Business
Trump’s ICE tactics force CEOs to choose between staying silent and risking White House backlash
The fatal shooting this weekend of a second American citizen by federal immigration agents in Minnesota has forced corporate leaders to do something they’ve rarely done since President Donald Trump returned to office last year: publicly disagree with his policies.
For months, executives have kept quiet as the Trump administration expanded its sprawling immigration crackdown. The Department of Homeland Security in recent weeks has sent thousands of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement and Border Patrol agents into Minnesota, leading to violent clashes with protestors.
It wasn’t until the Jan. 24 killing of intensive care unit nurse Alex Pretti by federal agents that more CEOs started to break their year of near silence on the president’s actions. The following day, dozens of executives from Minnesota-based corporations co-signed a letter calling for an “immediate de-escalation” in the state.
Even then, it was clear the business leaders were treading carefully — they didn’t mention the name of the shooting victim, the president by name or his policies. Instead of speaking out individually, they published the message as a group.
The reluctance of business leaders — among the most powerful and wealthiest Americans — to explicitly speak out against the president’s policies illustrates how Trump has used his power during his second term. Trump has sued media companies, law firms, universities and banks, and he has threatened corporations with regulatory scrutiny and the review of lucrative government contracts.
“They don’t want to speak out alone because they are afraid,” Jeffrey Sonnenfeld, a Yale School of Management professor, told CNBC. “They know that they will be shaken down, coerced, intimidated [by the administration]. Retaliatory gestures are quite severe.”
In subzero temperatures, demonstrators marched in downtown Minneapolis on Jan. 23, 2026, waving signs decrying ongoing immigration enforcement operations in the Twin Cities metro area.
Alex Kormann | The Minnesota Star Tribune | Getty Images
Some CEOs have been slightly more bold: Days before Pretti’s killing, JPMorgan Chase’s Jamie Dimon became the first prominent U.S. CEO to criticize Trump’s immigration crackdown.
In the days that followed Pretti’s death, OpenAI CEO Sam Altman and Apple CEO Tim Cook have spoken out, too. Altman made pointed comments in a Slack message to OpenAI employees, saying that “part of loving the country is the American duty to push back against overreach” and that “what’s happening with ICE is going too far.”
In his own internal message to Apple’s workforce on Tuesday, Tim Cook described himself as “heartbroken by the events in Minneapolis” and called for “de-escalation,” adding that he had privately expressed concerns to Trump.
Trump has in recent days appeared to soften his approach to DHS’ presence in Minneapolis, using language of de-escalation that mirrored the executives’ public letter and saying he had “very respectful” calls with Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz. But he has yet to pull ICE agents from Minneapolis, and it’s unclear when he will do so.
Trump’s change in tone comes as the risk rises of a partial government shutdown later this week, with Democrats vowing to oppose funding for the DHS in large part because of opposition to the administration’s Minneapolis operation.
Experts said one thing has been made clear: Pretti’s death and the viral spread of videos and analysis surrounding his final moments show there are limits to the obedience of the business community.
Minneapolis, home to mega corporations like Target, UnitedHealth and 3M, has become the testing ground for when and how far corporate leaders will wade into escalating political tensions, heightened by a president who pushes the bounds of state power.
An ICE patch and badge are seen on a Department of Homeland Security agent while Vice President JD Vance gives remarks following a roundtable discussion with local leaders and community members amid a surge of federal immigration authorities in the area, at Royalston Square in Minneapolis, Jan. 22, 2026.
Jim Watson | Pool | Getty Images
Weaponizing power
There are examples of corporate leaders having used their influence and turning the tide before. In the fall, Trump planned ICE enforcement in San Francisco. Yet the president called it off in part due to conversations with Bay Area business leaders, including Salesforce CEO Marc Benioff and Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang.
Since ICE and Border Patrol agents poured into Minnesota late last year in a plan dubbed Operation Metro Surge, videos have shown agents shoving protestors, detaining children, spraying demonstrators with chemical irritants and, in at least two cases, using their firearms.
The operation followed similar efforts in cities including Chicago and New Orleans, sparking concerns of what some saw as agency overreach.
