Refusals can still raise legal issues involving contracts, franchise agreements, procurement rules, or selective enforcement depending on the facts.
Does this mean hotels are allowed to “boycott ICE”?
There is no single legal rule that permits or prohibits a “boycott of ICE” by private companies. Each situation turns on contractual obligations, public-accommodation laws, and brand-franchise rules. Many companies face pressure from both sides—activists calling for disengagement and government agencies demanding cooperation.
How does this incident relate to past hotel controversies involving ICE?
Earlier controversies often focused on hotels allegedly cooperating too closely with ICE, such as sharing guest information or housing detainees. Those cases triggered boycotts claiming complicity in enforcement. The Minneapolis incident is notable because it flips the narrative by alleging refusal rather than cooperation, yet still produced a national backlash.
Are hotel boycotts an effective way to influence immigration enforcement?
Boycotts typically aim to influence corporate behavior rather than enforcement policy directly. They can create reputational and financial pressure that causes companies to reassess vendor relationships, data practices, or contracts. Enforcement agencies, however, usually adapt operationally rather than reduce enforcement activity.
Does this hotel controversy affect immigrants or visa holders directly?
Not directly, but it can affect them indirectly. When enforcement logistics become unstable or politically contested, agencies often shift tactics, increasing unpredictability and reliance on routine touchpoints such as USCIS interviews, ICE check-ins, and court appearances. This can raise encounter risk for individuals with unresolved immigration issues.
Should immigrants be more cautious right now because of this incident?
During enforcement surges, caution is always advisable. Individuals with pending cases, prior removal orders, overstays, or old arrests should avoid treating any government appointment or travel as routine. A legal risk assessment before attending appointments can prevent irreversible consequences.
Can ICE arrest someone at a USCIS interview or routine appointment?
Yes. A pending application or interview does not provide immunity from enforcement. ICE has legal authority to arrest individuals at or near government buildings if there is a valid basis to do so, which is why advance legal screening is critical in surge environments.
What should I do if I’m worried about enforcement risk right now?
Start by understanding your full immigration history, including prior entries, overstays, orders, and arrests. Before attending any USCIS, ICE, or court appointment, speak with an immigration attorney who understands enforcement dynamics, not just form filing. Early advice can determine whether to proceed, delay, or take protective steps.
ICE regularly uses hotels and extended-stay lodging for agents, detainee overflow, transportation staging, and short-term housing. This often occurs via direct contracts, GSA schedules, or franchise-level agreements.
Marriott International (including Courtyard, Residence Inn, Fairfield Inn brands)
Services: Lodging for ICE personnel, contractors, and operational needs
These companies are not ICE enforcement vendors, but may appear in ICE-related contexts such as detainee communications, content moderation, or government account usage.
Spotify
Context: Reported use in detention facilities or by contractors via tablets or devices
This list includes companies that have received direct ICE contracts, participated as prime or sub-contractors, or provided goods and services used in ICE operations during the last 12 months, based on publicly available federal procurement data and agency disclosures.
How to Protest or Boycott Companies That Support or Do Business With ICE (A Practical, Lawful Guide)
Public protests and consumer boycotts related to immigration enforcement are a form of lawful civic expression when conducted responsibly. If you choose to protest or boycott companies you believe are supporting or doing business with ICE, the steps below outline effective, legal, and low-risk ways to do so.
Step 1: Confirm the Facts Before Taking Action
Before protesting or calling for a boycott, verify:
whether the company actually has a relationship with ICE or DHS,
whether the activity involves contracts, data sharing, logistics, or services, and
whether the conduct is current or based on outdated reporting.
Misidentifying a company or relying on inaccurate claims can undermine credibility and expose individuals or organizations to legal risk.
HLG routinely emphasizes fact-checking because many ICE-related controversies involve franchise operators, contractors, or third-party vendors, not corporate headquarters.
Step 2: Understand the Company’s Structure
Many large brands operate through:
independent franchise owners,
regional operators,
subcontractors, or
third-party service providers.
A boycott aimed at a brand may not directly affect the entity responsible for the conduct in question. Understanding whether a decision was made at the corporate, franchise, or vendor level helps ensure your response is proportionate and accurate.
This distinction is central to many ICE-related controversies involving hotels, retailers, and technology companies.
Step 3: Choose Lawful, Low-Risk Forms of Protest
Common lawful protest and boycott methods include:
choosing not to purchase goods or services from a company,
publicly stating consumer preferences through reviews or statements that are factual and non-defamatory,
contacting companies directly to request policy changes,
supporting advocacy organizations through lawful donations, and
peaceful, permitted demonstrations in public spaces.
Avoid conduct that could be construed as harassment, threats, property damage, or interference with employees or customers.
Step 4: Avoid Actions That Create Legal Exposure
Even well-intentioned protest activity can create risk if it crosses legal boundaries. Avoid:
blocking entrances or exits,
trespassing on private property,
targeting individual employees rather than corporate decision-makers,
making false statements presented as fact, or
encouraging others to engage in unlawful behavior.
These actions can result in criminal charges or civil liability and may distract from the underlying message.
Step 5: Separate Corporate Accountability From Immigration Status
For immigrants, visa holders, and mixed-status families, it is especially important to separate protest activity from immigration exposure.
Participation in protests does not automatically affect immigration status, but:
arrests,
citations,
or documented encounters with law enforcement
can have immigration consequences for non-citizens.
Individuals with pending cases, prior removal orders, or unresolved immigration issues should seek legal advice before participating in public demonstrations.
HLG y advises clients to prioritize personal safety and immigration stability over public visibility.
Step 6: Consider Indirect Advocacy Options
If direct protest feels risky, alternatives include:
writing op-eds or letters to editors,
supporting litigation or policy advocacy through established organizations,
engaging in shareholder or consumer feedback channels, and
amplifying verified reporting rather than organizing demonstrations.
These methods often carry lower personal risk while still influencing corporate behavior.
Step 7: Know When to Seek Legal Advice
If you are unsure whether protest or boycott activity could affect:
your immigration status,
a pending application,
a future travel plan, or
an upcoming USCIS, ICE, or court appointment,
consulting an immigration attorney beforehand is a prudent step.
HLG advises individuals who want to engage in civic activity while minimizing unintended immigration consequences.
Corporate boycotts related to ICE and immigration enforcement have become more visible and more complex. Understanding how to engage lawfully and strategically protects both the message and the people behind it.
This guidance is informational and does not constitute legal advice. Laws and risks vary by location and individual circumstances.
How can Herman Legal Group help in situations like this?
Herman Legal Group focuses on risk assessment, enforcement awareness, and strategic decision-making, not just paperwork. HLG represents clients in Cleveland, Columbus, Akron, Cincinnati, Dayton, and nationwide, helping individuals and families navigate heightened enforcement periods safely.
Resource Directory: Hilton, ICE, Hotel Boycotts & Immigration Enforcement (2026)
Federal Agencies & Official Government Sources
These agencies shape immigration enforcement operations, public statements, and enforcement authority:
U.S. Department of Homeland Security (DHS) https://www.dhs.gov
Oversees immigration enforcement agencies and sets national enforcement priorities.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) https://www.ice.gov
Conducts immigration enforcement, detention, removals, and compliance operations.
U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (USCIS) https://www.uscis.gov
Handles immigration benefits, interviews, biometrics, and applications—often overlapping with enforcement risk.
Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR) https://www.justice.gov/eoir
Manages immigration courts and removal proceedings.
Major News & Investigative Reporting (Primary Sources)
These outlets provide original reporting and contemporaneous documentation of the Hilton / ICE controversy and related enforcement developments:
Herman Legal Group (HLG) – In-Depth Legal Analysis & Guidance
These HLG resources provide legal context, enforcement risk analysis, and practical guidance related to ICE activity, corporate boycotts, and immigration enforcement:
HLG represents clients in Cleveland, Columbus, Akron, Cincinnati, Dayton, and across the United States, focusing on enforcement-aware strategy, removal defense, and risk management.
Ohio Companies That Support ICE (2026)
Herman Legal Group (HLG) has prepared this in-depth, public-facing resource identifying Ohio-based companies that currently hold contracts with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), based on FY 2026 federal contracting data.
All contract data below is sourced directly from USAspending.gov.
How This List Was Compiled
HLG applied the following active filters on USAspending.gov:
Time Period: FY 2026
Funding Agency: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE)
Awarding Agency: Department of Homeland Security (DHS)
Service Provided: Electronic legal research and law library services for ICE detention facilities, supporting legal analysis, enforcement litigation, and detention operations.
Funding Agency: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Awarding Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Recipient Location: Ohio (or any state)
Award Type: Contracts
Time Period: FY 2026
Review:
Award descriptions
Obligation amounts
NAICS and PSC codes
Cross-reference companies using:
Corporate websites
SEC filings (if public)
SAM.gov and GSA eLibrary
This method allows the public to identify which companies support ICE and how.
Why Transparency Around ICE Contractors Matters
ICE does not operate alone. Its enforcement, detention, surveillance, and litigation efforts depend on private companies providing:
Legal research platforms
Investigative and skip-tracing services
Records management and destruction
Logistics and operational support
Understanding which Ohio companies profit from ICE contracts enables informed public discussion, journalism, advocacy, and accountability.
