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.
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)
Recipient Location: Ohio
Award Type: Contracts
Results:
Prime Contracts: 3
Website: https://www.lexisnexis.com
ICE Contract Price: $2,475,000
Service Provided:
Electronic legal research and law library services for ICE detention facilities, supporting legal analysis, enforcement litigation, and detention operations.
Website: https://www.gravitasinv.com
ICE Contract Price: $427,500
Service Provided:
Skip-tracing and investigative services used to locate individuals for ICE enforcement and removal operations.
Website: https://www.stericycle.com
ICE Contract Price: $4,160
Service Provided:
Secure document shredding and destruction services for ICE records and sensitive enforcement materials.
Prime Award ID: 70CDCR23P00000003
Total Obligations: $2,475,000
Outlays to Date: $1,770,450
Period of Performance: December 31, 2022 – December 30, 2027
Award Type: Purchase Order
Award Description: Electronic law library for ICE detention facilities
NAICS: 519290 – Web Search Portals & Information Services
PSC: B522 – Legal Studies / Analysis
Government Source:
USAspending.gov → Search “RELX Inc.” under ICE contracts
https://www.usaspending.gov
RELX, through its LexisNexis platforms, provides electronic legal research databases used by:
ICE attorneys
ICE enforcement personnel
Detention facility operations
These tools directly support detention operations, immigration litigation, and enforcement-related legal analysis.
Company: RELX Inc.
Ohio Address: 9443 Springboro Pike, Miamisburg, OH 45342
Website: https://www.lexisnexis.com
General Phone: 800-543-6862
Contact Page: https://www.lexisnexis.com/en-us/contact-us
Prime Award ID: 70CDCR26FR0000016
Total Obligations: $427,500
Award Type: Delivery Order
Period of Performance: December 16, 2025 – March 15, 2026
Award Description: Skip-tracing services for enforcement and removal operations
NAICS: 561611 – Investigation & Personal Background Check Services
PSC: R799 – Management Support Services
Government Source:
USAspending.gov → Search “Gravitas Professional Services”
https://www.usaspending.gov
Gravitas provides skip-tracing and investigative services, which typically include:
Locating individuals using databases and investigative tools
Address and identity verification
Background and enforcement support research
These services are commonly used in ICE arrest operations, detention planning, and removal enforcement.
Company: Gravitas Professional Services, LLC
Ohio Address: 1985 King Ave, Suite 321, Kings Mills, OH 45034
Website: https://www.gravitasinv.com
Phone: 513-445-9779
Contact Page: https://www.gravitasinv.com/contact-info
Prime Award ID: 70CMSD19FR0000028
Total Obligations: $4,160
Award Type: Delivery Order
Award Description: Shredding and secure document destruction services
Government Source:
USAspending.gov → Search “Stericycle Inc.”
https://www.usaspending.gov
Stericycle provides secure shredding and document destruction services that support ICE by:
Disposing of sensitive enforcement records
Destroying detainee-related documentation
Maintaining compliance with federal privacy and record-retention requirements
Although lower in dollar value, these services support core detention and enforcement infrastructure.
Stericycle has operational locations in Ohio and provides statewide services.
Company: Stericycle, Inc.
Ohio Operations Address:
2570 Westbelt Drive, Columbus, OH 43228
Corporate Website: https://www.stericycle.com
Customer Service Phone: 866-783-7422
Ohio Services Page:
https://www.stericycle.com/en-us/service-locations/ohio
General Contact Page:
https://www.stericycle.com/en-us/contact-us
Anyone can independently verify and expand this research using USAspending.gov.
Select Advanced Search
Apply filters:
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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…”)
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Public Reporting and Coverage:
Truthout – “Boycott Campaign Targets Companies Tied to ICE Ahead of Black Friday”
Typical Actions Encouraged:
Stop purchasing products or services
Cancel subscriptions
Share verified information publicly
Encourage others to make informed consumer choices
This initiative demonstrates how economic pressure and public education can be coordinated online without harassment or coercion.
#NoTechForICE is an online advocacy movement—particularly active within technology, academic, and research communities—opposing contracts between technology companies and immigration enforcement agencies.