″I don’t like what I’m seeing, with five grown men beating up little women,” JPMorgan’s Dimon said during an onstage interview at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland. “I think we should calm down a little bit on the internal anger about immigration.”
Later in that discussion, Dimon’s interviewer, The Economist Editor-in-Chief Zanny Minton Beddoes, told the veteran CEO that she was surprised at how careful he and other leaders were in speaking about Trump.
“I’m genuinely struck by the unwillingness of CEOs in America to say anything critical,” Minton Beddoes said. “There is a climate of fear in your country.”
Dimon, who has spoken of the need for immigration reform for years, pushed back: “I think they should change their approach to immigration,” Dimon said. “I’ve said it. What the hell else do you want me to say?”
The day after Dimon’s comments, Trump sued JPMorgan and Dimon for $5 billion for closing his bank accounts after the Jan. 6, 2021, attack on the U.S. Capitol. While Trump had warned he would sue JPMorgan days before Dimon’s comments at Davos, the implication was clear: Companies face retribution for perceived slights against the president.
“If you’re a corporate CEO, this man has the potential to tank your stock,” Tad DeHaven, a policy analyst at the Cato Institute, said of the president. “We’ve seen this administration weaponize every conceivable lever of power it has.”
A CNBC poll of corporate leaders, conducted in the days following Pretti’s killing, found 56% said it is “a lot more challenging” to speak out today when it comes to social and political causes. The CNBC Councils flash poll surveyed 34 companies about ICE’s presence in Minnesota.
Only one of the 34 corporate leaders surveyed reported they had spoken out publicly about the situation in Minneapolis, with about a third saying it was not relevant to their business, 21% saying they were still contemplating making public comments and 18% saying they were worried about backlash from the Trump administration.
Some of those companies remained silent even as they acknowledged the challenges were close to home: Among the surveyed businesses, about 15% said they were aware of company employees who had been personally impacted by ICE enforcement in the last 12 months.
In addition to the risk of retribution from the White House, companies have also become hesitant to speak out and anger a divided American public, said Eli Yokley, U.S. politics analyst for Morning Consult.
“A number of them are probably thinking about the post-‘woke’ backlash that came at least culturally and put some of them on their heels,” he said. “If you are a consumer-facing brand, the last thing you want to engage in is politics today in a world that is so polarized.
“People can react pretty fiercely,” Yokley said.
What’s more, the public isn’t united even in whether they think corporate leaders should weigh in on Trump or his policies.
Forty percent of Americans say CEOs who criticize Trump are acting responsibly, but only 28% say they should speak out publicly when they disagree with the president’s policies, according to a Morning Consult survey of about 1,000 U.S. adults conducted on Jan. 20.
About 38% of respondents said they would view a company less favorably if a CEO praised Trump publicly, while 25% said they would view a company more favorably, the survey found.
Around immigration enforcement, specifically, Americans are similarly divided on corporations’ role.
The share of Morning Consult respondents who said companies should cooperate fully with ICE enforcement, 23%, was nearly equal to the share who said that companies should actively resist, at 22%.
Demonstrators participate in a rally and march during an “ICE Out” day of protest on Jan. 23, 2026, in Minneapolis.
Stephen Maturen | Getty Images
Close to home
Target, one of the most prominent Minneapolis-based companies, captures the shift in corporate responses to policy from Trump’s first term to his second.
In 2020, four days after George Floyd was killed by a police officer just a short distance from the big-box retailer’s headquarters, Target CEO Brian Cornell wrote an emotional statement, describing Floyd’s death as murder and naming other Black people who had been killed by law enforcement.
Cornell and Target pledged to take action in support of diversity and inclusion as the Black Lives Matter movement gained steam across the country in the wake of Floyd’s death.
“As a Target team, we’ve huddled, we’ve consoled, we’ve witnessed horrific scenes similar to what’s playing out now and wept that not enough is changing,” he wrote at the time. “And as a team we’ve vowed to face pain with purpose.”