How to Initiate or Join a Lawful Boycott of ICE Vendors
Boycotts are a lawful form of civic participation grounded in free speech and consumer choice. When conducted ethically, they can raise awareness, influence corporate decision-making, and encourage transparency—without targeting individuals or disrupting lawful activity.
Core Principles (Read First)
Peaceful and lawful only
Respectful communication with companies and the public
Fact-based advocacy (cite verifiable sources such as USAspending.gov)
No harassment, no threats, no doxxing, no property damage, no violence
Step 1: Define a Clear, Narrow Objective
Effective boycotts are precise. Decide upfront:
Which company (or limited set of companies) you are boycotting
What conduct you oppose (e.g., specific ICE contracts or services)
What change you are requesting (review, transparency, non-renewal, exit)
Avoid vague demands. Clarity improves credibility and results.
Step 2: Verify the Facts
Before asking others to act:
Confirm the contract exists (award ID, dates, description)
Identify what services are provided and why they matter
Keep links to government sources readily available
Accuracy is essential. Misstatements undermine lawful advocacy.
Step 3: Start With Your Own Consumer Choices
A boycott begins personally:
Do not purchase the company’s products or services
Encourage alternatives without disparaging employees or customers
Document your decision respectfully (“I am choosing not to buy because…”)
Step 4: Communicate Directly With Companies (Respectfully)
Send polite, non-threatening letters or emails (see the sample letter above)
Request public disclosure or a policy review
Invite a response or statement—do not demand one
Professional communication is more likely to receive engagement.
Step 5: Join Existing Campaigns (When Available)
Rather than duplicating efforts:
Search for ongoing campaigns focused on ICE vendors or detention accountability
Align messaging and timing with existing initiatives
Follow organizers’ codes of conduct and messaging guidelines
Coordination reduces confusion and increases impact.
Step 6: Use Social Media Responsibly
Social platforms can amplify lawful advocacy when used carefully.
Best Practices
Share verified links and neutral summaries of the facts
Use calm, values-based language
Encourage peaceful boycotts and consumer awareness
Avoid tagging individual employees or private persons
What to Avoid
Insults, threats, or repeated unwanted messages
Sharing personal information
Coordinated harassment or pile-ons
Suggested Content Types
Short explainers (“What this contract does and why it matters”)
Graphics citing public data sources
Calls for ethical review and transparency
Statements of personal consumer choice
Step 7: Engage Media and Stakeholders—Lawfully
If appropriate:
Write letters to the editor or op-eds citing public records
Contact journalists with concise, sourced briefs
Share concerns with shareholders or institutional investors through lawful channels
Focus on policy and corporate governance—not individuals.
Step 8: Set Guardrails and Moderate
If you organize a page, group, or event:
Publish a code of conduct (no harassment, no threats, no illegal activity)
Remove content that violates the rules
De-escalate conflict and redirect to facts
Strong moderation protects participants and the campaign.
Step 9: Measure and Adjust
Track lawful indicators of impact:
Company responses or statements
Media coverage quality
Growth of informed participation (not volume of outrage)
Refine messaging to stay accurate and respectful.
Legal Note
Peaceful boycotts and expressions of opinion are lawful. Harassment, threats, intimidation, property damage, and violence are not. Staying within the law protects participants and strengthens the legitimacy of the cause.
Examples of Online Initiatives to Boycott Companies That Contract With or Serve ICE
The following are real-world, documented examples of online initiatives that oppose corporate support for U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE). These campaigns illustrate lawful, peaceful, and ethical boycott strategies centered on consumer choice, transparency, and public accountability.
These examples are provided for educational and informational purposes only and are not endorsements. Any participation should remain lawful, respectful, and non-harassing.
1. Not With My Dollars: ICE Out of My Wallet
Not With My Dollars is a national consumer boycott campaign that targets corporations alleged to enable or profit from ICE through contracts, technology, or operational support.
Campaign Overview:
The campaign urges consumers to withhold spending—particularly during high-visibility shopping periods—until companies reevaluate or exit ICE-related business.
Encourage others to make informed consumer choices
This initiative demonstrates how economic pressure and public education can be coordinated online without harassment or coercion.
2. #NoTechForICE
#NoTechForICE is an online advocacy movement—particularly active within technology, academic, and research communities—opposing contracts between technology companies and immigration enforcement agencies.
This model highlights how centralized information hubs can support decentralized, lawful advocacy.
4. Community-Led Lists and Social Media Campaigns
In addition to national initiatives, grassroots and community-led efforts often emerge across social platforms. These efforts vary in scope and organization but typically focus on sharing information and encouraging consumer awareness.
These initiatives demonstrate how local, decentralized efforts can complement larger national campaigns.
Why These Online Initiatives Exist
Most online boycott efforts focus on companies that:
Hold federal contracts with ICE or DHS
Provide technology, data, or surveillance tools
Enable detention logistics or enforcement operations
Have consumer-facing brands sensitive to reputational impact
National reporting has documented corporate scrutiny and boycott discussions involving companies across technology, retail, hospitality, transportation, and data services sectors.
Expressing Opposition Lawfully, Respectfully, and Effectively
Opposition to corporate support for immigration enforcement is a lawful exercise of free speech and consumer choice. Individuals and organizations have the right to:
Express disagreement with a company’s business practices
Choose not to purchase a company’s products or services
Encourage others to do the same through peaceful, truthful advocacy
Herman Legal Group strongly emphasizes the following principles:
What Lawful Advocacy Looks Like
Being polite, factual, and respectful
Communicating concerns directly to companies
Using accurate, verifiable information
Encouraging peaceful boycotts and consumer awareness
Respecting employees, contractors, and community members
What Is NOT Acceptable
Harassment, threats, or intimidation
Repeated unwanted communications
Hate speech or personal attacks
Property damage or vandalism
Violence or encouragement of violence
Illegal interference with business operations
Advocacy loses credibility—and legal protection—when it crosses into harassment or coercion. Peaceful boycotts and respectful communication are protected; harassment is not.
Sample Letter: Respectful Opposition to ICE Contracting
The following is a lawful, non-threatening, non-harassing sample letter that individuals may send to companies identified in this article. It is designed to communicate concern, request reconsideration, and encourage ethical review—not to intimidate or shame.
To Whom It May Concern,
I am writing as a member of the public to respectfully express my concern regarding your company’s current or past contracts with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
I recognize that your organization operates within the law and fulfills contractual obligations with government agencies. At the same time, many members of the public—including myself—are deeply concerned about the human impact of immigration detention and enforcement practices carried out by ICE.
As a consumer, I am exercising my right to voice my opinion and to make informed choices about the companies I support. I respectfully urge your leadership team to review your involvement with ICE and to consider whether continued participation aligns with your company’s stated values, corporate responsibility commitments, and community impact goals.
This message is sent in the spirit of peaceful civic engagement and ethical dialogue. I appreciate your time and consideration and hope your company will engage transparently with the public on this issue.
Sincerely,
[Your Name]
[City, State]
Encouraging Ethical Boycotts (Not Harassment)
Boycotts are a long-recognized, lawful form of civic participation. Ethical boycott advocacy should focus on:
Withholding personal spending
Sharing verified information
Engaging media and shareholders lawfully
Calling for policy review—not punishment
Effective advocacy is calm, persistent, and fact-based—not aggressive or personal.
Why This Approach Matters
Companies are more likely to respond to:
Professional communication
Reputational and consumer-impact analysis
Shareholder and stakeholder concerns
Clear, values-based arguments
Harassment and threats often backfire, undermine public support, and can expose individuals to legal risk. Respectful advocacy strengthens credibility and impact.
HLG’s Position
Herman Legal Group supports:
Peaceful protest
Lawful boycotts
Informed public discourse
Transparency and accountability
HLG does not support harassment, intimidation, or illegal activity in any form.
1. Which Ohio companies currently serve or contract with ICE?
Based on FY 2026 federal contracting data from USAspending.gov, Ohio-based companies with ICE contracts include firms providing legal research services, investigative/skip-tracing services, and document destruction services. These contracts support detention, enforcement, and administrative operations.
2. How can I verify whether an Ohio company has a contract with ICE?
You can verify ICE contracts by using the Advanced Search tool on USAspending.gov and applying filters for:
Funding Agency: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Award Type: Contracts
Recipient Location: Ohio
Fiscal Year: 2026 (or another year)
Each award lists the company name, contract value, and service description.
3. What types of services do Ohio companies provide to ICE?
Ohio companies have provided services such as:
Electronic legal research for ICE detention facilities
Skip-tracing and investigative support for enforcement operations
Secure shredding and document destruction of ICE records
These services support ICE’s legal, enforcement, and administrative functions.
4. Is it legal to boycott companies that do business with ICE?
Yes. Peaceful boycotts and consumer advocacy are lawful forms of free expression and consumer choice, as long as they do not involve harassment, threats, intimidation, or illegal activity.
5. Can I contact these companies to express opposition?
Yes. Members of the public may lawfully and respectfully contact companies to express concerns about ICE contracts, request transparency, or urge policy review. Communication should remain polite, factual, and non-harassing.
