How the 2025 ICE Strike Compares to America’s 1934 General Strike Wave
Hundreds of thousands of Americans across all fifty states walked off their jobs, pulled their kids from school, and refused to shop. They called it a “National Shutdown”—a coordinated strike demanding an end to federal immigration enforcement after ICE and Border Patrol agents fatally shot two U.S. citizens in Minneapolis within three weeks. Over 300 documented protests erupted simultaneously from Los Angeles to Austin to Minneapolis, making it the largest general strike effort in the United States since 1934.
Ninety-one years ago, Teamsters in Minneapolis, longshoremen in San Francisco, and auto workers in Toledo launched massive strikes that paralyzed major American cities—and won. Police opened fire on strikers, killing workers in the streets. But instead of collapsing, those movements grew stronger and ultimately forced employers to recognize unions and negotiate contracts.
The question now is whether the 2025 strike can achieve similar victories, or whether the differences between then and now make such outcomes impossible.
What the 2025 Strike Looked Like
The National Shutdown wasn’t your typical protest. Instead of marching to government buildings, organizers created what they called an “economic blackout”—calling on workers to stay home, students to skip school, and consumers to refrain from shopping. The coordination website listed over one thousand participating organizations, from labor unions to faith groups to socialist organizations.
Polling showed that 23 percent of Minnesota voters participated in some form during the day of action, with 38 percent of those participants reporting they didn’t go to work.
In Los Angeles, thousands gathered downtown, where tensions escalated outside the Metropolitan Detention Center and police deployed chemical agents against crowds. In Austin, students from multiple high schools walked out, with hundreds of educators gathering at City Hall for teach-ins about how enforcement affects schools. In Minneapolis, where the triggering incidents occurred, tens of thousands marched through downtown in frigid weather.
High school and college students organized district-wide walkouts. Workers participated through both authorized union actions and unauthorized rank-and-file walkouts—many likely acting without union approval, since most major unions advised members to respect no-strike contract clauses. Faith communities mobilized on a scale rarely seen in contemporary labor actions, with approximately 100 clergy members arrested in civil disobedience at Minneapolis-St. Paul International Airport.
The Killings That Sparked the Strike
Two deaths catalyzed this action. Renée Good, a 37-year-old mother of three, was fatally shot by an ICE officer on January 7 during federal operations in Minneapolis. The circumstances of her death, captured on video by bystanders, became central to protest narratives.
Then came Alex Pretti. The 37-year-old ICU nurse at a Veterans Affairs hospital was shot and killed by Border Patrol agents on January 24 during street-level enforcement. A childhood friend described Pretti as “someone who was extremely kind, who was always putting himself in service to others.”
Two U.S. citizens were fatally shot by federal agents within three weeks—both incidents captured on video, both described by federal officials as necessary law enforcement actions despite appearing to contradict available evidence.
The Trump administration’s response was to keep operations going at the same pace. Tom Homan, the administration’s border czar, visited Minneapolis days after Pretti’s killing and announced that operations would continue unabated. Vice President JD Vance warned protesters they would “be sent to prison so long as we have the power to do so.”
The 1934 Strikes: When Workers Won
The year 1934 saw three major general strikes that fundamentally changed how workers and employers dealt with each other. These weren’t symbolic one-day actions—they were sustained confrontations that physically stopped business from functioning until employers gave in.
The Minneapolis Teamsters strike ran from May through August. Truck drivers demanded union recognition and better wages, but when employers refused to recognize warehouse workers as part of the union, the conflict escalated. Socialist organizers set up mobile picket lines that sealed the city to prevent truck movement. When police and National Guard troops opened fire on strikers on “Bloody Friday,” July 20, killing two workers and wounding dozens, the movement didn’t collapse—it mobilized broader support and ultimately won union recognition.
The San Francisco General Strike originated with longshoremen fighting for union recognition and control of hiring decisions. On July 5—”Bloody Thursday”—police opened fire on picketers, killing two longshoremen. The subsequent funeral procession, with tens of thousands participating, shifted public opinion toward the strikers. When rank-and-file Teamster drivers voted to strike in solidarity, a four-day general strike involving over 130,000 workers almost completely shut down the city. The longshoremen won union recognition, a coast-wide contract, and union control of the hiring hall.
Toledo’s Auto-Lite strike followed a similar pattern: workers struck for union recognition, radicals helped organize support, National Guard troops deployed with violence following, and ultimately workers won recognition and a contract.
Why 1934 Succeeded
Several factors explain those victories. First, workers faced desperate conditions—hunger, homelessness, and the threat of permanent unemployment created existential motivation. Second, police violence against strikers often shifted public opinion toward the workers’ cause. Third, the strikes had clear, concrete demands that resonated broadly: union recognition, higher wages, better working conditions.
Fourth, the strikes demonstrated economic power. Trucking and longshoremen work is essential to commerce. Stopping them threatened the broader economy in ways that couldn’t be ignored or worked around.
Fifth, the strikers had organization—unions, meeting halls, newspapers, experienced organizers—and were willing to use militant tactics including physical confrontation with police and scabs.
