Business
More CEOs want Elon Musk–style ‘moonshot’ pay packages—but comp experts are raising alarms
Published
4 months agoon
By
Jace Porter
The all-or-nothing moonshot pay plan was a gambit so risky even Axon Enterprise CEO Rick Smith’s wife was against it.
But Smith had started getting antsy around 2016, as he was approaching three decades at the company, Axon compensation committee chair Hadi Partovi told Fortune. Smith was talking more seriously to the board about his succession plan, who was next to lead the company, and what he would do next. Partovi knew Smith could make a lot more money if he launched a startup than if he made Axon worth 10 times as much under his previous comp plan.
“This is when I realized we had a real problem,” said Partovi.
Smith thrives in high-risk, high-reward environments, so the Axon board granted Smith a near carbon copy of Tesla CEO Elon Musk’s moonshot pay plan but on a much smaller scale. The challenge to Smith was to grow the Taser stun gun and body-camera maker 10-fold over a 10-year performance period starting in 2018. From a base of $2.5 billion, Smith had to increase the company’s market cap by $1 billion to unlock each new tranche of stock options, for a total of 12 tranches and a market cap of $13.5 billion. In addition, Smith had to hit eight revenue-based operational or eight adjusted-Ebitda-based goals. During the decade he was supposed to work on achieving those goals, he would get almost nothing—no bonuses or other incentives, and his salary was about $31,000 a year.
“In full candor, my wife was against me taking on the challenge, as she saw it as just too risky,” Smith wrote in a letter to investors in 2023. But Smith blew through all the goals and each of the 12 tranches in five years—half the time the board gave him—making Smith the highest-paid CEO last year with compensation valued at $165 million. The stock price grew more than 600% between 2018 when the board offered him the moonshot and 2023. After he unlocked the 12th tranche, Smith negotiated an $88 million reduction on his next performance plan (which will keep him at Axon until at least 2030 with a goal of driving the stock to $943.75) and directed it be granted to the lowest-paid workers at Axon, showering them with surprise stock grants based on their years of tenure at the company.
“The best is yet to come,” Smith wrote to investors in his letter this year.
What is a moonshot pay package?
Smith shooting the moon—twice, potentially—represents a resurgent breed of executive compensation that has captured the imaginations of a growing number of CEOs. Moonshot wanderlust initially kicked into high gear after Elon Musk’s groundbreaking 2017 award from Tesla, once valued as high as $56 billion before it was twice rescinded owing to a legal challenge. Moonshot grants, not to be confused with an outsize stock grant known as a “mega grant” for its sheer size, tie CEO compensation almost entirely to aggressive, seemingly impossible performance targets, explained Eric Hoffmann, vice president and chief data officer at comp consulting firm Farient Advisors. CEOs don’t get the awards unless they hit specific valuation hurdles and operational goals, he said, and the performance periods are typically five, seven or 10 years, rather than the more standard three-year period.
“It should be difficult to get these awards,” said Hoffmann. “You have to create a lot of value in order to earn these kinds of awards.”
Traditional CEO pay packages include a base salary, an annual cash bonus, and a longer-term equity incentive award often based on time and performance goals. According to compensation data firm Equilar, median compensation among S&P 500 CEOs was $17.1 million in 2024, up nearly 10% over the year prior. Moonshot awards, however, upend the traditional compensation model while also bucking the trend of billionaire tech founders like Amazon’s Jeff Bezos, Google’s Larry Page, and Meta’s Mark Zuckerberg, who all held large equity stakes and focused on making them more valuable, noted Hoffmann. The key distinction is that those founders built wealth by focusing on increasing the value of their existing equity stakes, while taking minimal or no compensation, rather than seeking massive equity grants on top of their founder stakes, said Hoffmann. The moonshot model is a departure—seeking both founder equity upside plus additional compensation awards.
“This way of wealth building is different than what was used during the dotcom era,” he noted.
The upside to the moonshot is an enormous payout and a growing slice of company ownership if an executive can deliver transformational growth, but investors aren’t always wild about them, and moonshots don’t come without significant risk, said Todd Sirras, a managing director with consulting firm Semler Brossy who has advised clients on these deals. Companies are “willing to bet all of these ungodly amounts of money on one person thinking, ‘That’s the right machine we need for the factory,’” said Sirras. But there’s a fundamental flaw in this approach because people are unpredictable—unlike factory equipment.