6. Why focus on Ohio companies specifically?
State-level analysis increases transparency and accountability by showing how local businesses participate in federal immigration enforcement. Ohio-focused data is especially useful for journalists, advocates, researchers, and consumers within the state.
7. Does Herman Legal Group support harassment or threats against companies?
No. Herman Legal Group supports lawful, peaceful advocacy only, including ethical boycotts and informed public discourse. Harassment, threats, violence, or illegal activity are never appropriate or effective.
8. Where can I learn more about ICE vendors and boycott efforts?
This article’s Resource Directory links to:
Federal transparency tools
Independent research organizations
Herman Legal Group articles on ICE vendors, enforcement, and lawful boycotts
These resources provide verified information and legal context.
About Herman Legal Group
Herman Legal Group is a nationally recognized immigration law firm committed to data-driven, verifiable immigration analysis for the public, media, and policymakers.
Resource Directory: ICE Contractors, Transparency, and Lawful Boycotts
Federal & Government Transparency Resources (Primary Sources)
USAspending.gov – Advanced Search
Official U.S. government database for federal contracts, grants, and awards. Use to identify ICE vendors by state, agency, and fiscal year.
Minnesota Ammunition Manufacturer Contracts With ICE: 2025-2026
Using FY 2024–FY 2026 records from USAspending.gov, this guide identifies a Minnesota company supplying ammunition to ICE, explains what they provide, and places those contracts in legal, policy, and public-accountability context.
Why Minnesota Matters in ICE Contracting
Minnesota is home to major firearms and ammunition manufacturing infrastructure. As ICE has expanded armed enforcement operations, training, and tactical capacity, Minnesota company supplying ammunition to ICE suppliers have become part of ICE’s operational supply chain, particularly for duty ammunition used by armed agents in the field.
This article focuses on prime contracts awarded to Minnesota companies, not subcontractors or indirect vendors.
How This Analysis Was Conducted
Data was pulled from USAspending.gov using the following parameters:
Funding Agency: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Awarding Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Recipient Location: Minnesota
Award Type: Contracts
Results:
Prime Contracts: 4
Each contract below is a delivery order issued directly by ICE.
Business Location:
1 Vista Way, Anoka, Minnesota 55303
Industry Classification:
NAICS: 332992 – Small Arms Ammunition Manufacturing
PSC: 1305 – Ammunition, Through 30mm
The Kinetic Group is the sole Minnesota-based prime contractor identified in this dataset. Across multiple delivery orders, the company supplies duty ammunition for armed ICE agents, making them a key Minnesota company supplying ammunition to ICE.
ICE Contracts Awarded to The Kinetic Group (Detailed Breakdown)
1. .223 Remington Duty Ammunition (62 Grain)
Prime Award ID: 70CMSW24FR0000013
Total Obligations: $1,298,700
Award Type: Delivery Order
Period of Performance: February 6, 2024 – December 31, 2025
Primary Place of Performance: Anoka, Minnesota
Purpose:
Procurement of .223 Remington caliber duty ammunition (62 grain) to support armed ICE agents operating in the field.
2. .223 Remington Duty Ammunition for ICE Firearms Programs
Prime Award ID: 70CMSW22FR0000074
Total Obligations: $1,017,022.14
Outlays: $1,009,571.04
Award Type: Delivery Order
Period of Performance: July 7, 2022 – January 31, 2026
Primary Place of Performance: Anoka, Minnesota
Purpose:
Purchase of .223 Remington duty ammunition in support of ICE firearms and training programs.
3. .223 Duty Ammunition for ICE-Serviced Agencies
Prime Award ID: 70CMSW25FR0000004
Total Obligations: $589,170.96
Award Type: Delivery Order
Period of Performance: February 19, 2025 – October 13, 2025
Primary Place of Performance: Fort Benning, Georgia (manufactured in Minnesota)
Purpose:
Procurement of duty ammunition for ICE and ICE-serviced federal agencies, coordinated through ICE’s Office of Firearms and Tactical Programs.
4. 12-Gauge Projectile Ammunition
Prime Award ID: 70CMSW26FR0000007
Total Obligations: $17,304.12
Award Type: Delivery Order
Period of Performance: January 12, 2026 – February 28, 2026
Primary Place of Performance: Anoka, Minnesota
Purpose:
Supply of 12-gauge projectile ammunition to support ICE operational needs.
Total Minnesota ICE Ammunition Contract Value
Across these four delivery orders:
Total ICE Obligations to The Kinetic Group:~$2.92 million
Nature of Goods: Live duty ammunition
End Use: Armed ICE enforcement, training, and tactical operations
What These Contracts Support in Practice
ICE firearms contracts are not administrative or logistical in nature. They support:
Armed field operations
Fugitive apprehension teams
Tactical enforcement units
Firearms training programs
Officer safety and use-of-force readiness
These contracts therefore directly enable physical enforcement capacity, not just paperwork or detention administration.
Why Public Transparency Matters
ICE does not manufacture its own weapons or ammunition. Its ability to conduct armed enforcement depends on private-sector suppliers.
State-specific transparency allows the public to understand:
Which local companies are part of federal enforcement infrastructure
How much public money is spent
What type of enforcement capacity is being funded
This information is relevant to:
Journalists
Researchers
Policymakers
Investors
Consumers
Community advocates
Lawful Civic Response and Consumer Choice
It is legal to:
Research federal contracts
Publish factual information
Express opposition to ICE enforcement policy
Choose not to support companies that supply ICE
Encourage others to make informed consumer decisions
It is not appropriate to engage in harassment, threats, or illegal activity. Peaceful, factual advocacy and ethical boycotts are lawful forms of civic participation.
How to Verify This Data Yourself
Anyone can independently confirm or expand this research by using USAspending.govand applying filters for:
Funding Agency: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Award Type: Contracts
Recipient Location: Minnesota
Fiscal Year: 2024–2026
Each award record includes:
Contract ID
Dollar amount
Product description
Place of performance
NAICS and PSC codes
Key Takeaway
As of FY 2026, Minnesota’s role in ICE contracting is concentrated in one area: ammunition manufacturing. Through multiple delivery orders, a Minnesota-based company supplies live duty ammunition used by armed ICE agents nationwide.
Understanding this supply chain is essential for any serious discussion of:
Immigration enforcement
Federal spending priorities
Corporate accountability
Ethical consumer response
How to Lawfully Boycott Companies Doing Business With ICE
Boycotts are a lawful expression of consumer choice and free speech when conducted peacefully and without coercion. If you oppose a company’s role in supporting ICE operations, you may choose not to purchase its products or services and encourage others—respectfully and factually—to do the same.
What a Lawful Boycott Looks Like
Personal consumer decisions: choosing alternatives and withholding spending
Fact-based communication: citing verified public records (e.g., federal contract data)
Clear objectives: requesting transparency, review, or non-renewal of contracts
Peaceful expression: no threats, intimidation, or harassment
What a Boycott Is Not
Harassment or repeated unwanted contact
Threats, intimidation, or doxxing
Property damage, trespass, or disruption of lawful operations
Violence or encouragement of violence
Step-by-Step: Starting a Peaceful, Effective Boycott
Define the Ask
Be specific about what you want (e.g., disclosure, policy review, non-renewal). Vague demands reduce impact.
Verify the Facts
Confirm the contract, dollar amounts, dates, and services using public sources. Accuracy builds credibility.
Lead With Your Own Choices
Explain your personal decision not to buy or use the company’s products/services—and why—without attacking employees or customers.
Communicate Respectfully With the Company
Send a concise, polite message requesting transparency or reconsideration. Keep it factual and non-threatening.
Educate Before Mobilizing
Share short explainers that cite public records so others can decide for themselves.
Set Guardrails
Publish a code of conduct: respectful tone, no harassment, no threats, no illegal activity.
Joining Existing Boycott Efforts (Instead of Starting From Scratch)
Often, it is more effective to join or support existing campaigns than to duplicate them.
Research current initiatives focused on ICE vendors or enforcement accountability.
Follow organizers’ rules and messaging guidelines.
Contribute constructively: share verified information, help with research, or amplify lawful calls to action.
Avoid pile-ons: do not target individual employees or private persons.
Coordination increases reach while reducing misinformation and conflict.
Using Social Media Responsibly
Social platforms can amplify awareness when used carefully.
Best Practices
Share verified links and concise summaries
Use calm, values-based language
Frame posts as personal consumer choice
Encourage peaceful boycotts and transparency
Avoid
Insults, threats, or inflammatory rhetoric
Tagging individual employees or unrelated people
Sharing personal information
Coordinated harassment or “dogpiling”
Example Posts (Respectful)
“I’m choosing not to support companies with ICE contracts after reviewing public records. Here’s the data so others can decide for themselves.”
“Transparency matters. Based on federal contract records, this company supplies ICE. I’m asking for a public review of that relationship.”
Respect, Safety, and the Law: Non-Negotiable Principles
No violence. Ever.
No harassment or threats.
No illegal activity.
No targeting of individuals.
Peaceful, lawful advocacy protects participants, preserves credibility, and is more likely to influence corporate decision-making.
Why Peaceful Pressure Can Work
Companies respond to:
Reputational risk grounded in accurate reporting
Investor and consumer concerns expressed professionally
Clear, achievable requests aligned with stated corporate values
Harassment and threats undermine legitimacy and can backfire.
