Why Thousands of Union Members Marched Against ICE in Portland
Thousands of union members flooded Portland’s streets on a Saturday afternoon, marching toward the federal ICE facility in a show of labor solidarity that would end with tear gas drifting through residential neighborhoods. The rally brought together at least 30 labor unions—nurses, public employees, Teamsters, service workers—in what organizers called one of the largest labor mobilizations against immigration enforcement the city had seen in years.
The demonstration began peacefully at Elizabeth Caruthers Park in Portland’s South Waterfront neighborhood. Participants carried signs reading “Immigrants are not Criminals Our President Is!!” and “ICE Out of Our Communities,” their union banners visible throughout the crowd. Portland Police acknowledged attendance was “well into the thousands.”
But as marchers reached the ICE building’s security gate, federal officers deployed tear gas, pepper balls, rubber bullets, and flash-bang grenades. The chemical agents drifted several blocks, affecting families with children, elderly protesters, and residents of a nearby low-income apartment complex. Portland Mayor Keith Wilson condemned the federal response in stark terms: “To those who continue to work for ICE: Resign.”
Two Deaths in Minneapolis Sparked Nationwide Labor Action
The Portland action came at the end of a week of nationwide labor organizing against ICE, triggered by two deaths in Minneapolis earlier that month.
On January 7, federal immigration agents shot and killed Renee Good. Sixteen days later, they killed Alex Pretti, a licensed practical nurse working at a Minneapolis hospital. The deaths sparked a statewide general strike in Minnesota on January 23, followed by a nationwide “National Shutdown” on January 30.
Portland’s labor movement responded with its own mobilization the next day. The Oregon Nurses Association, SEIU Local 503 (the state’s largest public sector union representing 50,000 workers), multiple Teamsters locals, and dozens of other organizations committed members and resources to the action.
Tyler Fellini, executive director of Portland Jobs with Justice, a labor-community organizing hub, characterized the turnout as unusual: “Something like this—where it isn’t because a union is out on strike, but rather workers speaking up—is not quite that common.” He called it a level of union engagement not seen for many years in Portland.
Federal Officers Deployed Chemical Munitions Against Peaceful Marchers
The march proceeded from the park toward the ICE facility several blocks away. Eyewitness accounts and media reporting described the initial gathering as disciplined and nonviolent, with participants following organizers’ directions as they moved through Portland’s streets.
Portland Police sent officers on bikes to watch the protest, but emphasized their role was to “address criminal behavior” rather than suppress the demonstration itself. The department mostly stayed back and let the march happen.
The situation escalated after 4 p.m. when some demonstrators crowded near the immigration building’s driveway, blocking a security gate. Federal officers stationed at the facility responded with chemical munitions.
According to multiple news organizations, the tear gas “drifted through the air, traveling several blocks and into the larger crowd of demonstrators made up of families, including children and elderly people.” Federal officers also deployed pepper balls, rubber bullets, and flash-bang grenades.
The chemical agents spread across a wide geographic area. The Portland Police Bureau reported that tear gas and other irritant agents expanded around South Bancroft Street and South Moody Avenue. This prompted the temporary closure of South Macadam Avenue to “keep drivers from being affected” by the gas.
Residents of the Gray’s Landing apartment complex—a low-income building housing individuals with disabilities—reported that chemical agents infiltrated their homes. They later filed a lawsuit alleging federal agents deployed munitions “in a reckless manner,” causing respiratory issues and psychological distress.
City and State Officials Condemned Federal Response
Portland Police explicitly clarified they hadn’t deployed any chemical munitions. “PPB has observed munitions deployed near the ICE facility. That was another law enforcement agency; PPB has NOT deployed any munitions,” the bureau stated.
This distinction mattered because Portland’s city code prohibits the use of tear gas weapons within city limits. However, it includes an exemption for federal forces “in the performance of their official duties.”
Portland City Councilor Mitch Green, who reported being tear-gassed in the crowd, called for enforcement of the city’s tear gas prohibition: “Federal agents at the ICE facility tear gassed children. We must abolish ICE, DHS, and we must have prosecutions.”
Mayor Wilson characterized the crowd as engaged in “a peaceful daytime protest where the vast majority of those present violated no laws, made no threat, and posed no danger to federal forces.” He directed sharp criticism at federal authorities: “Through your use of violence and the trampling of the Constitution, you have lost all legitimacy and replaced it with shame. To those who continue to make these sickening decisions, go home, look in a mirror, and ask yourselves why you have gassed children.”