Compare that to the current environment. Earlier this month, after Minnesotan Renee Good was killed by an ICE agent, Target leaders did not make a public statement. Instead, the company circulated internal memos from the firm’s human resources chief, which acknowledged that employees are experiencing “a wide range of emotions” and stressing the company’s focus on employee and customer safety.
A FAQ linked in the memos said the retailer “does not have cooperative agreements with ICE” and that federal agents, including ICE, have legal authority to enter its parking lots and guest-facing parts of stores without a warrant.
On Monday, Target’s incoming CEO Michael Fiddelke shared a video message with employees that more directly acknowledged current events, but stopped short of calling for ICE agents to leave the city or for a review of the two shooting deaths there. Fiddelke didn’t reference Good, Pretti or Trump by name.
“The violence and loss of life in our community is incredibly painful,” he said. “I know it’s weighing heavily on many of you across the country, as it is with me.”
Target may have reason to be skittish: Its sales have been hit in recent years by boycotts from both Trump supporters and liberal critics who felt the retailer caved to Trump’s push against diversity, equity and inclusion programs.
But local leaders say the company has a responsibility to protect its community, too.
Over the past three weeks, a group of religious leaders in Minneapolis have called on the company to take a harsher stance against ICE action in Minneapolis, particularly after two Target employees in Minneapolis, both U.S. citizens, were taken by a team of ICE agents the day after Good’s death.
Target’s signature on the joint letter among other Minnesota companies didn’t go far enough, the group said.
“It’s almost worse than silence, because it felt like nothing,” said Martha Bardwell, pastor of Our Saviours Lutheran Church in Minneapolis.
“We know that if Trump is going to listen to anybody, corporate leaders have a lot of power,” Bardwell said. “We are looking to CEOs to be very clear and use the power they have.”
Bardwell was part of a small group of Twin Cities clergy who met with Target CEO Cornell last week to encourage him to step up the company’s response. Those clergy said they left the meeting without any new pledges from Target.
Business
Budget 2026: Fiscal deficit, capex, borrowing and debt roadmap among key numbers to track – The Times of India
Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman is set to present her record ninth straight Union Budget, with markets closely tracking headline numbers ranging from the fiscal deficit and capital expenditure to borrowing and tax revenue projections, as India charts its course as the world’s fastest-growing major economy.The Budget will be presented in a paperless format, continuing the practice of recent years. Sitharaman had, in her maiden Budget in 2019, replaced the traditional leather briefcase with a red cloth–wrapped bahi-khata, marking a symbolic shift in presentation.Here are the key numbers and signals that investors, economists and policymakers will be watching in the Union Budget for 2025-26 and beyond:
Fiscal deficit
The fiscal deficit for the current financial year (FY26) is budgeted at 4.4 per cent of GDP, as reported PTI. With the government having achieved its consolidation goal of keeping the deficit below 4.5 per cent, attention will turn to guidance for FY27. Markets expect the government to indicate a deficit closer to 4 per cent of GDP next year, alongside clarity on the medium-term debt reduction path.
Capital expenditure
Capital spending remains a central pillar of the government’s growth strategy. Capex for FY26 is pegged at Rs 11.2 lakh crore. In the upcoming Budget, the government is expected to continue prioritising infrastructure outlays, with a possible 10–15 per cent increase that could take capex beyond Rs 12 lakh crore, especially as private investment sentiment remains cautious.
Debt roadmap
In her previous Budget speech, the finance minister had said fiscal policy from 2026-27 onwards would aim to keep central government debt on a declining trajectory as a share of GDP. Markets will look for a clearer timeline on when general government debt-to-GDP could move towards the 60 per cent target. General government debt stood at about 85 per cent of GDP in 2024, including central government debt of around 57 per cent.
Borrowing programme
Gross market borrowing for FY26 is estimated at Rs 14.80 lakh crore. The borrowing number announced in the Budget will be closely scrutinised, as it signals the government’s funding needs, fiscal discipline and potential impact on bond yields.
Tax revenue
Gross tax revenue for 2025-26 has been estimated at Rs 42.70 lakh crore, implying an 11 per cent growth over FY25. This includes Rs 25.20 lakh crore from direct taxes—personal income tax and corporate tax—and Rs 17.5 lakh crore from indirect taxes such as customs, excise duty and GST.