Existing Online Efforts to Boycott ICE Vendors — and How to Join
The initiatives below are public-facing, well-documented efforts centered on consumer choice, transparency, and peaceful advocacy. Participation should always remain lawful, non-violent, and non-harassing.
1. No Tech for ICE
What it is:
A long-running advocacy campaign opposing technology, data, and surveillance contracts with ICE and CBP.
Primary focus:
Tech and data vendors
Surveillance and analytics tools
Cloud and digital infrastructure used in enforcement
Tone & rules:
Emphasizes informed choice and public education; rejects threats or intimidation.
3. Not With My Dollars
What it is:
A consumer-focused boycott campaign urging people to withhold spending from companies perceived as enabling ICE, particularly during high-visibility shopping periods.
Share verified reporting explaining why companies are targeted
Encourage others to make informed consumer choices
Tone & rules:
Consumer choice only; no harassment or coercion.
4. Grassroots & Social Media–Based Efforts (Decentralized)
What they are:
Independent community-led initiatives on platforms like X (Twitter), Instagram, Facebook, and Reddit that compile public records and discuss ethical boycotts.
Common formats:
Infographics citing federal contract data
Threads explaining how to use USAspending.gov
Community discussions about consumer alternatives
How to join responsibly:
Follow pages that cite sources
Verify claims before sharing
Add context, not outrage
Avoid tagging or targeting individual employees
Important note:
Because these efforts are decentralized, participants should be especially careful to avoid misinformation and harassment.
5. How to Join Without Starting Something New
If you don’t want to launch a campaign yourself:
Amplify responsibly
Share sourced explainers from existing campaigns.
Practice ethical consumer choice
Withhold spending quietly and explain your reasons when asked.
Engage respectfully
Contact companies politely to request transparency or review.
Follow codes of conduct
Many campaigns publish participation guidelines—follow them.
Ground Rules for Participation (Read First)
All reputable efforts share these principles:
Peaceful and lawful action only
No harassment, threats, or intimidation
No doxxing or targeting of individuals
No violence or property damage
Use verified, public information
These guardrails protect participants and preserve credibility.
Why Joining Existing Efforts Matters
Reduces duplication and misinformation
Aligns messaging and timing
Increases visibility with less risk
Keeps advocacy focused on policy and accountability—not individuals
Note
You have the right to research public contracts, express disagreement, and make ethical consumer choices. Exercising those rights responsibly and peacefully strengthens public discourse and keeps advocacy effective.
You can oppose corporate support for ICE without harassment or harm by joining existing, peaceful efforts grounded in consumer choice, transparency, and verified data.
Frequently Asked Questions: Minnesota Companies Contracting With ICE
1. Which Minnesota companies currently contract with ICE?
Based on federal contracting records covering FY 2024–FY 2026, Minnesota-based prime contracts with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) in this dataset involve ammunition manufacturing and supply. The identified Minnesota contractor supplies duty ammunition used by armed ICE agents.
2. What types of products or services do Minnesota companies provide to ICE?
The Minnesota contracts identified here involve:
.223 Remington duty ammunition (62 grain)
12-gauge projectile ammunition
These products support ICE firearms programs, training, and armed field operations.
3. How much federal money is involved in Minnesota ICE contracts?
Across multiple delivery orders in this dataset, ICE obligations to the Minnesota contractor total approximately $2.9 million over several fiscal years. Exact amounts and dates vary by delivery order.
4. How can I verify Minnesota ICE contracts myself?
You can independently verify ICE contracts by using USAspending.gov and applying these filters:
Funding Agency: U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
Awarding Agency: Department of Homeland Security
Recipient Location: Minnesota
Award Type: Contracts
Fiscal Year: Select the relevant year(s)
Each award record lists the company name, contract value, product description, and place of performance.
5. Why focus on Minnesota specifically?
State-level analysis improves transparency by showing how local companies participate in federal immigration enforcement. Minnesota-specific data is especially relevant for journalists, policymakers, investors, consumers, and community members within the state.
6. What do these ammunition contracts mean in practice?
Unlike administrative or detention-support services, ammunition contracts directly support armed enforcement capacity, including:
Firearms training
Officer readiness
Tactical enforcement operations
This makes them a distinct category of ICE contracting.
7. Is it legal to boycott companies that do business with ICE?
Yes. Peaceful boycotts and ethical consumer advocacy are lawful, provided they do not involve harassment, threats, intimidation, property damage, or violence. Choosing not to purchase products or services and encouraging others to make informed choices is legal.
8. Can I contact Minnesota companies to express concerns?
Yes. Members of the public may lawfully and respectfully contact companies to:
Request transparency
Ask for policy review
Express disagreement with ICE contracting
Communications should remain factual, polite, and non-harassing.
9. Does Herman Legal Group support harassment or violence?
No. Herman Legal Group supports lawful, peaceful civic engagement only, including research, public education, and ethical consumer choice. Harassment, threats, violence, or illegal activity are never appropriate or effective.
10. Where can I learn more about ICE vendors and boycott efforts?
This article’s Resource Directory links to:
Federal transparency tools
Independent research and journalism
Herman Legal Group articles on ICE vendors, enforcement, and lawful boycotts
These resources provide verified data and legal context for further research.
Herman Legal Group (HLG): ICE Contractors, Budgets & Boycotts
Primary legal analysis and public-facing guidance
Herman Legal Group – Immigration Law Blog https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/blog/
HLG’s central hub for enforcement analysis, federal contracting context, and public-interest immigration reporting.
Federal Transparency & Contract Verification (Primary Sources)
USAspending.gov https://www.usaspending.gov
Official database for federal awards. Use Advanced Search to filter by ICE, Minnesota, fiscal year, and contract type.
System for Award Management (SAM.gov) https://sam.gov
Contractor registrations, entity details, and eligibility information.
Department of Homeland Security – Budget & Performance https://www.dhs.gov/budget
DHS and ICE funding context and program descriptions.
ICE Enforcement, Oversight & Data
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement https://www.ice.gov
Official ICE materials and program descriptions.
DHS Office of Inspector General https://www.oig.dhs.gov
Audits and oversight reports relevant to ICE operations and procurement.
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC Immigration) https://trac.syr.edu/immigration/
Independent data on ICE enforcement trends and outcomes.
Minnesota-Relevant Context & Civic Information
Minnesota Department of Public Safety https://dps.mn.gov
State-level public safety context; useful for understanding how federal enforcement intersects locally.
ACLU of Minnesota https://www.aclu-mn.org
Civil liberties reporting and guidance relevant to enforcement, protest rights, and public accountability.
Companies That Supply ICE: How to Identify Them, Contact Them, and Organize a Lawful Boycott
People searching for “companies that do business with ICE,” “ICE vendors,” or “who supplies Immigration and Customs Enforcement” are usually looking for three things:
Names of companies that supply ICE
Proof and contact information
A lawful, effective way to express opposition and organize a boycott
This article brings those elements together in one place. Based on research of government contracts posted at USASpending.gov, and based on media reports, this report compiles a documented list of ICE vendors and suppliers, explains how and why to contact them, and provides polite, non-violent templates for outreach—to companies, boards of directors, media outlets, and Congress.
This is not about harassment, threats, or misinformation.
It is about documented accountability, protected speech, and economic pressure.
Important Ground Rules (Read First)
Always be polite and factual
Never threaten or harass individuals
Do not contact employees at home
Focus on corporate decisions, not personal attacks
Use verified public information
Peaceful boycotts are protected speech
Credibility is what makes boycotts work.
If you are looking to connect with other “Boycott ICE” efforts, or to create your own, read this:
Companies That Do Business With ICE (Last 12 Months)
Below is a categorized list of companies that have received ICE contracts, served as prime or subcontractors, or provided goods and services used in ICE operations, based on publicly available federal procurement data and agency disclosures.
Note: Contract values fluctuate, and some relationships occur through IDIQ task orders, GSA schedules, or franchises. Always verify current awards using USAspending.gov.
Below is a breakdown of each company, the products or services it provides to ICE, the value of its contract with ICE (if available), and contact information.
A. Surveillance, OSINT, Data Brokers & Analytics
Palantir Technologies
Services: Data integration, analytics platforms used by ICE Contract value: Over $139 million obligated Contract proof:
Services: Cybersecurity, cyber defense, and intelligence support services for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), including network protection, threat monitoring, intrusion detection, and security operations support for ICE information systems.
Contract value: ICE obligations and ceiling values exceeding approximately $59 million, under a multi-year Cyber Defense and Intelligence Support Services (CDISS) task order extending into FY 2025–FY 2026.
Cyber Defense and Intelligence Support Services (CDISS) – ICE Prime Award ID: 70CTD021FR0000232 Total potential value: Up to $59,369,310 Period of performance: Multi-year contract extending through August 2026 Scope: Cyber defense and intelligence support for ICE IT systems, including continuous monitoring, network security, cyber threat detection, and protection of ICE operational infrastructure. Contract vehicle: CIO-SP3 task order
Contact info (public corporate information): Address: 2295 Chain Bridge Road, Suite 300, Vienna, VA 22182 Phone: 703-618-2000 Email: No general public email listed (contact via web form) Contact page:Accenture Federal Services – Contact Office locations:Accenture Federal Services – Offices
Dell (Dell Federal Systems L.P.)
