Inside the Coalition: Labor, Faith, and Immigrant Rights Unite
Protesters gathered outside federal buildings in Minneapolis after two fatal shootings by federal agents within seventeen days ignited what organizers called the largest coordinated protests against immigration enforcement in modern American history. On January 30, more than 300 simultaneous protests erupted across all fifty states, drawing what some estimated as millions of participants into a “National Shutdown” that united labor unions, faith communities, immigrant rights networks, and student activists.
The movement demonstrated ability to organize—tens of thousands of workers stopped work, students walked out of schools across the country, and hundreds of small businesses closed their doors in solidarity. Yet the coalition also exposed disagreements about what to do next, the limits of power to disrupt the federal government, and the challenge of turning protests into policy changes.
The Shootings That Sparked a Movement
On January 7, ICE agent Jonathan Ross shot 37-year-old Renée Nicole Macklin Good three times in under one second as she turned her vehicle away from officers conducting an immigration raid on a residential Minneapolis street. Good, a U.S. citizen and mother of three, died from gunshot wounds to her chest, forearm, and head.
Federal officials said the shooting was self-defense. The Department of Homeland Security went further, describing Good’s vehicle movement as “an act of domestic terrorism.” Video footage examined closely told a different story—Good was turning away when Ross fired.
The public outrage prompted a statewide general strike in Minnesota on January 23, organized by a coalition of unions, faith leaders, and community organizations. Organizers estimated roughly one million Minnesotans supported the action in some form. Despite the scale, federal authorities didn’t give in to any demands.
Then, on January 24, Border Patrol officers shot Alex Jeffrey Pretti approximately ten times in fewer than five seconds near downtown Minneapolis. Pretti, a 37-year-old intensive care nurse employed by the U.S. Department of Veterans Affairs, had been recording federal officers with his phone. Initial official statements claimed he’d brandished a weapon. Video evidence proved otherwise.
The second killing within seventeen days transformed regional protest into a national call to action. University of Minnesota student unions issued a call for a second general strike on January 30, which expanded into the “National Shutdown”—a coordinated nationwide action built around three ideas: No work. No school. No shopping.
The Scale of Coordination
On January 30, more than 300 anti-ICE protests occurred simultaneously across the United States. The downtown march in Minneapolis alone drew between 50,000 and 100,000 participants. Approximately 10,000 to 15,000 people filled the 20,000-seat Target Center arena for a rally. In San Francisco, over 10,000 students, workers, and community members rallied at Dolores Park. New York City saw thousands gather at Foley Square and march to Washington Square Park and Union Square.
The coordination extended beyond street protests. Hundreds of small businesses—restaurants, bookstores, tattoo parlors, independent retailers—closed their doors in solidarity. The Minneapolis Institute of Art and Design, the Minnesota Science Museum, and the Walker Art Center shut down. Starbucks Workers United engaged in strikes over illegal company actions at six company locations.
Students walked out across California, with an estimated 3,000 high school students marching in Long Beach alone. Polling commissioned after the January 23 strike in Minnesota found that roughly one in four Minnesota voters either participated directly in the shutdown and protests or had a close family member who did. Among those participants, approximately 38 percent reported staying off the job that day.
But the federal response showed no signs of backing down. Federal immigration authorities deployed tear gas, pepper spray, and rubber bullets against protesters in Los Angeles and Portland. In Portland, federal officers stationed on rooftops targeted protesters with tear gas after demonstrators approached the front gate of the ICE facility. Local police arrested dozens of participants across multiple cities.
Inside the Coalition Structure
Labor’s Central Role
The Service Employees International Union emerged as a primary organizing force, particularly SEIU Local 26, which represents over 8,000 property services workers—janitors, building maintenance personnel, and service workers—across the Twin Cities. The local’s membership includes immigrant populations with direct experience of ICE operations.
The Minnesota AFL-CIO, representing more than 300,000 workers across more than 1,000 affiliated unions, formally endorsed the January 23 action. The Minneapolis Regional Labor Federation handled downtown march logistics. Teachers participated through the Minneapolis Federation of Educators and the American Federation of Teachers.
SEIU Local 26 president Greg Nammacher emphasized that most strikers on January 23 weren’t union members, indicating energy from regular people, not official organizations.
Faith Communities as Moral Anchor
Faith leaders organized a coordinated “clergy call and gathering” through Multifaith Antiracism, Change & Healing (MARCH), a Minneapolis-based multifaith organization. Hundreds of clergy members from multiple faith traditions traveled to the city from Massachusetts, California, Tennessee, and Alaska to participate in a two-day assembly where they received training on protest tactics like sit-ins and blockades.