“Human beings are terrible machines,” Sirras told Fortune. “They’re emotional. Their attention gets divided thinking about what airplane they’re going to buy. It’s more risky to invest in a human being than it is to invest in a machine because human beings break in different and unpredictable ways.”
Until now, the moonshot offers have been almost exclusive to founder-CEOs and almost always established pre-IPO, said Sirras. Semler Brossy’s database of about 80 moonshot awards includes dozens issued during the SPAC IPO boom of 2020 and 2021 that are now “dead in the water” because companies failed to meet their valuation targets, he added.
With fewer IPOs in recent years and fewer moonshots, there are about 16 that exist among large publicly traded companies—and even fewer CEOs who have achieved maximum payouts, including Smith and Musk, according to research from Claire Kamas, a senior data analyst at Farient Advisors. Other companies that have awarded the grants include Airbnb, DoorDash, Oracle, ServiceNow, and RH, formerly known as Restoration Hardware, Kamas found. But the high-profile nature of the awards and the eye-popping figures associated with them are pushing board-level compensation committees that negotiate CEO pay to prepare for conversations about similar packages.
Farient has gotten queries from compensation committee chairs who are already preparing for how they will address the situation when the CEO comes to them about a moonshot plan. In one case, the CEO isn’t a founder but a manager hired to run the company, Hoffmann noted. He isn’t a fan of moonshot awards, particularly in cases where CEOs already hold significant ownership stakes and control over their companies.
“From a firm perspective, it is our view that these plans are generally not in the best interests of the organizations, the stakeholders, and shareholders in these companies,” said Hoffmann. “To me, a lot of these feel like a lottery ticket, a winner-take-all.”
Despite the risk, Sirras sees these awards rising in popularity again, and he sees new trends emerging: Founders are granting moonshots to their “anointed successors,” he said. Real estate platform Opendoor Technologies this month granted a moonshot potentially worth $2.8 billion and an 11% slice of the company to new CEO Kaz Nejatian. Sirras said that award looks to be the first of its kind, and the board likely offered it to Nejatian because of a blessing from Opendoor’s cofounders, Eric Wu and Khosla Ventures’ Keith Rabois. Wu and Rabois returned to the board alongside Nejatian’s hiring and invested $40 million of equity capital into the company.
Sirras said the same trend seems to be occurring in private equity. For instance, when founders Henry Kravis and George Roberts of KKR stepped down, the firm in 2021 granted co-CEOs Joe Bae and Scott Nuttall 1.2 million shares of KKR Holdings, valued at about $75 million, as part of their promotions. That same year, Apollo Global Management granted copresidents Jim Zelter and Scott Kleinman the potential to earn more than $860 million in stock. Zelter was promoted to president in 2025, and Marc Rowan remains CEO.
In addition to controlling founders who are planning leadership transitions and “founder-anointed successors,” the new wave of awards will likely also go to leading-edge executives in scenarios in which founders are making investment decisions, said Sirras. The arms race for talent between OpenAI and Meta and the reported compensation packages Zuckerberg has offered come to mind, he added.
“From a design perspective, the magnitude is mind-boggling,” said Sirras. He compared it to the Jurassic Park film series. “Danger increases exponentially the closer these awards get to the general executive population,” Sirras wrote in an email. Alongside moonshots for founder-anointed successors and non-successors with a major capital investment he deems “inside the T. rex fence,” the rise of “awards in non-founder companies means the dinosaurs have escaped and are heading to the mainland,” Sirras wrote.
The awards can also prompt investors to revolt. Business payments company Corpay awarded CEO Ronald Clarke 850,000 performance-based stock options valued at $55.6 million in 2021. The award had stock price hurdles of $350 and $400 and Clarke got no long-term equity grants in 2020, 2022, and 2023. In 2024, the comp committee canceled 300,000 stock options subject to the $400 hurdle and modified the criterion for 550,000 stock options subject to the $350 hurdle to require that Corpay hit a closing stock price at or above $350 for at least three trading days by the end of 2024. Clarke achieved the modified hurdle on Oct. 23, 2024. Corpay told investors the change was meant to “align Mr. Clarke’s realized pay with that of shareholders who benefited from the increased stock level over $350 before the modification, but prior to the modification the stock had not closed above $350 for 10 consecutive days, which was the pre-modification hurdle.” In other words, the board made it simpler for Clarke to earn the stock options by reducing the target from 10 consecutive trading days above $350 to just three trading days, a hurdle he cleared shortly after the change.