The political context mattered too. President Franklin Roosevelt’s administration, while not directly supporting the strikes, was less hostile to labor than the Hoover administration had been. Roosevelt eventually negotiated deals rather than ordering unlimited military suppression.
Where the 2025 Strike Diverges
The 2025 action is both similar to and different from 1934. Like 1934, deaths precipitated broader mobilization—Good and Pretti playing similar roles to the workers killed on Bloody Friday and Bloody Thursday. Like 1934, the strikes mobilized rank-and-file participants, drew on radical organizing skills, and achieved temporary coordination across geographic areas.
But differences limited the 2025 strike’s potential for achieving policy victories like 1934’s union recognition wins.
The economic disruption was temporary and limited. A single day of absent workers and closed businesses creates short-term problems but not the sustained paralysis of commerce that characterized 1934. Research from the University of Oregon suggested that a single-day general strike would have economic impacts similar to an extreme weather event—producing temporary reductions that would bounce back once normal activities resumed.
The 1934 strikes physically prevented economic activity from continuing indefinitely. The 2025 “no work” component was framed as a one-day action that would resume normal routines on January 31.
The changes they’re seeking are also far more controlled by the federal government and difficult to achieve. The 1934 demands—union recognition by specific employers—could be won through normal negotiations between workers and employers. A local employer could choose to recognize a union. But the federal government can’t unilaterally “withdraw” from enforcement without legislation or executive action with uncertain political chances.
The political context differs too. While the Roosevelt administration was sympathetic to labor and open to negotiated settlements, the Trump administration was hostile to enforcement critics. Federal prosecutors aggressively pursued those charged with obstructing ICE or protesting at the church where an ICE official worshipped. There was no federal political actor in a position to negotiate a deal.
The Coalition: Unity with Built-In Tensions
The National Shutdown represented a coalition including labor unions, faith organizations, student groups, and revolutionary socialist organizations—groups that historically haven’t worked together much and have major ideological tensions.
The University of Minnesota Graduate Labor Union helped organize and coordinate, demonstrating how educational sector workers have increasingly become strike organizers. AFSCME Local 3800, representing clerical and office workers at the university, also provided organizational support.
But what distinguished this coalition was the central role of faith organizations, particularly MARCH (Multifaith Antiracism, Change & Healing). The clergy contingent represented Christian, Jewish, Muslim, and other faith traditions, using religious teachings about human dignity and opposition to state violence. Faith communities had existing networks of committed members with reasons to participate beyond political ideology.
The Party for Socialism and Liberation and other radical left organizations participated too, openly describing the actions as confrontations with state violence and capitalist imperialism. The PSL called for “a nationwide general strike” demanding “the removal of ICE agents from Minneapolis and all cities; the disbanding of the organization; and the criminal prosecution of its officials.”
The coalition didn’t fragment over these ideological differences but stayed united enough around immediate demands.
The Sustainability Question
Historical precedent suggests that such coalitions face internal tensions that become stronger over time. The 1934 strikes benefited from clear demands that could be won through negotiation with specific employers. The 1960s civil rights movement, by contrast, saw the coalition split when radical activists began emphasizing Black separatism and white liberal allies felt alienated.
Labor unions’ relationship to the strike demonstrated both strength and fragility. While some unions participated, many major unions—including the national AFL-CIO—didn’t call for a general strike. The Socialist Equality Party criticized this restraint, saying union leadership had “stopped any development of an independent movement from below.”
The participation of abolitionist organizations—particularly those advocating ICE abolition rather than reform—created potential tension with moderate Democratic politicians and centrist immigrant rights organizations. Progressive Democrats increasingly adopted abolitionist language in their campaigns, yet the Democratic Party establishment remained officially committed to “reform” rather than abolition.
Did the Strike Work?
The preliminary evidence suggests that the strike had major symbolic and political impact but limited concrete policy changes matching its stated demands.
In terms of participation and scale, the action achieved success. The 23 percent participation rate among Minnesota voters shows extraordinary turnout. The presence of over 300 documented protest actions across all fifty states shows national coordination despite the lack of central leadership.
The strike generated extensive media coverage across major outlets. The coordinated nature—simultaneous demonstrations in dozens of cities—created compelling visuals and narratives that networks and newspapers couldn’t ignore.
But in terms of the three stated demands—ICE withdrawal from Minnesota, criminal prosecution of officers, and ICE abolition—the concrete achievements were limited. The Trump administration maintained that it would continue operations unabated. The criminal prosecutions of officers responsible for Good’s killing proceeded through federal civil rights investigation channels, but the obstacles to federal officer prosecution remained in place.
The broader demand for ICE abolition faced an even tougher political situation, with Republicans controlling the legislative bodies necessary to pass abolition legislation.
The Longer-Term Impact
Yet the strike may have created political momentum in ways not immediately visible in policy changes. Polling data suggesting that 59 percent of voters believed ICE has been “too aggressive” (up 10 points since July 2025) indicates shifting public opinion. Democratic politicians increasingly presented themselves as ICE critics.
The fact that sixty Minnesota CEOs, including from Target, Best Buy, and General Mills, signed an open letter calling for “de-escalation of tensions” suggests that business leaders, who typically support law enforcement, felt they had to distance themselves from current tactics.