On January 23, approximately 100 clergy members conducted a sit-in on the roadway at Minneapolis-Saint Paul International Airport, kneeling in prayer while approximately 1,000 other protesters joined the action. United Methodist Rev. Mariah Tollgaard and Rabbi Emma Kippley-Ogman were arrested during the airport sit-in.
Student Leadership and Youth Energy
University of Minnesota Student Unions—including the Black Student Union, Somali Student Association, Ethiopian Student Association, and Liberian Student Association—issued the call for the January 30 national action. The Graduate Labor Union at the University of Minnesota also played a coordinating role. Beyond the city, high school and college students participated in walkouts nationwide.
The Sunrise Movement said anti-ICE organizing was a key part of climate justice, analyzing ICE as a way to enforce “fossil fuel fascism.” This framing connected immigration operations to resource extraction, dispossession, and environmental racism.
Coalition Tensions
The National Shutdown coalition brought together organizations with different ideas about how to create change. Labor organizations typically operated using their power to negotiate, pushing for new laws, and negotiating with institutions. Student organizations emphasized mass mobilization and disruption of normal operations. Faith communities framed the action in religious language about justice and divine value of immigrant lives.
Coalition coordinators acknowledged that the coalition successfully united around January 30 action despite these differences but left questions about what to do after the strike unresolved. The ability to maintain such a broad coalition was described as “both its greatest strength and its persistent vulnerability,” with disagreements about what political system should replace the current one.
What the Movement Achieved
Tactical Success and Media Impact
Organizers successfully mobilized over 300 simultaneous protests across all fifty states. The action generated mainstream media coverage, with every major national outlet reporting on the mobilization. Participation numbers demonstrated mass turnout, with polling showing roughly one in four Minnesota voters either participated directly or had a close family member who did.
However, significant limitations became apparent when assessing the National Shutdown’s impact on major corporate institutions central to ICE operations. As one analysis noted, the movement “still came up short of the type of power to disrupt the economy that can scare corporate America into breaking from ICE and the Trump regime.” While hundreds of small businesses closed in solidarity, major corporations like Target, Hilton, Enterprise, and Home Depot—whose facilities and contracts support ICE operations—experienced minimal disruption.
Limited Policy Concessions
Deputy Attorney General Todd Blanche announced a federal civil rights investigation into the killing of Alex Pretti on January 30, the day of the strike. However, Blanche refused to also initiate an investigation regarding Renée Good’s killing.
Border Czar Tom Homan announced a change in approach on January 29, claiming that federal officers would transition from street-level operations to arrests of immigrants already in federal custody—primarily jails and prisons. This “shift in strategy” resulted in an announced drawdown of 700 immigration officers from Minnesota, reducing the federal presence from approximately 3,000 officers to 2,300.
But even this reduction left federal personnel at roughly fifteen times the pre-surge baseline of approximately 150 officers. Minneapolis Mayor Jacob Frey stated: “The drawdown and body-worn cameras are a step in the right direction, but 2,000 ICE officers still here is not de-escalation.” Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer similarly criticized the reduction as inadequate.
Regarding the long-term demand for ICE abolition, no Congressional legislation was introduced or advanced. The Trump administration instead directed over $75 billion in supplemental funding to immigration operations in the weeks following the strike. Body cameras were implemented for federal officers in the city, and some use-of-force reforms were announced, but these represented changes to procedures, not to the system itself.
Public Opinion Shifts
The mobilization showed measurable changes in public opinion. Harvard CAPS/Harris polling conducted in January 2026 found that 55 percent of voters disapproved of how ICE and CBP enforce laws in U.S. cities, with 40 percent strongly disapproving. Fifty-seven percent of voters said ICE and CBP “have gone too far,” and 80 percent said ICE and CBP should be required to identify themselves when conducting activities, while 86 percent supported body camera requirements.
Fifty-eight percent of voters said ICE and CBP have been using too much force in the city, and 62 percent believed the Trump administration was “doubling down on its actions in Minneapolis rather than de-escalating and changing course.”
Historical Precedents
The Rare American General Strike
The 2026 National Shutdown represented the first claimed general strike in the United States in approximately eighty years, the preceding precedent being the 1946 labor actions at the end of World War II.
The 1934 Minneapolis Teamsters Strike, occurring in the same city where the 2026 strike took place, represented another pivotal general strike moment, involving violence, martial law, and National Guard deployment—precisely 92 years before the 2026 action. The 1934 strike succeeded in establishing union recognition and wage increases for truck drivers and warehouse workers, turning Minneapolis from a non-union city into a labor stronghold.