The stock didn’t hit $400 until February 2025 and is currently trading at just under $300. The company’s 2025 Say-on-Pay vote—a thumbs-up, thumbs-down nonbinding vote on executive pay—only got support from 53.5% of votes cast. Over the past 14 years, the Russell 3000 index saw average support of about 91% for pay programs.
Corpay did not respond to a request for comment.
Axon Enterprise moonshot
At Axon, Smith’s moonshot deal differs from Musk’s in another key way: It’s open to Smith’s direct reports on down to line workers at Axon, making employees eligible for a version of Smith’s moonshot deal. Workers could give up some salary, put some of their pay at risk, and work to hit revenue targets. Plus, every employee in the U.S. got a grant of 60 performance stock units that vested according to the same milestones in Smith’s award—a move almost unheard of in corporate America. No one other than Smith was able to essentially give up all their pay, said Partovi, mostly because Smith was independently successful enough that if he didn’t cut it and got nothing, he had enough of a cushion. Roughly $75 million in employee compensation was locked up as at-risk pay so employees could take part in the moonshot.
“I really think that was a driver behind why the company grew so fast,” said Partovi. “Any element of infighting was gone—everybody was suddenly like, ‘We’re all in this together.’”
Smith’s 2023 award went through a significant negotiation process where Partovi heard directly from shareholders about everything they didn’t like about the first plan so he could debug it. The board also attempted to legal-proof it against the type of challenge that Musk’s moonshot faced, prompting one of the compensation committee members who had socialized with Smith to resign from the committee. The board also changed the vehicle type from performance options to restricted stock, added in speed brakes that would keep Smith at Axon, and made it more difficult for Smith to hit the last few tranches. Partovi said he addressed every question from shareholders about misalignment in the plan during the board’s negotiation process with Smith.
Ultimately, Partovi credits the moonshot deal with transforming the corporate culture around shared risk and high reward with a version of a high-stakes compensation plan rolled out to everyone at the company. In his view, it helped to eliminate dynamics where direct reports and general employees resent outsize pay for the chief executive, he said.
“The big thing is, the CEO is taking a risk in giving up his pay, and you don’t want it to turn out to be shareholders win and the CEO wins or shareholders lose and the CEO still wins,” said Partovi. “I don’t know if grants like Rick’s make sense for everybody, but they strongly make sense for Rick Smith at Axon.”
You may like
Business
Nearly 400 millionaires and billionaires are demanding Davos leaders to tax them more: ‘Tax us. Tax the super rich.’
Published
26 minutes agoon
January 21, 2026By
Jace Porter
While the wealthiest business leaders from U.S. president Donald Trump to Nvidia CEO Jensen Huang touch down in the Swiss town of Davos to discuss the state of the world, a cohort of the ultra-rich are already sounding the alarm. Hundreds of millionaires and billionaires released an open letter in time for the World Economic Forum, calling on leaders attending the conference to fight raging wealth inequality with taxes.
“Millionaires like us refuse to be silent. It is time to be counted. Tax us and make sure the next fifty years meet the promise of progress for everyone,” the letter stated.
“Extreme wealth has led to extreme control for those who gamble with our safe future for their obscene gains. Now is the time to end that control and win back our future.”
So far, nearly 400 millionaires and billionaires across 24 countries have signed the letter condemning extreme wealth, including the likes of Hollywood actor Mark Ruffalo, Disney heirs Abby and Tim Disney, and real estate developer Jeffrey Gural.
The open letter is part of a “Time to Win” campaign, led by wealth redistribution organizations including Patriotic Millionaires, Millionaires for Humanity, and Oxfam. It criticized global oligarchs with riches who have “bought up” democracies, exacerbated poverty, stifled tech innovation, dampened press freedom, and overall, “accelerated the breakdown of our planet.” After all, 77% of millionaires from G20 nations think extremely wealthy individuals buy political influence, and 71% believe those with riches can significantly influence elections, according to a poll conducted for Patriotic Millionaires.
The Time to Win wealthy signatories offer a simple solution: “Tax us. Tax the super rich.”
“As millionaires who stand shoulder to shoulder with all people, we demand it,” the open letter continued. “And as our elected representatives—whether it’s those of you at Davos, local councillors, city mayors, or regional leaders—it’s your duty to deliver it.
Stars and billionaires are calling out the super-rich for being ungenerous
As the world mints hundreds of thousands of millionaires yearly and billionaire wealth soars to record highs, some leaders can’t stand to stay quiet. Celebrities and the ultra-rich haven’t just sent a message to money-hoarders with the Time to Win letter—some have even called out billionaires in person, questioning their existence.