Services:
Procurement and provisioning of software licenses (particularly Microsoft enterprise licenses) and related IT support services for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) information systems supporting ICE enforcement infrastructure and operations.
Contract value:
Approximately $18.8 million in ICE obligations under identified federal contracts supporting the Office of the ICE Chief Information Officer (CIO), with performance through spring 2026 according to public federal spending records.
Software Licenses and IT Support for ICE CIO Office Contract vehicle(s): Department of Homeland Security task orders under Dell’s federal systems contracting vehicles Obligations: Approximately $18,800,000 (combined awards reported in mid-2025) Scope: Acquisition of enterprise software licenses (notably Microsoft enterprise products) and related information technology services in support of Immigration and Customs Enforcement’s Chief Information Officer functions and operational IT systems. This work underpins enforcement and administrative technology used by ICE. Period of performance: Through spring 2026 (based on publicly reported contract periods).
Contact info (public corporate information): Address: Dell Federal Systems typically operates under Dell Technologies’ federal business group; main corporate address for Dell Technologies is 1 Dell Way, Round Rock, TX 78682. Phone: 800-624-9896 (Dell Technologies main line; federal contracting inquiries typically handled via business development contacts). Email: Not publicly listed; federal contracting team contacts available through corporate/government services channels. Contact page:Dell Technologies Contact Office locations: See Dell Federal and Dell Technologies office listings on Dell’s contact portal.
General Dynamics (General Dynamics Corporation / General Dynamics Information Technology)
Services:
Information technology and mission support services for Homeland Security agencies, including background investigations support for ICE and related IT services; broader work includes systems operations, maintenance, troubleshooting, and modernization that support DHS and ICE data and identity systems.
ICE contract activity (2025–2026, estimated):
Approximately $5M–$15M in ICE-specific obligations reported tied to background investigations and visa lifecycle support task orders that conclude in 2025. A larger visa lifecycle support contract showing an award value of about $37.5M total with a portion obligated through ICE in 2024–2025 suggests continued ICE work into early 2025.
Services:
Public relations, outreach, training, and communications support for ICE programs, including campaign development and program support for Homeland Security Investigations (HSI).
Contract value:
ICE obligations of at least approximately $19.1 million across identified FY 2025–FY 2026-related ICE awards.
ITACS – Training & Communications Support (ICE)
Prime Award ID: 70CTD021FR0000001
Obligations: $17,433,486.56
Scope: Training services, communications support, and program assistance for ICE operations.
Know2Protect Campaign Support Services (ICE / HSI)
Prime Award ID: 70CMSD25FR0000024
Obligations: $1,694,129.00
Scope: Public-facing outreach and campaign support services connected to ICE and Homeland Security Investigations initiatives.
Contact info (public corporate information): Address: 30 Rockefeller Plaza, 41st Floor, New York, NY 10112 Phone: 212-492-4000 Email: No general public email listed (contact via web form) Contact page:Deloitte – Contact Us Office locations:Deloitte US Office Directory
Comcast (Comcast Government Services LLC / Comcast Cable Communications, LLC)
Services:
Telecommunications services, cable internet, and related connectivity infrastructure supporting ICE operations, including internet and network services at ICE facilities in support of Homeland Security Investigations (HSI) and law enforcement activities.
Contract value:
Federal obligations under identified ICE-related contracts total in the low-to-mid six figures per award (several separate contract actions in FY 2025 and FY 2024).
Cable Internet Services for ICE SAC Seattle and sublocations
Prime Award ID: 70CMSD25P00000037
Obligations: (Awarded amounts visible on USAspending – varies by period)
Scope: Provision of cable internet and connectivity services to ICE Seattle field offices and associated sites in support of Homeland Security Investigations law enforcement activities.
Other DHS/ICE telecom/communications contracts
Multiple awards to Comcast Government Services LLC and Comcast Business/Comcast Cable Communications have been issued by DHS and DOJ agencies in 2024–2025, indicating recurring award activity consistent with providing connectivity/telecommunications services supporting federal operational needs.
Contact info (public corporate information): Address: Phone: (877) 337-9303 (general federal solutions line via Comcast Business) (Comcast Business) Email: Most federal contracting inquiries are handled through business development channels (e.g., CGS-EIS@comcast.com for NS2020 Program contacts). (Comcast Business) Contact page (corporate):Comcast Government Services federal solutions
Office locations: One Comcast Center 1701 John F. Kennedy Boulevard Philadelphia, PA 19103
Services:
Advanced communications, surveillance, and mission support technologies for federal agencies, including Homeland Security and law enforcement. ICE-related work includes radio communications systems, surveillance equipment, and IT support that help ensure operational connectivity and situational awareness for ICE field operations.
ICE contract activity (2025–2026, estimated):
Approximately $10M–$50M in ICE-linked obligations, based on reported awards for communications systems, mission support technology procurements, and integration support under Department of Homeland Security task orders.
Important note: Hotel brands are often not the direct contracting party. Contracts may be with individual franchise owners or property management companies, even when the brand name appears in searches.
Marriott International
(Courtyard, Residence Inn, Fairfield Inn, etc.)
Services: Lodging for ICE personnel, contractors, and operational needs
Services: Small-package delivery and logistics services supporting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), including shipment of documents and materials as part of ICE operational needs.
ICE contract activity (2025–2026, estimated): UPS holds an ICE contract for express small package delivery that is currently valued at approximately $60,500 and could grow to about $90,500 if extended through March 2026. This contract supports agency logistics rather than frontline enforcement operations.
Headquarters address: United Parcel Service (UPS) 55 Glenlake Parkway NE Atlanta, GA 30328 United States
FedEx (Federal Express Corporation / FedEx Government Services)
Services:
Delivery and logistical services supporting Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) operations, including transportation of materials and government mail related to ICE functions. Reported as part of federal contracts used by ICE field operations.
Contract value:
Approximately $1 million under a multiyear delivery services contract awarded in 2021 and set to expire in 2026.
Contract proof (reported public records):
Fortune and investigative reporting list FedEx as having an ICE contract for delivery services valued around $1 million awarded in 2021 and scheduled to run through 2026.
(Note: the specific USAspending award for this ICE contract is not directly indexed under “FedEx” on USAspending.gov; the Fortune list is currently the only publicly available reference connecting FedEx to an ICE contract of this nature.)
Delivery Services for ICE
Prime Award ID: Reported as part of a 2021 contract
Obligations: Approx. $1,000,000
Period of performance: 2021 through 2026
Scope: Delivery and logistics services supporting ICE operational requirements — including government mail and materials transport.
Contact info (public corporate information): Address: 942 South Shady Grove Road, Memphis, TN 38120 (FedEx corporate headquarters) Phone: 1-800-GO-FEDEX (general customer service; government contracting contacts typically routed via corporate government sales channels) Email: Government contract inquiries via govt@fedex.com (FedEx Government Contractor Program) Contact page:FedEx Government Shipping Services Office locations: Multiple U.S. offices; see corporate contact resources on the FedEx website
Services:
Provision of laundry and dish machine detergent and related cleaning products for Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) facilities, supporting operational needs at detention centers.
Contract value:
A 5-year contract valued at approximately $136,518 to supply detergent and cleaning products for ICE’s Florence, Arizona detention center, with performance beginning in 2021 and scheduled through 2026.
Contract proof:
Public reporting lists Ecolab as holding an active ICE contract worth about $136,518 to supply detergent to the ICE Florence detention facility in Arizona.
Laundry and Dish Machine Detergent Supply for ICE Florence Detention Center Obligations:Approximately $136,518 Period of performance: 2021–2026 Scope: Supply of laundry and dishwashing detergents and associated cleaning products for facility operations at the ICE detention center in Florence, Arizona — supporting basic hygiene and sanitation for the facility.
Contact info (public corporate information): Address: 1 Ecolab Place, St. Paul, MN 55102 Phone: 651-293-9400 (main corporate) Email: Government procurement inquiries may be directed via govtorders@ecolab.com (general government orders contact). Contact page:Ecolab – Contact Us Office locations: See corporate location listings on the Ecolab contact portal.
Services:
Laboratory instruments, analytical equipment, and scientific supplies. ICE-related procurements include specialized analytical and narcotics-detection instruments and related lab equipment used by ICE investigative units and field offices.
ICE contract activity (2025–2026, estimated): Under $100,000 in identified ICE-specific obligations, based on small-value equipment procurements. Thermo Fisher’s ICE work appears limited to targeted equipment purchases, not large-scale enforcement, detention, or surveillance programs.
It has also been reported that Home Depot and Lowe’s are using AI-powered license plate readers and feeding this data into law enforcement surveillance systems accessible to ICE. Their parking lots are also regular sites of ICE raids targeting day laborers.
How to Contact ICE Vendors (Best Practices)
When contacting companies:
Be calm and specific
Reference documented contracts
State your values and expectations
Explain your intent to boycott
Encourage policy change or contract termination
Sample Letter to a Company
Subject: Concern Regarding Company’s Business With ICE
Dear [Company Name] Leadership,
I am writing as a customer/community member who is deeply concerned about your company’s documented business relationship with U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE).