Organizers explicitly referenced the 1934 strike as a historical precedent and inspiration for the 2026 action.
The 2006 Precedent
The most direct recent precedent was the 2006 “Day Without Immigrants” mobilization, which drew millions of immigrant rights activists into the streets across multiple cities on May 1, 2006, in response to restrictive immigration legislation. The 2006 action featured massive marches, coordinated boycotts encouraging immigrants to stay home from work and school, and broad coalition participation.
However, 2006 failed to achieve legislative reform on immigration, despite generating enormous media attention. As one analysis observed, “The 2006 immigrant rights movement’s single-day boycott generated immense media attention but didn’t produce change. This happened partly because organizers didn’t build sustained organization after the May 1 action.”
The 2026 National Shutdown organizers attempted to overcome this limitation, framing January 23 and January 30 not as isolated actions but as the beginning of sustained mobilization, with plans for future coordinated actions through February and beyond.
The Memphis Sanitation Strike’s Moral Framework
Organizers and faith leaders involved in the 2026 mobilization drew upon the 1968 Memphis sanitation workers strike as a historical and moral reference point. The Memphis strike emerged when 1,300 African American sanitation workers struck over low wages, dangerous working conditions, and racial discrimination. The strike featured mass marches, church-based mobilization, and solidarity actions from multiple constituencies.
The Memphis strike’s significance increased after Martin Luther King Jr. was assassinated in Memphis on April 4, 1968, while supporting the striking workers. The strike succeeded in achieving union recognition and wage increases.
The 2026 coalition, particularly faith-based organizers, invoked the Memphis precedent in their mobilization materials, comparing their moment to King’s “call on clergy of all faiths” during the 1960s civil rights movement.
Strategic Options for Amplifying Impact
Sector-Specific Work Stoppages
Rather than trying to organize broad-based general strikes difficult to sustain across diverse workforces, targeting specific industries where immigrant and allied workers represent high percentages of the workforce could create disruption. Industries would include meat and poultry processing plants, agricultural operations, healthcare facilities, logistics and warehousing centers, and construction firms.
The 1997-1998 UPS Teamsters strike demonstrated that disruption of logistics networks created leverage that affected corporate supply chains nationwide. Federal immigration operations depend on information from employers and workplace raids that target specific sectors. A sustained meat-processing industry strike would reduce labor availability, create economic pressure on corporations that could pressure the administration, and demonstrate that immigrant workers possess economic power.
The challenge: Sector-specific stoppages require months of workplace organizing to build trust and coordination among workforces. Employers fighting back, particularly in low-wage sectors where margins are tight, could be severe. Legal risks for undocumented workers remain substantial, even with union support.
Corporate Supply-Chain Pressure
Identifying the supply chain of corporate contracts and relationships supporting ICE and CBP operations could identify major corporations providing services to detention facilities, transportation, food services, communications infrastructure, or real estate. Launching coordinated campaigns targeting these corporations’ brands—combining pressure from investors, boycotts from consumers, worker organizing, and shareholder activism—could create accountability for human rights violations.
The campaigns to divest from South African apartheid demonstrated that corporations respond more readily to financial and reputational pressure than to moral arguments alone. Immigration detention facility contractors G4S and CoreCivic became household names through campaigns highlighting their role in detention. However, the 2026 mobilization didn’t systematically go after the broader corporate supply chain supporting ICE operations.
Companies providing communications, transportation, food services, and real estate are often more vulnerable to consumer pressure than security contractors and may be unaware of their role in detention infrastructure. But corporations are sophisticated at breaking up contracts—subcontractors and indirect relationships make supply-chain pressure complicated. Sustaining consumer boycotts requires alternative competitive products consumers can support instead.
Sanctuary Policies with Teeth
Rather than symbolically declaring sanctuary status, organizing efforts to enforce state and local legal non-cooperation with ICE through prosecuting federal officers who violate state law could create consequences. This would include state funds for legal defense of people facing immigration operations, monitoring and reporting of federal officer activities, and creating state and local accountability systems.
Federal power depends on cooperation from state and local authorities. If state attorneys general prosecuted federal officers for state law violations during immigration operations, federal capacity would decrease. Creating legal jeopardy would force federal officers to operate with more caution, reducing the scale and aggressiveness of operations.
The challenge: The legal principle that federal law overrides state law limits state authority to restrict federal operations. Federal officers claim they can’t be prosecuted by states. Republican-controlled state governments would likely refuse to implement such mechanisms. Legal battles would drag on and success uncertain.
Community Defense Networks with Documentation
Developing organized community-level monitoring, networks to accompany and defend people operating in immigrant neighborhoods could include rapid-response teams providing community presence during ICE operations, documentation of federal officer actions, legal observers trained in documentation, direct aid networks providing support to detained people’s families, and public communication of all monitored interactions.
