Bloomberg Opinion 描述 Minnesota 最大型企业中逾 60 位 CEO 周末发布联名公开信，呼吁「立即缓和紧张局势」，以回应 Minneapolis 因 ICE 移民执法升级而出现的动荡。公开信未提及 ICE，也未提及被联邦探员杀害的两名 Minnesotan：Renee Good 与 Alex Pretti，文本呈现刻意的两面并置与模糊化；其宣称商界正与政府「推进真正解方」，但未提出可辨识的政策立场或具体措施。Target Corp. 亦为签署者之一；该公司此前在两名员工（皆为美国公民）于门店入口被 ICE 探员扑倒并带走后仍未公开表态，而新任 CEO Michael Fiddelke 于周一的内部影片讯息中仅以「极其痛苦」描述 Minneapolis 暴力情势。
该联名文本被描述为「委员会与法务部门」产物：让约 60 名高阶主管同意措辞，必然以稀释换取一致性。其「中位数立场」的含义是：至少存在一部分 CEO 在内部主张更强硬、更直接的语言。作者回顾：Donald Trump 赢得 2024 年选举后，曾主张企业以联盟形式发声能以数量降低个别报复风险并提高对政策的制衡力度；但当联盟产出变成不具指涉的安全文本时，策略价值下降，反而需要某位 CEO 脱离集体，成为下一个 Ken Frazier。2017 年 Charlottesville 致命事件后，当时 Merck & Co. CEO Ken Frazier 因反对「双方都有责任」式表述而退出总统顾问团，并在数日内促使多位 CEO 跟进、使该团体瓦解，将议题从「政治攻防」转为「国家基本价值」。
文章把当下定位为同类型的价值临界点：在联邦探员于街头杀害美国公民的情境下，企业领导不再能以「不谈政治」作为撤退理由。作者指出：在 Pretti 被杀后数小时仍有人出席白宫对 Melania Trump 纪录片的放映活动（点名 Apple Inc. CEO Tim Cook），与「保障员工与顾客安全」的领导责任形成对比。民意数据被用来量化趋势：New York Times/Siena 于 2026 年 1 月 23 日的民调显示 61% 受访者认为 ICE 的手段「已经太过分」；Puck News 报导 ICE 的全国净好感度自 Trump 就任以来摆荡 30 个百分点至负 14，且 46% 支持废除 ICE。作者推论，在 ICU 护理师、Veterans Affairs 医院员工 Alex Pretti 于 2026 年 1 月 24 日（周六；原文 Saturday）遭联邦探员枪杀后，相关比例可能进一步上升；因此问题从「企业站在哪里」变为「哪位 CEO 会先站出来」。
At 19:00 on January 27, 2026 (UTC+8; original 7:00 PM GMT+8), Bloomberg Opinion describes how more than 60 CEOs of some of Minnesota’s largest companies released a weekend open letter calling for “an immediate deescalation of tensions” amid upheaval in Minneapolis tied to ICE’s immigration crackdown. The letter never mentioned ICE, and it did not name the two Minnesotans killed by federal agents, Renee Good and Alex Pretti, producing a carefully balanced and noncommittal text; it said business leaders were working with government officials to “advance real solutions,” but it did not specify any position or concrete measures. Target Corp. was among the signers; it still had not issued its own public statement after two employees, both US citizens, were tackled by ICE agents at a store entrance and taken away, while incoming CEO Michael Fiddelke told employees in a Monday video message that the violence in Minneapolis was “incredibly painful.”
The letter is framed as what happens when language is negotiated by committee and legal review: getting roughly 60 executives to agree requires dilution and compromise. Because it reflects a median position, it also implies that some CEOs wanted stronger, more explicit wording behind the scenes. The author notes that after Donald Trump won the 2024 election, she argued coalitions could let businesses confront misguided policies with strength in numbers while reducing individual retaliation risk; if the coalition product becomes an evasive safety statement, that strategic logic weakens and a single CEO needs to break away for a Ken Frazier moment. In 2017, Merck & Co. CEO Ken Frazier resigned from a presidential advisory council after Charlottesville turned deadly and Trump spoke in “both sides” terms; within days other CEOs followed and the group was disbanded, recasting the issue as basic national values rather than routine politics.
The piece argues the current situation meets the same values threshold: when federal agents are killing US citizens in the streets, CEOs cannot plausibly treat the matter as optional politics. It contrasts leadership focused on employee and customer safety with CEOs who attend the White House for a documentary screening about First Lady Melania Trump hours after Pretti was killed, calling out Apple Inc. CEO Tim Cook. It quantifies public movement with polling and favorability shifts: a New York Times/Siena poll dated January 23, 2026 finds 61% of respondents say ICE’s tactics have gone too far; Puck News reports ICE’s net favorability has swung 30 points to negative 14 since Trump was inaugurated, and 46% support abolishing ICE. It adds that those figures likely rise after Alex Pretti, an ICU nurse at a Veterans Affairs hospital, was shot and killed by federal agents on Saturday, January 24, 2026 (original “Saturday”), and concludes that the operative question is which CEO acts first.