Public procurement records indicate that your company has provided services or products used in ICE operations. I respectfully ask you to review this relationship and consider whether it aligns with your stated corporate values, human-rights commitments, and reputational responsibilities.
Unless your company commits to ending or declining future ICE contracts, I intend to stop purchasing your products/services and will encourage others to do the same.
I would welcome a public response outlining your position and any steps you are taking to reassess this relationship.
Sincerely,
[Name]
[City/State]
Sample Letter to a Board of Directors
Subject: Fiduciary and Reputational Risk Related to ICE Contracts
Dear Members of the Board,
I am writing to express concern about the reputational, legal, and ESG risks posed by the company’s involvement in ICE-related contracts.
Growing public scrutiny of immigration enforcement creates material brand and investor risk. I urge the Board to review ICE-related business, evaluate its alignment with company values, and consider adopting a policy limiting or prohibiting participation in immigration enforcement contracts.
I respectfully request a response outlining how the Board is addressing this issue.
Sincerely,
[Name]
Sample Social Media Message (Polite & Factual)
I’m concerned about [Company Name]’s documented contracts supplying ICE. I’m choosing to boycott and encouraging others to do the same until the company commits to ending this relationship. Accountability matters.
#BoycottICE #CorporateAccountability
I’m reaching out to flag publicly available procurement records showing that [Company Name] supplies goods or services used by ICE.
I believe this raises questions about corporate accountability, brand alignment, and public oversight. I’m happy to share documentation and explain why community members are calling for a boycott.
Thank you for your time,
[Name]
Sample Letter to Members of Congress
Subject: Oversight Needed on ICE Contracting and Corporate Accountability
Dear [Representative/Senator],
I am writing to urge greater congressional oversight of ICE’s contracting practices and the private companies that profit from immigration enforcement.
Public procurement data shows extensive reliance on private vendors for detention, surveillance, transportation, and monitoring. I respectfully ask you to support transparency, accountability, and reforms that reduce harm to immigrant communities.
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
Sincerely,
[Name]
[ZIP Code]
Frequently Asked Questions: Companies That Do Business With ICE
1. What companies do business with ICE?
Companies that do business with ICE include private detention operators, surveillance and data analytics firms, transportation and aviation contractors, hotels, food service providers, IT contractors, and manufacturers of monitoring and communications equipment. These companies provide services such as detention management, deportation flights, electronic ankle monitoring, data analysis, housing, meals, and logistical support used in immigration enforcement.
2. Where can I find a verified list of ICE vendors and suppliers?
Verified information about ICE vendors can be found through federal procurement databases such as USAspending.gov, which lists contracts, obligated amounts, and recipient companies. Reputable journalism, FOIA-released documents, and ICE program pages can also confirm how specific vendors support enforcement operations. This article consolidates that information into one documented, regularly updated list.
3. How do I know if a company is really supplying ICE?
A company is considered an ICE supplier if it:
Has received direct ICE contracts
Serves as a prime or subcontractor under DHS contracts
Provides goods or services used in ICE programs such as detention, deportation flights, surveillance, or alternatives to detention
Verification should rely on federal procurement records, official ICE program descriptions, or documented disclosures—not social media claims or rumors.
4. Is it legal to boycott companies that work with ICE?
Yes. Peaceful boycotts are protected speech under U.S. law. Individuals and organizations may lawfully choose not to purchase goods or services from companies and may encourage others to do the same, as long as the activity is non-violent, factual, and does not involve harassment, threats, or defamation.
5. How can I boycott ICE vendors effectively?
Effective boycotts focus on credibility and consistency. Best practices include:
Citing documented contracts or public records
Contacting corporate leadership, boards, and investors politely
Explaining consumer intent to stop purchasing products or services
Encouraging companies to adopt policies limiting or ending ICE contracts
Coordinating messaging with others for sustained pressure
Boycotts succeed when they create reputational, investor, and customer risk—not when they rely on outrage alone.
6. Should I contact individual employees of ICE vendors?
No. Advocacy should always focus on corporate decision-makers and institutions, not individual employees. Do not contact workers at home or target staff who do not control company policy. Communications should be directed to corporate offices, boards of directors, investor relations teams, or public affairs departments.
7. What information should I include when contacting a company?
Communications are most effective when they:
Reference documented ICE contracts or services
Explain why the relationship raises ethical, reputational, or ESG concerns
State your intent to boycott or divest
Request a public response or policy review
Avoid personal attacks, speculation, or inflammatory language.
8. Do boycotts against ICE vendors actually work?
Yes, documented cases show that sustained public pressure can lead companies to end or decline ICE-related business, particularly in transportation, hospitality, and consumer-facing industries. Corporations tend to respond when enforcement contracts threaten brand reputation, investor confidence, or long-term profitability.
9. Are hotels and airlines really involved with ICE?
Sometimes. ICE often books lodging and transportation through contracts, task orders, or third-party vendors. In the hospitality industry, contracts may involve individual franchise owners rather than corporate headquarters. Aviation and transportation companies may provide charter flights or logistical support for deportations. Each relationship should be verified individually.
10. What is the difference between direct ICE contracts and indirect support?
Direct contracts involve companies paid directly by ICE. Indirect support can occur through:
DHS-wide contract vehicles
GSA schedules
Subcontracting relationships
Franchised or independently owned properties
Indirect involvement still matters, but it should be described accurately and with supporting documentation.
11. Can I contact the media about ICE vendors?
Yes. Journalists often rely on publicly available procurement data and documented patterns of corporate behavior. When contacting reporters, provide:
The company name
Evidence of ICE contracts or involvement
Why the issue matters to the public
Why it is timely or newsworthy
Factual, well-documented tips are far more likely to be covered.
12. Can I contact members of Congress about ICE contracting?
Yes. Congress has oversight authority over DHS and ICE. Constituents may lawfully request hearings, audits, or reforms related to ICE’s use of private contractors. Including ZIP code information and focusing on transparency and accountability increases effectiveness.
13. Is this about attacking companies or individuals?
No. This approach is about corporate accountability, transparency, and lawful economic pressure. It rejects harassment, threats, doxxing, or misinformation. The goal is to influence institutional decisions through documented facts and protected speech.
14. Why do companies continue doing business with ICE?
Reasons vary and may include:
Long-term government contracts
High revenue or guaranteed payments
Limited public scrutiny compared to consumer markets
Contract structures that obscure involvement
Boycotts seek to change that cost-benefit calculation by increasing reputational and financial risk.
15. How often does this ICE vendor list change?
Frequently. ICE contracts can be issued, modified, or expire through task orders, IDIQ contracts, or franchise-level arrangements. Readers should periodically verify entries using federal procurement databases and official disclosures. This article is designed to be updated as new information becomes available.
16. Can organizations or investors use this information?
Yes. This resource is relevant to journalists, researchers, ESG analysts, investors, advocacy groups, faith organizations, unions, and policymakers assessing corporate exposure to immigration enforcement risk.
17. What is the safest way to participate in a “Boycott ICE” campaign?
The safest and most effective approach is to:
Rely on verified public information
Communicate respectfully and factually
Avoid personal targeting or threats
Coordinate with others for sustained, lawful pressure
Discipline and credibility are what make boycott campaigns effective and durable.
18. Where can I learn how to join or start a Boycott ICE campaign?
This article links to a unified strategy guide explaining how to connect with existing Boycott ICE efforts or responsibly build your own campaign using lawful, ethical, and effective methods grounded in documentation and public accountability.
Final Thought
Boycotts are most effective when they are disciplined, factual, and persistent. Corporations respond not to outrage alone, but to reputational risk, customer loss, investor concern, and sustained public scrutiny.
If you are looking for companies that supply ICE, this list gives you a starting point.
If you are looking for how to act, the templates above show how to do so lawfully, ethically, and effectively.
If you are looking to connect with other “Boycott ICE” efforts, or to create your own, here is another resource:
This list includes companies that have received direct ICE contracts, participated as prime or sub-contractors, or provided goods and services used in ICE operations during the last 12 months, based on publicly available federal procurement data and agency disclosures.
Resources Directory
Herman Legal Group
Core “Companies That Supply ICE” + Boycott Strategy
Can ICE Arrest You If You Have a Pending Immigration Application? What’s Actually Happening in 2026
Can ICE Arrest You With a Pending Immigration Application?
Yes. ICE can arrest you even if you have a pending immigration application, including a marriage-based green card, I-485, or other USCIS filing.
A pending application does not provide legal protection from immigration enforcement. Recent ICE arrests at USCIS interviews show that individuals who are technically removable—such as visa overstays or those with prior removal orders—can be detained during or immediately after USCIS appointments.
Many people still attend USCIS interviews safely every day, but some cases now carry real enforcement risk and should be reviewed carefully before attending.
Why This Question Is So Often Asked?
This question is exploding online because it is no longer theoretical.
Herman Legal Group has documented multiple cases in which ICE officers arrested immigrants during or immediately after USCIS interviews, including marriage-based green card interviews. These arrests represent a sharp departure from long-standing practice and have understandably caused fear and confusion.