Oregon Governor Tina Kotek stated that “Trump’s ICE has no place in Oregon” and characterized the use of tear gas against “families, children, and peaceful demonstrators” as “a horrific abuse of authority that undermines public safety and violates constitutional rights.”
Why Labor Unions Led the Protest
While immigrant rights groups have long organized against ICE, major unions taking the lead represented something different—a recognition that immigration enforcement is a labor issue.
Melissa Unger, Executive Director of SEIU Local 503, had stated in interviews that “many of their members have started carrying their passports on the job” out of fear of potential interactions with immigration agents. She emphasized that “the fear is across the board, because it doesn’t feel like there’s rhyme or reason to how ICE is choosing to approach people or detain people.”
The Oregon Nurses Association’s participation reflected concerns within healthcare. Following the killing of Alex Pretti, the Minneapolis nurse, healthcare workers organized vigils and mobilization efforts across multiple cities. Nurses at the Portland protest carried signs including “ICE Murders Nurses,” connecting workplace safety concerns to immigration enforcement practices.
Nathaniel Hancock, a Providence St. Vincent Medical Center worker and SEIU Local 49 member, explained his motivation: “There are a ton more people than I was expecting. I don’t know if today is going to change anything necessarily, but I hope that it builds some community and it builds some connections between people and builds solidarity between the working class.”
Malena Marvin framed the action in moral terms: “This is like the big moral question of our time. Are we gonna let secret police kill people right in front of us? Are we gonna let them take our friends and neighbors right out in front of us? Or are we gonna stand up and say, ‘that’s not okay, we don’t accept it.'”
A History of Labor-Immigrant Solidarity
The labor movement’s relationship with immigrant workers has evolved dramatically over the past century—from the early AFL’s exclusion of Chinese workers and support for racially restrictive immigration policies, to the industrial unions of the 1930s-1960s that organized immigrant workers across multiple industries.
The United Farm Workers, founded by Cesar Chavez and Dolores Huerta, created a model of labor organizing that centered immigrant worker leadership. The Service Employees International Union’s “Justice for Janitors” campaign organized predominantly Latino immigrant janitors through tactics that transcended traditional labor organizing models.
The 2006 “Day Without an Immigrant” mobilization saw AFL-CIO unions endorse immigrant-led demonstrations and work stoppages protesting proposed legislation that would have criminalized undocumented immigrants. Hundreds of thousands of workers participated in May 1, 2006 demonstrations—Los Angeles saw between one and two million participants, Chicago over 750,000.
The Portland action on January 31 represented a continuation of this trend, but with a difference: labor unions took the lead rather than simply supporting immigrant-led organizing.
Immediate Outcomes and Ongoing Consequences
The protest mobilized thousands, brought institutional labor presence to immigrant rights activism, and created visible conflict between federal authorities and organized labor. It disrupted normal operations at the ICE facility for several hours.
The demonstration generated media coverage from local, regional, and national outlets. Headlines emphasized “thousands of labor union members,” the “peaceful” character of the gathering, and federal use of force against nonviolent demonstrators. Images showing families with young children and healthcare workers in union uniforms being exposed to tear gas created powerful visual narratives.
Portland city government responded with policy proposals. Mayor Wilson announced the city would impose financial penalties on detention facilities where chemical agents were deployed. City Councilors Morissa Mor and Mitch Green pressed the mayor to implement penalties, stating: “Portlanders are calling for action to safeguard our communities from an overreaching Federal government. We must act swiftly with every resource at our disposal.”
But the stated goal of “ending ICE operations in Portland” remained unchallenged by federal authorities. Immigration and Customs Enforcement continued its operations without operational adjustments in response to the protest.
President Trump posted on social media that he had “instructed ICE and/or Border Patrol to be very forceful in this protection of Federal Government Property.” He warned that “There will be no spitting in the faces of our Officers, there will be no punching or kicking the headlights of our cars, and there will be no rock or brick throwing at our vehicles, or at our Patriot Warriors,” and that “If there is, those people will suffer an equal, or more, consequence.”
The federal government’s willingness to use chemical munitions against union members suggested a significant escalation in confrontational posture toward organized labor opposition to immigration enforcement.