The Copwatch movement, which organized community monitoring of police conduct through videography and documentation, demonstrated that transparency limits police abuse. Federal officers operate without consequences partly because their actions remain undocumented or documented only by official sources. Community documentation creates multiple witness accounts, video evidence, and public record of federal officer behavior.
But community defense networks could be charged with obstruction of justice or “interfering with federal officers.” Federal officers could arrest monitors. Sustaining networks requires volunteer commitment and training. Documentation itself can be dangerous if federal officers respond with aggression.
School-Based Organizing Infrastructure
Rather than single school walkouts, developing sustained organizing within schools to create sanctuary school policies, teach students and teachers about their rights, establish legal defense networks for ICE incidents at schools, and create school-based organizing committees with continuing responsibility for anti-ICE work could transform schools into organizing infrastructure.
Schools represent spaces where communities gather daily and where constituencies—parents, teachers, students—have shared interests. Teachers’ unions in many districts have power to shape school policy. Student walkouts generated media attention in 2026, but didn’t have follow-up involvement from institutions. Sustained school-based organizing could create policies and accountability systems with long-term impact.
The challenge: Conservative school boards and state education officials fight organizing around ICE. The Texas Education Agency warned districts against helping with student protests. Teacher unions face legal liability for participation. Parental engagement may be limited if parents fear consequences.
What Comes Next
Following the January 30 National Shutdown, organizers announced plans for a second phase of organizing. A “No Kings” coalition, bringing together SEIU, National Education Association, UNITE HERE, Movement for Black Lives, and other organizations, announced plans for a major March 28, 2026, demonstration in the city and nationwide.
The Trump administration showed no sign of backing away from immigration operations as central to its governance agenda. While the announced 700-officer drawdown from the city represented a tactical change, federal officials emphasized that “mass deportations” remained the main goal. The administration directed over $75 billion in supplemental funding toward immigration operations in the weeks following the strike.
The question for the anti-ICE movement is whether the broad coalition united by January 30 crisis response can sustain itself through long-term organizing. Organizers acknowledged disagreements about strategy—electoral strategy, revolutionary versus reform strategies, and whether disruptive tactics can be sustained. Some organizers emphasized that the January 23 and 30 actions represented only “the beginning” of organizing, while others worried about burnout and exhaustion from government crackdowns.
The movement faces a challenge of protest movements: transitioning from moments of intense protest sparked by crisis to sustained organizing. Historical precedent suggests this transition is difficult. The 2006 immigrant rights movement failed partly because it couldn’t keep their organizing structure going after the May 1 peak.
Three scenarios seem possible for the movement’s trajectory. In the first, the coalition holds together through summer 2026, building from March 28 action toward larger mobilizations, with strikes in specific industries or campaigns targeting supply chains to create new pressure. Election involvement increases as 2026 midterms approach, directing movement energy into voting and political pressure.
In the second scenario, initial energy from January and February actions fades as participants go back to their normal lives. Repression—including arrests, charges against protesters, and retaliation at work—creates costs that some participants can’t sustain. Coalition tensions create conflicts between organizations. By summer 2026, organizing returns to lower levels, though organizing continues in limited form.
In the third scenario, anti-ICE organizing remains part of a broader fight between democracy and authoritarianism as Trump administration actions create new crises. The movement evolves as triggering incidents create new waves of organizing around multiple issues, with ICE abolition as one demand within broader anti-Trump resistance.
The January 2026 National Shutdown represented an achievement in modern American organizing—coordinating over 300 simultaneous protests across fifty states, uniting labor unions, faith communities, immigrant rights organizations, and student movements in sustained action against federal immigration operations. The mobilization demonstrated that large-scale coordinated mass action remained possible when constituencies faced common threats and had the organizing structure to coordinate a response.
However, the mobilization’s policy changes remained limited. While public opinion shifted regarding ICE tactics, and a partial government shutdown created temporary leverage points, fundamental policy change remained elusive. Federal authorities announced tactical changes rather than major reversals. ICE abolition—the stated goal—faced political and legal obstacles, showing no signs of near-term achievement.
The movement’s most significant potential impact may lie not in immediate policy change but in changed consciousness about the possibility of popular resistance to federal authority. The January 2026 mobilization demonstrated that coordinated mass action could temporarily stop normal economic and social activity, could generate political pressure on federal officials, and could change public conversation. Whether this consciousness turns into sustained organizing and political power remains the central question facing the anti-ICE movement heading into spring and summer 2026.
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.