Thousands of demonstrators gathered in Minneapolis on January 31 to protest against Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE), a reflection of an escalating resistance against the Trump administration’s stringent immigration policies. Activists have been continuously vocal for months, particularly following the tragic deaths of Renee Good and Alex Pretti, who were both killed by federal immigration agents. This wave of protests has significantly raised awareness, with video evidence shared across social media diminishing the government’s ability to manipulate narratives about these events.
In a bid to exert further pressure on the administration, many activists participated in a nationwide general strike on Friday, though small business owners faced significant challenges. The dilemma often stemmed from conflicting interests; while many wanted to voice solidarity with the movement, staying open was crucial for maintaining their revenue streams and protecting their staff. Business owners expressed their support for the cause while simultaneously apologizing for not closing their doors.
Scott Galloway, a marketing professor at New York University known for his critiques of Big Tech, has proposed an innovative approach to protest that bypasses the traditional methods of strikers and demonstrators. He advocates for a targeted economic boycott of major tech companies, suggesting that consumers unsubscribe from services such as OpenAI’s ChatGPT, Amazon Prime Video, and Microsoft Office. Galloway believes that a collective consumer action through a month-long reduction in patronage to these corporations could significantly impact their market value, thereby reaching the ears of influential CEOs who interact with the Trump administration.
As Galloway points out, key tech executives have established close ties with the government, often showing their support through financial contributions and attending high-profile events with President Trump. He argues that while protests are vital for community building, economic actions could induce more substantial changes, remarking that “the most radical act in a capitalist society isn’t marching, it’s not spending.”
The anti-ICE protests have become a clarion call for those advocating for immigrant rights, prompting responses from government officials. In January, the Department of Homeland Security took steps to address public outcry following the killings, indicating potential shifts in their operational strategies. For example, Maine’s Senator Susan Collins disclosed that discussions with DHS Secretary Kristi Noem might lead to alterations in ICE’s operations in her state, mirroring changes initiated in Minnesota.
Despite these developments, the acting director of ICE recently expanded the agency’s authority for warrantless searches, a move that has drawn criticism and concern among protestors.
In this charged environment, Galloway’s call for Americans to engage in economic protests offers a new outlook on activism. He believes that sustained economic discontent could ultimately drive meaningful reforms in immigration policy, shifting the dynamics of power away from traditional political channels. As grassroots movements continue to reshape public discussion around immigration, the collective response from citizens may pave the way for lasting change.