GST collections
Goods and Services Tax collections for FY26 are projected to rise 11 per cent to Rs 11.78 lakh crore. Projections for FY27 will be keenly watched, especially as GST revenue growth is expected to gather pace following rate rationalisation measures implemented since September 2025.
Nominal GDP growth
Nominal GDP growth for FY26 was initially estimated at 10.1 per cent but has since been revised down to about 8 per cent due to lower-than-expected inflation, even as real GDP growth is pegged at 7.4 per cent by the National Statistics Office. The FY27 nominal GDP assumption—likely in the 10.5–11 per cent range—will offer clues on the government’s inflation and growth outlook.
Spending priorities
Beyond the headline aggregates, the Budget will also be scanned for allocations to key social and development schemes, as well as spending on priority sectors such as health and education.Together, these numbers will shape expectations on fiscal discipline, growth momentum and policy support as India navigates a complex global economic environment.
Drinkers across the UK are set to face higher prices for wine and spirits as a significant increase in alcohol duty comes into effect this Sunday, 1 February.
Industry leaders warn that businesses “have no choice but to increase prices” to remain viable amid mounting financial pressures.
The tax levied on alcoholic beverages will rise by 3.66 per cent, in line with the Retail Prices Index (RPI) inflation, a measure confirmed in November’s autumn budget.
While the duty is directly imposed on producers, industry chiefs anticipate a “trickle down” effect, with consumers ultimately bearing the brunt of these additional costs.
Official figures illustrate the impact: the duty on a typical 37.5 per cent alcohol by volume (ABV) bottle of gin will climb by 38p to £8.98, inclusive of VAT.
Similarly, a 40 per cent ABV bottle of Scotch whisky will see its duty increase by 39p, reaching £9.51. A 14.5 per cent red wine will incur an additional 14p in duty.
The Wine and Spirit Trade Association (WSTA) highlighted that the duty on a 14.5 per cent red wine has now surged by £1.10 per bottle since the new alcohol duty regime was introduced in August 2023.
In response, the UK Spirits Alliance, representing hundreds of distillers, has urged the Chancellor to use an upcoming duty review to foster growth, address “spirits discrimination,” and establish a long-term strategy for the sector.
The duty structure, partly linked to drink strength, saw an overhaul in 2023, resulting in beer below 3.5 per cent ABV paying significantly less tax.
This has prompted some beer brands, such as Foster’s, to reduce their strength to 3.4 per cent in recent months to mitigate duty costs.
However, the latest increase will affect beer sold in both pubs and supermarkets, marking the first time pubs have been impacted since 2017.
Emma McClarkin, chief executive of the British Beer and Pub Association, stated: “These changes unfortunately increase the likelihood of further price rises, which no brewer or publican would want to inflict on their customers.
“For brewers, who already pay some of the highest rates of beer duty in Europe, this increase will add further strain to their already razor-thin profit margins and risk one of the UK’s world-renowned industries producing the greatest beers in the world.”
Miles Beale, chief executive of the WSTA, criticised the government’s approach: “Despite the OBR (Office for Budget Responsibility) at last acknowledging higher prices lead to a decline in receipts, the Government fails to recognise that its own policy is benefiting no-one.
“For the nation’s wine and spirit sector the complexities of price changes, especially for wine which is now taxed by strength, mean more red tape headaches ahead.
“Add to this all the other costs – including NI (national insurance) contributions, business rates and waste packaging taxes – and businesses have no choice but to increase prices in order to keep afloat, which unfortunately means consumers are going to take the hit once again.”
Braden Saunders, spokesperson for the UK Spirits Alliance and co-founder of Doghouse Distillery, Battersea, remarked on the timing: “The timing couldn’t be more ironic. Just as dry January draws to a close and people contemplate their first hard-earned drink, they’re met with higher prices at the bar.
“The spirits industry has been treated as a cash cow by consecutive governments, and the sector is on its knees.”
Allen Simpson, chief executive of UKHospitality, echoed these concerns: “Hospitality businesses are facing price pressures at every turn and our sector’s cost burden is growing at an unsustainable rate.