Since then, immigrants across the country have been asking:
Understanding the question, “Can ICE arrest you with a pending immigration application,” is crucial for many immigrants today.
“Is it safe to go to my interview?”
“Does a pending marriage case protect me?”
“Can ICE arrest me even if I have no criminal record?”
A Pending Application Does Not Equal Protection
One of the most dangerous misconceptions in immigration law is the belief that filing an application makes someone “safe.”
It does not.
A pending application:
Does not grant lawful status by itself
Does not erase visa overstays
Does not cancel prior removal orders
Does not prevent ICE from acting if enforcement authority already exists
USCIS processes benefits. ICE enforces removals. While they are separate agencies, information sharing exists, and ICE does not need USCIS permission to act.
These were not individuals with violent criminal histories. In some cases, the overstay was short. What mattered was that ICE viewed them as removable at that moment, despite pending applications.
Who Is Actually at Risk
ICE does not arrest people randomly. Arrests tend to involve identifiable risk factors, including:
A pending I-485 does not automatically grant lawful status. ICE may still act if removability exists at the time of the interview.
Biometrics Appointments
Arrests are less common at biometrics but not impossible. The risk depends on whether ICE already has authority—not the type of appointment.
Attending an ICE Check-In: What Is the Risk of Arrest?
ICE check-ins are one of the highest-risk encounters in the immigration system.
A check-in is not a benefit appointment. It is an enforcement interaction with Immigration and Customs Enforcement, and ICE officers already have access to your full immigration file when you arrive.
When ICE Check-Ins Are Required
People are typically required to attend ICE check-ins if they are:
Under a final order of removal
Released from detention on supervision
Previously ordered removed but not yet deported
Required to report under an Order of Supervision (OSUP)
Can ICE Arrest You at a Check-In?
Yes. ICE can arrest you at a check-in, and arrests at check-ins are legally routine.
Unlike USCIS interviews, ICE does not need a new trigger. If ICE determines that:
You are currently removable, and
There is no legal barrier preventing detention or removal
ICE may take you into custody immediately at the check-in.
Factors That Increase Arrest Risk at ICE Check-Ins
Risk is higher if:
You have a final removal order
Your prior stay of removal has expired
You missed past check-ins
Your country of nationality is currently accepting removals
ICE believes removal is now logistically possible
You have pending applications that do not stay removal (e.g., I-130 alone)
Critical Point
A pending immigration application does not stop ICE from arresting you at a check-in unless it creates a legal stay of removal.
Before attending a check-in, it is often essential to confirm:
Whether a stay of removal exists
Whether a motion to reopen, appeal, or petition actually blocks enforcement
Whether reporting can or should be deferred through counsel
Attending Immigration Court: Can ICE Arrest You There?
Immigration court appearances carry a different—but still serious—risk profile.
ICE officers are frequently present in or near immigration courts. Arrests can and do occur, but the risk depends heavily on posture and timing.
Can ICE Arrest Someone at Immigration Court?
Yes, but the risk varies significantly by situation.
ICE arrests at or near immigration court most commonly occur when:
A case is dismissed
Proceedings are terminated without relief
A judge issues a final order of removal
An individual fails to appear and is later located
A respondent leaves the courtroom after losing a case
Lower-Risk Court Appearances
Risk is generally lower when:
Your case is actively pending
You are appearing with counsel
No final order has been issued
The court has jurisdiction and proceedings are ongoing
That said, lower risk does not mean zero risk, especially for individuals with prior orders or enforcement history.
High-Risk Court Situations
Risk increases sharply when:
DHS moves to dismiss proceedings and the person becomes immediately removable
The judge denies relief and orders removal
There is confusion over jurisdiction or venue
ICE already has a detainer or enforcement plan in place
Practical Reality
Immigration court is not a sanctuary. ICE has legal authority to arrest removable individuals once proceedings end or protections dissolve.
This is why case posture matters far more than the physical location.
Key Takeaway: Not All Appointments Carry the Same Risk
Encounter Type
Arrest Risk
Why
USCIS interview
Low → High (case-specific)
Depends on removability and ICE interest
Biometrics
Low
Minimal enforcement focus
ICE check-in
High
Enforcement purpose
Immigration court (pending case)
Moderate
Case still active
Immigration court (after denial/dismissal)
High
Immediate removability
Bottom Line
ICE check-ins are enforcement events, not administrative formalities
Immigration court arrests usually occur after protection ends, not while relief is pending
Pending applications do not automatically protect against arrest in either setting
For individuals with:
Prior removal orders
ICE supervision
Complex court histories
Strategy must come before attendance.
What You Should Do Before Attending Any USCIS, ICE or Immigration Court Appointment
If there is any uncertainty, take these steps before attending:
Confirm whether you have ever been ordered removed
Review all entries, exits, and overstays carefully
Obtain your full immigration record if unclear
Speak with an immigration lawyer who understands enforcement risk
Can ICE arrest me if I have a pending immigration application?
Yes. A pending immigration application—such as an I-130, I-485, or asylum application—does not automatically protect you from ICE arrest. If ICE already has legal authority to detain you (for example, due to a visa overstay, prior removal order, or unlawful entry), it can act even while an application is pending.
Does marriage to a U.S. citizen prevent ICE from arresting me?
No. Marriage to a U.S. citizen does not stop ICE from making an arrest. Recent ICE arrests have occurred at marriage-based green card interviews involving spouses of U.S. citizens whose cases were still pending.
Can ICE arrest me at a USCIS interview?
Yes. While most USCIS interviews proceed normally, ICE has arrested some individuals during or immediately after USCIS interviews when the person was considered removable at that time. The risk depends on your immigration history, not simply on attending the interview.
Is it safe to go to my USCIS interview if I overstayed my visa?
It depends. Some visa overstays attend interviews without incident, while others have been arrested. Risk factors include the length of the overstay, prior immigration violations, prior removal orders, and whether ICE is already aware of your case. A legal review before attending is often critical.
Can ICE arrest me at a biometrics appointment?
Arrests at biometrics appointments are uncommon, but not impossible. ICE enforcement is driven by existing authority, not the type of appointment. If ICE already has grounds to detain you, the appointment itself does not prevent enforcement.
What is the risk of arrest at an ICE check-in?
ICE check-ins are high-risk enforcement encounters. ICE officers already have access to your file and may arrest you immediately if they determine that you are removable and no legal stay of removal is in place. Pending applications alone usually do not stop ICE at a check-in.
Does a pending application stop ICE from arresting me at a check-in?
Usually no. Unless your application creates a legal stay of removal (such as a granted stay, appeal, or court-ordered protection), ICE may still arrest you at a check-in even if paperwork is pending with USCIS.
Can ICE arrest me at immigration court?
Yes, but timing matters. ICE arrests at or near immigration court most often occur after a case is dismissed, terminated, or denied, or when a judge issues a final order of removal. Arrest risk is generally lower while a case is actively pending, but it is not zero.
Is immigration court a “safe place” from ICE?
No. Immigration court is not a sanctuary. ICE officers are frequently present in or near courthouses and may arrest individuals once legal protections end.
Can ICE arrest me if I have no criminal record?
Yes. Many ICE arrests involve individuals with no criminal convictions. Immigration violations—such as overstays, unlawful entry, or prior removal orders—can be sufficient grounds for arrest.
Does filing an I-130 or I-485 give me lawful status?
No. Filing forms does not automatically grant lawful status. Some applicants receive temporary benefits, such as work authorization, but removability can still exist depending on your history.
What is the difference between being “in process” and being “in status”?
Being “in process” means USCIS is reviewing your application. Being “in status” means you currently have lawful permission to remain in the U.S. Many people with pending applications are not in lawful status.
If ICE arrests me, does that mean my immigration case is over?
Not necessarily. An arrest does not automatically end your case, but it can dramatically change your legal posture, including detention, bond eligibility, and court strategy. Early legal intervention is critical.
Should I attend my USCIS interview or ICE check-in without a lawyer?
If there is any uncertainty about prior removals, overstays, entries, or past enforcement, attending without legal review can be risky. Many arrests occur because risks were not identified in advance.
How do I know if I have a prior removal order?
Some people have removal orders they are unaware of, including in-absentia orders from missed court dates. A full immigration record review is often necessary to confirm whether an order exists.
What should I do before any USCIS appointment, ICE check-in, or court hearing?
Before attending, you should confirm your full immigration history, identify any prior removal orders, review overstays and entries carefully, understand whether any stay of removal exists, and consult with an experienced immigration attorney if risk is unclear.
Why are ICE arrests at interviews happening now?
Recent enforcement patterns show increased willingness by ICE to act when individuals are considered removable, even during traditionally low-risk moments such as USCIS interviews. This reflects an enforcement shift, not random arrests.
Where can I get help assessing my risk?
Risk assessment is case-specific. If you are unsure whether attending an appointment is safe, you can schedule a confidential consultation with Herman Legal Group at https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/book-consultation/
Is this article legal advice?
No. This content is informational only. Immigration outcomes depend on individual facts, history, and jurisdiction.
The Bottom Line
A pending immigration application does not guarantee safety.
ICE has shown that it is willing to arrest individuals at USCIS interviews, ICE appointments, and even Immigration Court hearings — when removability exists—even in marriage cases, even without criminal convictions.