Legal Consequences for Residential Contamination
The deployment of chemical munitions generated legal consequences. Residents of the Gray’s Landing apartment complex documented chemical contamination of their building and health impacts. According to legal filings, residents were exposed to tear gas “both outside and inside” their apartments, with one resident sleeping in her closet and another in her bathtub to avoid chemical exposure.
Mitigation efforts including air purifiers, charcoal HVAC filters, and other remediation measures exceeded $210,000. Anticipated costs of up to $100,000 for building testing and cleaning remained.
The lawsuit, expanded on February 1 to add plaintiffs, alleged that “federal officers have continued to attack protestors and community members ‘indiscriminately'” and that federal agents deployed tear gas against “peaceful protestors” without warning.
Historical Precedents of Federal Violence Against Labor
The deployment of federal force against union members protesting federal policy carries historical weight.
The 1877 Great Railroad Strike saw federal troops sent to break strikes across multiple states, resulting in violent confrontations. At least ten people were killed in Maryland when militiamen fired on crowds, while in Pittsburgh, federal troops made bayonet charges that left as many as forty people dead.
The 1914 Ludlow Massacre represented perhaps the most traumatic episode. National Guard troops and private guards attacked a tent colony of striking coal miners and their families in Colorado, resulting in the deaths of 25 people, including 11 children. Miners launched a ten-day armed response before President Woodrow Wilson sent federal troops to restore order.
The 1937 Memorial Day Massacre in Chicago saw police fire on steelworkers picket lines, killing ten workers and wounding dozens more.
The incident on January 31 in Portland—federal officers deploying tear gas, pepper balls, and flash-bang grenades against union members—represented a continuation of this historical dynamic, though with differences in scale and intensity from the most severe historical episodes.
Next Steps in the Conflict
The Gray’s Landing residents’ lawsuit was scheduled for a court hearing on February 13 about whether to temporarily stop federal agents from using tear gas. If the court granted the injunction, the decision could create a legal rule that limits federal use of chemical munitions near residential areas, potentially constraining future enforcement operations.
Portland city government was expected to implement ordinances imposing financial penalties on detention facilities where chemical agents were deployed, as Mayor Wilson indicated in his statement following the action.
The scale of the Portland action appeared likely to prompt follow-up organizing among participating unions. The level of organized labor participation—30 unions, thousands of participants—suggested that labor organizers perceived immigration enforcement as a labor issue worthy of ongoing organizing efforts across multiple cities.
Regional coordination among West Coast cities appeared possible. Seattle, San Francisco, Los Angeles, and other cities with strong labor movements and significant immigrant populations faced similar federal immigration enforcement operations, suggesting potential for multi-city mobilization.
The Federal Government’s Position
The Trump administration’s response emphasized that immigration enforcement would continue regardless of protest opposition. Homeland Security Secretary Kristi Noem, when asked about characterizing the Minneapolis victims as engaged in “domestic terrorism,” deflected responsibility. She shifted focus to prior administrations’ immigration policies rather than addressing civil rights concerns about federal officer conduct.
This pattern suggested federal authorities were unlikely to conduct investigations into federal officer conduct or modify enforcement tactics in response to labor movement opposition.
Strategic Questions for the Labor Movement
The Portland action raised questions about labor movement strategy and the relationship between demonstrations and policy change.
The federal willingness to deploy chemical munitions against union members represented a historical escalation that might influence labor movement risk calculations. The decision whether to accept chemical weapons exposure as a potential cost of labor activism, or to develop tactics that avoid such exposure, will shape labor movement strategy going forward.
Historical lessons from comparable moments suggest that sustained campaigns combining workplace organizing, political pressure, community mobilization, and legal challenge tend to generate greater policy impacts than isolated mass demonstrations. The 1934 West Coast Longshore Strike coordinated workers across multiple cities, creating a multi-state work stoppage that paralyzed West Coast commerce and won union recognition.
The action on January 31 in Portland established groundwork for such campaigns but would require ongoing organizing investment to turn this first protest into policy wins.
The federal deployment of chemical munitions against union members advancing immigration enforcement opposition marks a political moment with implications extending beyond Portland. It raises questions about the boundaries of acceptable federal response to labor activism and about organized labor’s capacity to challenge federal policy in an era of aggressive immigration enforcement.
The thousands who marched that Saturday demonstrated that organized labor was willing to take a stand. Whether that stand translates into change depends on what happens next—the sustained organizing, coalition-building, and ongoing pressure that transforms a single moment into a movement capable of shifting policy.
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.