The strike also appears to have succeeded in building a movement beyond immediate policy demands. Organizers announced plans for sustained mobilization through the 2026 midterm elections. Faith communities that participated have continued organizing. Labor organizations forged relationships with community and faith partners that may enable future joint actions.
Paths Forward: What History Suggests
Erica Chenoweth’s research on nonviolent resistance campaigns found that approximately 51 percent of nonviolent campaigns succeed outright, compared to 26 percent of violent campaigns, though success rates have declined in recent years as governments have gotten better at quelling dissent.
The research suggests that larger movements with broader participation are more likely to succeed, as they cause people to stop supporting the government. The literature also separates immediate victories from longer-term cultural and political shifts toward movement goals.
The 2025 strike may follow the pattern of initial mobilization without immediate policy victory, but with significant longer-term potential if momentum can be sustained.
Several strategies could increase impact. Rather than attempting nationwide general strikes spanning all sectors, organizers could concentrate on sustained, targeted strikes by workers in sectors essential to federal enforcement. This could include strikes by federal workers processing cases, workers in detention facilities, or workers in industries serving ICE.
The 1945-1946 strike wave succeeded through this strategy: rather than attempting a universal general strike, workers in specific industries—railroads, steel, coal, automobiles—struck sequentially and sustained their actions for weeks or months, building public support and ultimately winning gains.
Coalition-building with affected border communities and attorneys could create pressure on multiple fronts simultaneously. Attorneys have detailed knowledge of unconstitutional practices and legal weaknesses of ICE. Border communities have sustained, organized opposition to deportations and family separation. Combining legal expertise with community organizing could create growing pressure that authorities struggle to manage.
Organizing workers to target corporate supply chains offers another approach. Rather than attempting nationwide consumer boycotts, organizers could target specific corporations’ supply chains with demands that these corporations refuse to work with ICE or allow ICE on their property. Coordinated organizing of warehouse workers, truck drivers, and logistics workers in these supply chains—similar to the Teamsters’ organizing in 1934—could create leverage.
What Comes Next
Organizers have announced intentions to sustain mobilization through the 2026 midterm elections, showing that the strike was a beginning rather than the end of this movement. The coalition plans to continue campaigning against ICE funding in Congressional budget debates, to pressure corporations to adopt policies refusing ICE access, and to plan actions around election dates.
Several potential outcomes exist. In the best case for organizers, continued mobilization and the 2026 midterm elections produce a Democratic House majority, allowing the House to refuse DHS funding without ICE-related reforms. However, this requires both sustained organization through the midterm campaign and Democratic victories in swing districts—uncertain chances given historical patterns.
In another possibility, the Trump administration makes changes to enforcement—reducing visible street-level operations, increasing workplace raids less visible to the public, or transferring operations to less politically mobilized regions—without fundamentally changing its efforts. The administration’s statements about potentially reducing Minnesota operations while expanding elsewhere suggest this is the outcome currently unfolding.
In a third possibility, the coalition splits over the question of electoral strategy and tactical direction. Radical organizations pushing for sustained direct action and ICE abolition clash with more moderate partners focusing on electoral strategy and policy reform. This pattern has hurt many coalitions in American history.
A fourth possibility involves retaliation against strike participants and organizers. The Trump administration’s aggressive prosecution of protest participants—the arrests of civil rights attorney Nekima Levy Armstrong, journalist Don Lemon, and others—shows a willingness to use the legal system to deter continued activism. If retaliation escalates, it could either energize the movement or discourage participation as people face legal and economic consequences.
The broader question for the movement is whether the conditions that enabled 1934’s successful strikes can be recreated in the contemporary moment. The 1934 strikers benefited from the existential desperation of the Depression, from economic power concentrated in industries with few substitutes, and from a political moment when labor had gained significant political power.
The 2025 strikers face different conditions: enforcement, while deeply harmful to immigrants and their communities, doesn’t affect the basic survival of most workers. The economy is more diversified and globally distributed, making localized strikes less effective. Political power is more fragmented between Republican and Democratic parties with neither one fully opposed to enforcement.
These differences suggest that even a massively successful 2025 mobilization might win less dramatic policy victories than 1934’s strikes.
However, the ability to sustain moral and political pressure remains. The fact that 23 percent of Minnesotans participated in strike activities, that 300+ coordinated actions occurred nationally, and that the strike created significant public discussion of ICE violence and federal tactics shows popular turnout.
Whether this leads to policy change, organizational transformation, or simply historical memory of a moment when Americans across lines of class, faith, and ideology united to oppose federal violence, remains to be seen. The 1934 strikes, while generating immediate labor victories, also were a transitional moment toward the industrial unionism and political power that dominated American labor in subsequent decades.
The 2025 strike may similarly be a transitional moment toward new forms of political power, even if its immediate policy victories are limited. The months and years following will determine whether this action sparked lasting change or represented a moment of powerful resistance followed by a return to normal.
This article analyzes protest and activism tactics for educational purposes. We aim to contribute to effective and ethical efforts across the political spectrum, and we present diverse viewpoints and ideas without endorsement.