Official Campaign Website:
NoTechForICE
Primary Focus:
Surveillance technology
Data analytics and databases
Cloud infrastructure
Digital tools used in enforcement or detention operations
Forms of Participation:
Signing public petitions
Sharing educational toolkits
Participating in workplace or campus discussions
Amplifying fact-based content on social media
This campaign shows how issue-specific, values-based advocacy can influence corporate ethics discussions.
BoycottICE (sometimes branded as ICEBREAKERS) functions as an online hub for boycott education and coordination.
Website:
BoycottICE.com
Purpose:
Compile publicly available information
Provide guidance on ethical boycotts
Offer tools for lawful civic engagement
Participation Methods:
Reading and sharing educational materials
Signing up for updates
Coordinating peaceful actions
This model highlights how centralized information hubs can support decentralized, lawful advocacy.
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.
Examples include:
Facebook groups compiling boycott lists and discussing ethical consumer choices
Example Facebook discussion group
Instagram posts and reels explaining corporate connections to ICE in accessible formats
Example Instagram post
Reddit threads and community discussions reviewing ICE contracts and boycott strategies
Example Reddit discussion
Immigration advocacy blogs compiling boycott resources and explaining how to participate lawfully
Herman Legal Group – Boycott ICE Vendors Overview
These initiatives demonstrate how local, decentralized efforts can complement larger national campaigns.
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.
Despite differences in structure, effective and lawful boycott initiatives generally share the following traits:
Emphasis on consumer choice
Use of public records and verified data
Clear, non-coercive calls to action
No harassment or intimidation
No personal targeting of employees
Focus on corporate policy and accountability
Explainers and fact sheets
Government data citations
Transparent objectives
Respect for free-speech boundaries
Avoidance of misinformation
Compliance with platform rules and the law
Individuals interested in understanding or participating in ethical boycott efforts may explore:
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:
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
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.
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]
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Herman Legal Group is a nationally recognized immigration law firm committed to data-driven, verifiable immigration analysis for the public, media, and policymakers.
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.
USAspending.gov – U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement
ICE spending overview under the Department of Homeland Security.
System for Award Management (SAM.gov)
Federal contractor registration database with corporate profiles and contract eligibility information.
GSA eLibrary
Search federal contractors and schedule holders providing services to DHS and ICE.
Federal Procurement Data System (FPDS)
Legacy federal procurement database used for contract verification and cross-referencing.
U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement – Official Website
ICE mission statements, enforcement priorities, and public-facing materials.
Department of Homeland Security – Budget & Performance
DHS budget documents, including ICE funding allocations.
Office of Inspector General – DHS
Audits, investigations, and oversight reports related to ICE and DHS operations.
BoycottICE
Public-facing boycott education and coordination hub focused on ICE accountability.
No Tech for ICE
Advocacy campaign opposing technology and surveillance contracts with ICE.
Truthout – ICE Boycott Coverage
Investigative reporting on consumer boycott campaigns targeting ICE-linked corporations.
The Nation – Corporate Partners of ICE
Long-form journalism examining corporate involvement in immigration enforcement.
Transactional Records Access Clearinghouse (TRAC Immigration)
Independent data on ICE enforcement, detention, and removals.
American Immigration Council – Enforcement & Detention Research
Policy analysis and data-driven research on immigration enforcement.
ACLU – Immigration Detention & Enforcement
Legal analysis and civil liberties reporting on detention practices.
Companies That Supply ICE: How to Identify Them, Contact Them, and Organize a Lawful Boycott — https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/companies-that-do-business-with-ice/
How to Weaken ICE: Unified Strategy to Join, Support, or Build Boycott Campaigns — https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/weaken-ice-join-the-boycott-ice-vendors-campaigns/
Black Friday ICE Boycott 2025: Targeted Companies — https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/black-friday-ice-boycott-guide-2025/
Which Companies Are Facing Boycott For Role in Trump’s Immigration Enforcement? — https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/which-companies-are-facing-boycott-for-role-in-trumps-immigration-enforcement/
Hilton, ICE, and Minneapolis-Area Hotels Case Study — https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/hilton-ice-and-minneapolis-area-hotels-what-we-know-what-it-means-and-how-boycott-ice-campaigns-are-reshaping-corporate-behavior/
How ICE Built a Surveillance Regime: ICE Surveillance State 2025 — https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/how-ice-built-a-surveillance-regime-ice-surveillance-state-2025/
ICE Arrests and Enforcement: Know Your Rights
Legal guidance for individuals encountering ICE enforcement.