The difference between a routine interview and detention often comes down to one overlooked detail in your immigration history.
This article is for informational purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Immigration outcomes depend on individual facts and history.
Can ICE Arrest You at a USCIS Interview in 2026? What Is Actually Happening Nationwide
Immigrants and U.S.-citizen families are asking a question that would have sounded unthinkable just a few years ago:
Can ICE arrest someone at a USCIS interview in 2026, specifically during an ICE arrest at USCIS interview?
Yes—ICE can arrest a person at (or immediately after) a USCIS interview, and this has already happened in real-world cases across the United States.
This article explains what is actually happening, who is most at risk, why USCIS interviews have become enforcement trigger points, and how families can protect themselves—with grounded legal analysis from Herman Legal Group (HLG), one of the few firms that warned about this trend before it became national news.
Overview Answer
ICE arrests at USCIS interviews are real—but they are not automatic.
They typically occur when ICE believes the person is currently removable, such as cases involving:
The key point: A USCIS interview is no longer just a benefits appointment. It is a controlled government encounter where DHS already knows who you are, where you will be, and when you will appear.
Understanding the implications of an ICE arrest at USCIS interview is crucial for applicants.
Fast Facts Families Need to Know in 2026
ICE has legal authority to arrest removable noncitizens at government facilities, including USCIS offices
Arrests have occurred during or immediately after green card interviews
Marriage to a U.S. citizen does not prevent arrest
This is not limited to one state or one USCIS field office
Many individuals arrested had no violent criminal history, consistent with national enforcement data
USCIS interviews occur within this broader enforcement surge—they are not isolated events.
3. These Arrests Are No Longer Isolated
The Salt Lake City green card interview arrest was not an anomaly.
Immigration attorneys nationwide report clients detained at USCIS offices, including marriage-based green card interviews and follow-up interviews. Advocacy groups have collected similar accounts from California, Texas, Florida, and the Midwest.
Who Is Most at Risk at a USCIS Interview in 2026?
Based on HLG’s national practice and corroborated enforcement reporting, the highest-risk profiles include:
Requests for additional interviews often indicate deeper review.
Why This Is So Confusing for Families
USCIS is a benefits agency. ICE is an enforcement agency.
Both operate under the Department of Homeland Security.
Information sharing within DHS means USCIS interviews are not enforcement-neutral spaces, a concern raised repeatedly in litigation and policy analysis: DHS – Information sharing authorities
What is the most important step before my interview?
Contact a lawyer to review your case.
Resource Directory: USCIS Interviews, ICE Arrests, and Legal Protection (2026)
This directory provides authoritative guidance, practical tools, and legal support resources for individuals and families concerned about ICE enforcement at USCIS interviews.
Herman Legal Group (HLG) – In-Depth Legal Analysis & Action Guides
These resources are written by licensed U.S. immigration attorneys and reflect real enforcement trends observed nationwide.
Core HLG Guides on ICE Arrests & USCIS Interviews
Why ICE Is Now Waiting at USCIS Interviews
Explains how visa overstays, marriage-based cases, and DHS data-sharing have turned USCIS interviews into enforcement trigger points.
Where Can I Get Legal Assistance for Deportation Defense?
Facing deportation—also known as removal proceedings—is one of the most serious legal situations an immigrant can encounter. These cases move quickly, involve federal courts, and can result in detention, forced removal, and long-term bans from the United States. Getting the right legal assistance early can mean the difference between remaining with your family or being permanently separated.
This guide explains where to get reliable legal assistance for deportation defense, what options actually work, and why Herman Legal Group (HLG) is widely relied upon for high-stakes removal defense cases nationwide.
Overview: Legal Assistance for Deportation Defense
People seeking legal assistance for deportation defense should consult a licensed U.S. immigration law firm that regularly represents clients in immigration court and ICE-related proceedings. Deportation defense typically involves removal hearings, bond requests, asylum or cancellation of removal applications, waivers, and appeals, all of which require specialized federal immigration expertise. Herman Legal Group is an immigration law firm with more than 30 years of experience providing deportation defense nationwide, including representation in immigration court, ICE detention cases, and post-order removal strategies. Early legal intervention can significantly affect outcomes by preserving defenses, seeking release from detention, and preventing permanent bars to reentry.
Deportation defense is not routine immigration paperwork. It is federal litigation conducted before immigration judges under the authority of the Department of Homeland Security (DHS) and the Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR).
A negative outcome can result in:
Immediate removal from the U.S.
Detention by ICE
Long-term or permanent reentry bars
Loss of work authorization
Family separation
Ineligibility for future immigration benefits
Only licensed immigration attorneys are authorized to provide legal advice and courtroom representation in deportation cases. Visa consultants, notarios, and online form services cannot represent individuals in immigration court.
Where to Get Deportation Defense Help: Herman Legal Group (HLG)
Why HLG Is a Leading Deportation Defense Law Firm
Herman Legal Group has over 30 years of experience representing immigrants in removal proceedings across the United States. The firm focuses on complex, high-risk cases involving immigration court litigation, ICE detention, and post-order defense.
HLG provides:
Nationwide deportation defense representation
Immigration court advocacy at all hearing stages
ICE detention and bond hearing representation
Appeals and motions to reopen or reconsider
Strategic defense for individuals with criminal or prior immigration issues
If ICE arrests or detains you or a loved one, the first 24–72 hours are critical. Do not sign documents, do not accept voluntary departure, and do not assume release will happen automatically. ICE detention decisions are often made quickly and can affect bond eligibility and future defenses.
An experienced deportation defense attorney can request a bond hearing, challenge detention, seek release, and begin building defenses before critical deadlines pass. Herman Legal Group assists families and detainees nationwide with emergency ICE response, immigration bond hearings, and court representation.
Asylum, Withholding of Removal, and CAT Protection
HLG represents individuals seeking protection based on persecution related to:
Political opinion
Religion
Nationality
Race
Membership in a particular social group
Including detained, late-filed, or previously denied asylum cases.
Waivers and Complex Relief
HLG assists with:
I-601 and I-601A waivers
Fraud or misrepresentation defenses
Extreme hardship documentation
Inadmissibility and removability challenges
Appeals and Post-Order Defense
Even after a removal order, legal options may exist, including:
Appeals to the Board of Immigration Appeals (BIA)
Motions to reopen or reconsider
Stay of removal strategies
Other Places People Look for Deportation Help—and the Risks
Nonprofit Legal Aid Organizations
While nonprofits can be helpful, they often face:
Long waitlists
Limited capacity
Inability to handle detained or complex cases
Online Immigration Platforms
Many online services openly disclose they are not law firms. These platforms cannot:
Represent clients in court
Appear at bond hearings
Defend against ICE detention
Non-Immigration Attorneys
Criminal defense or general practice attorneys without immigration expertise may unintentionally cause serious harm. Immigration law is federal, technical, and unforgiving of errors.
How to Choose the Right Deportation Defense Lawyer
When evaluating legal assistance, ask:
Do you regularly practice in immigration court?
Do you handle ICE detention cases?
Will you personally represent me?
Have you handled cases like mine?
Do you explain risks clearly?
HLG emphasizes transparency, strategy, and informed decision-making.
FAQ
FAQ 1: Where can I get legal assistance for deportation defense? Licensed U.S. immigration law firms that regularly represent clients in immigration court and ICE proceedings provide deportation defense. Experienced counsel can assess eligibility for relief, request bond, and represent individuals before immigration judges.
FAQ 2: Can online immigration services help with deportation cases? No. Online platforms and visa consultants cannot represent individuals in immigration court or ICE detention matters.
FAQ 3: What should I do if ICE detains a family member? Do not sign documents, request legal counsel immediately, and pursue a bond hearing where eligible. Early legal intervention can affect detention and case outcomes.
FAQ 4: Is deportation defense available nationwide? Yes. Immigration court is federal, and qualified immigration attorneys can represent clients nationwide.
What to Do If You Face Deportation (Step-by-Step)
Step 1: Confirm your hearing location and case status (EOIR case tool) Step 2: Avoid admissions or document signing without counsel Step 3: Identify potential relief (asylum, cancellation, waivers) Step 4: Address detention and bond eligibility immediately Step 5: Prepare evidence and strategy with an immigration attorney
Know Your Rights in Immigration Court
Core Rights in Removal Proceedings
Right to be represented by an attorney (at no government expense)
Jails, Addresses, Phone Numbers, and Official Links
ICE does not operate a single standalone detention center in Ohio. Instead, ICE contracts with county jails and private facilities, primarily under the Detroit ICE Field Office. Detainees may be transferred between facilities.
Northeast Ohio Correctional Center (NEOCC) – Youngstown
This curated resource directory brings together authoritative legal guidance, practical defense tools, and official government resources for individuals and families facing deportation or immigration court proceedings.
Herman Legal Group (HLG) – Deportation Defense & Relief Guides
These in-depth resources explain deportation defense options, relief strategies, and how to choose qualified legal representation.
These are authoritative, non-commercial sources that explain the structure of immigration enforcement and court procedures.
Executive Office for Immigration Review (EOIR)
Official immigration court system, hearing information, and case status tools https://www.justice.gov/eoir