“Increases to alcohol duty, while not paid directly by operators, is another pressure, if it is passed on to businesses through higher drinks prices. We strongly urge suppliers to show restraint in doing so, recognising the economic pressure the sector is under.”
A Treasury spokesman defended the policy, stating: “For too long the economy hasn’t worked for working people, and cost-of-living pressures still bear down. That’s why we are determined to help bring costs down for everyone.
“It’s why we’re taking £150 off energy bills, increasing the National Living Wage, ending the two-child limit, rolling out free breakfast clubs for all primary school children, and freezing fuel duty, rail fares and prescription fees.
“We need to rebuild the public services we all rely on. We’ve put record funding into our schools and NHS to give every child the best start in life and bring down waiting lists.
“Alcohol duty plays an important role in ensuring public finances remain fair and strong and funds the public services people rely on every day.”
Last Updated:
Union Budget 2026, to be tabled by Nirmala Sitharaman, will focus on a detailed Part B, outlining India’s economic vision, reforms, and global strengths.
Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman to present the Union Budget in Parliament tomorrow, Feb 01.
Budget 2026: Union Budget 2026 to be tabled tomorrow, Sunday, February 01, 2026, is expected to be different and unique from earlier budgets delivered since Independence. It is expected that the Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman will focus more in detail on Part B than Part A, as seen in earlier budgets, government sources said.
Traditional Budget Structure Likely To Change
In past budget presentations, Part A of the Finance Minister’s speech typically carried extensive detail on economic conditions, fiscal numbers, and major policy announcements, while Part B was relatively brief and limited in scope. However, government sources said this long-standing format is set to change in the upcoming budget.
According to sources, Finance Minister Nirmala Sitharaman is expected to devote significantly more time and detail to Part B of the Budget Speech than seen in previous years. GoI sources said this shift reflects the government’s intention to present a more structured and forward-looking policy narrative.
Focus On Short-Term And Long-Term Economic Goals
The sources said Part B of the Budget Speech will place strong emphasis on both immediate economic priorities and long-term development goals. The section is expected to outline how the government plans to balance near-term growth, fiscal discipline, and social welfare with longer-term structural reforms.
Part B will articulate India’s economic vision as the country moves deeper into the second quarter of the 21st century, highlighting policy continuity as well as new initiatives aligned with evolving global and domestic challenges.
Showcasing India’s Strengths On The Global Stage
The sources further said Part B of the Budget Speech will offer a roadmap for showcasing India’s local strengths in a global context. This is expected to include an assessment of India’s current economic capabilities, sectoral advantages, and future growth potential.
The emphasis will be on positioning India as a competitive and resilient economy, while reinforcing its role in global supply chains and international markets.
Economists And Global Experts Watching Closely
Given the expanded scope and strategic intent of Part B, GoI sources said it is likely to draw close attention from economists, policy analysts, and global experts. The section is expected to serve as a key indicator of the government’s medium- to long-term economic priorities and reform trajectory.
January 31, 2026, 19:42 IST
Read More
NASA’s perseverance rover completed first-ever AI-planned drive on Mars
Meghan Markle sweetens Valentine’s day after last year’s big sell out
Elena Rybakina wins Australian Open for 2nd Grand Slam title
-
Business1 week agoSuccess Story: This IITian Failed 17 Times Before Building A ₹40,000 Crore Giant
-
Entertainment1 week agoDrake takes legal battle over Kendrick Lamar track to next level
-
Entertainment1 week agoHarry Styles world tour promises unforgettable star packed nights
-
Business1 week agoSilver ETFs Jump Up To 10%, Gold ETFs Gain Over 3% On Record Bullion Prices
-
Tech1 week agoRuckus gears up for networking partnership with TGR Haas F1 Team | Computer Weekly
-
Sports1 week agoSenegal coach defends team’s AFCON final walkoff and chaos
-
Fashion1 week agoSouth Korea tilts sourcing towards China as apparel imports shift
-
Business1 week agoVideo: Why Trump’s Reversal on Greenland Still Leaves Europe on Edge