ICE Arrests at USCIS Interviews
Analysis of enforcement risks and legal protections.
Immigration Detention and Removal Defense
Overview of legal defenses available to individuals facing ICE detention or removal.
Book a Consultation – Herman Legal Group
Speak directly with an immigration attorney about ICE enforcement or detention concerns.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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
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.
Anyone can independently confirm or expand this research by using USAspending.gov and 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
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
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.
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
Harassment or repeated unwanted contact
Threats, intimidation, or doxxing
Property damage, trespass, or disruption of lawful operations
Violence or encouragement of violence
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.
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.
Social platforms can amplify awareness when used carefully.
Share verified links and concise summaries
Use calm, values-based language
Frame posts as personal consumer choice
Encourage peaceful boycotts and transparency
Insults, threats, or inflammatory rhetoric
Tagging individual employees or unrelated people
Sharing personal information
Coordinated harassment or “dogpiling”
“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.”
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.
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.
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.
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
How to join:
Visit https://notechforice.com
Sign public statements or petitions
Share campaign explainers on social media
Participate in workplace, campus, or community discussions using campaign toolkits
Tone & rules:
Fact-based, non-violent, policy-focused. No harassment of individuals.
What it is:
An online hub aggregating information about ICE contractors and providing guidance on ethical consumer boycotts.
Primary focus:
Consumer awareness
Corporate accountability
Education around ICE’s private-sector partners
How to join:
Visit https://boycottice.com
Review company lists and educational materials
Share resources with attribution
Participate in peaceful, consumer-based actions
Tone & rules:
Emphasizes informed choice and public education; rejects threats or intimidation.
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.
Primary focus:
Retail and consumer brands
Seasonal pressure (e.g., Black Friday)
How to join:
Learn about targeted campaigns through public reporting
Reduce or redirect personal spending
Share verified reporting explaining why companies are targeted
Encourage others to make informed consumer choices
Tone & rules:
Consumer choice only; no harassment or coercion.
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.
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.
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.
Reduces duplication and misinformation
Aligns messaging and timing
Increases visibility with less risk
Keeps advocacy focused on policy and accountability—not individuals
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
Weaken ICE: Join the Boycott ICE Vendors Campaign
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/weaken-ice-join-the-boycott-ice-vendors-campaigns/
HLG’s flagship explainer on lawful, ethical boycotts; how private companies support ICE; and guardrails against harassment or illegal conduct.
Companies That Do Business With ICE
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/companies-that-do-business-with-ice/
Step-by-step guidance on identifying ICE vendors, understanding contract types, and engaging in fact-based public accountability.
Black Friday ICE Boycott Guide
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/black-friday-ice-boycott-guide-2025/
Explains seasonal consumer-pressure strategies, emphasizing peaceful, voluntary consumer choice.
Which Companies Are Facing Boycott for Role in Immigration Enforcement
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/which-companies-are-facing-boycott-for-role-in-trumps-immigration-enforcement/
Case-based discussion of public scrutiny and corporate response.
How ICE Built a Surveillance Regime
https://www.lawfirm4immigrants.com/how-ice-built-a-surveillance-regime-ice-surveillance-state-2025/
Context on technology, procurement, and private-sector enablement of enforcement capacity.
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.
GSA eLibrary
https://www.gsaelibrary.gsa.gov
Federal schedule holders and contract vehicles used by DHS and ICE.
Department of Homeland Security – Budget & Performance
https://www.dhs.gov/budget
DHS and ICE funding context and program descriptions.
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 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.
Minnesota Reformer
https://minnesotareformer.com
State-focused investigative journalism and policy reporting.
Know Your Rights: Peaceful Protest & Free Speech (General guidance)
https://www.aclu.org/know-your-rights/protesters-rights
Legal boundaries and protections for peaceful advocacy and consumer boycotts.
CLEVELAND (HEADQUARTER)
© Copyright 2025, HLG, LLC. All Rights Reserved