“If you’re a billionaire, why are you a billionaire? No hate, but yeah, give your money away, shorties,” Eilish said onstage last year at the WSJ Magazine Innovator Awards with Meta mogul Mark Zuckerberg, worth $214 billion, in attendance.
Even the most philanthropic members of the ultra-rich club are wary of their peers’ lack of charity. Billionaires have started their own initiatives like Warren Buffett, Melinda French Gates, and Bill Gates’ The Giving Pledge, which attracted more than 250 billionaires who pledged to donate at least half of their wealth during their lifetimes, or in their wills. But efforts have largely fallen short. Last year, French Gates admitted that the signatories haven’t given enough; And in a letter to shareholders, Buffett fessed up to the fact that billionaires aren’t following through.
“Early on, I contemplated various grand philanthropic plans. Though I was stubborn, these did not prove feasible,” Buffett wrote. “During my many years, I’ve also watched ill-conceived wealth transfers by political hacks, dynastic choices, and, yes, inept or quirky philanthropists.”
Billionaire and millionaire wealth is on the rise
There’s more people rolling in riches than ever before, and it’s fueling an equity crisis at the bottom of the economic ladder.
In 2024 alone, the U.S. minted 379,000 new millionaires—over 1,000 millionaires every day—as the proportion of Americans in the ultrawealthy club swelled by 1.5%, according to a 2025 report from investment bank UBS. This cohort held about $107 trillion in total wealth at the end of that year: more than four times the amount they owned at the turn of the millennium.
In 2000, there were only 13.27 million everyday millionaires, but by the end of 2024, the group swelled to 52 million people worldwide.
While it might appear that eye-watering riches are spreading out to a larger number of individuals, it’s mainly concentrating at the top. America’s top 20% household earners—averaging a net worth of $4.3 million—accounted for about 71% of the U.S.’s total wealth at the end of 2024, according to 2025 data from the Federal Reserve.
Meanwhile, the bottom half of American households, averaging about $60,000 in wealth, owned just 2.5% of the country’s wealth. For the vast majority of U.S. citizens, joining the millionaire club—and even more so, the billionaire club—is a total pipe dream.
Business
Trump fast tracks ‘three-week’ nuclear approval for big tech to fuel AI race
Published
57 minutes agoon
January 21, 2026By
Jace Porter
President Donald Trump offered Silicon Valley an extraordinary deal on Wednesday: Build your own nuclear power plants to fuel AI, and his administration will approve them in just three weeks.
Speaking at the World Economic Forum in Davos, Switzerland, Trump addressed a room of tech executives struggling with an aging U.S. electrical grid.
“I came up with the idea,” Trump said. “You people are brilliant. You have a lot of money. You can build your own electric generating plants.”
Trump talked for about 10 minutes about energy in his speech, making it clear Trump views a straining electric grid as a central economic risk of 2026. As artificial intelligence pushes electricity demand to record highs, the administration is framing power shortages as an existential threat to growth and national security. Slashing approval timelines, Trump argued, is a necessary response to an energy system he said he believes is fundamentally unprepared for the AI era.
“We needed more than double the energy currently in the country just to take care of the AI plants,” Trump said.
The proposal marks a radical departure from the traditional Nuclear Regulatory Commission (NRC) process, which historically requires four to five years for environmental and design approvals as well as rigorous site selection. Trump claimed that while tech leaders initially “didn’t believe him,” he assured them the government would deliver approvals for oil and gas plants in just two weeks, with nuclear projects following in three.
Trump said he wasn’t “a big fan” of nuclear power before, but now sees it as a newly viable solution due to safety improvements.
“The progress they’ve made with nuclear is unbelievable,” he said. “We’re very much into the world of nuclear energy, and we can have it now at good prices and very, very safe.”
While the potential upcoming wave of small modular nuclear reactors (SMR) could receive regulatory approvals in less than two years, there is little basis for going through an approval process with the Nuclear Regulatory Commission in closer to three weeks, and such an expedited process would trigger widespread concerns about safety and environmental risks.
Trump also touted a new energy alliance with Venezuela, noting the U.S. secured 50 million barrels of oil last week following the “end of an attack” on the nation that led to the deposition of President Nicolás Maduro. He said the new cooperation between the two nations would make Venezuela “fantastically well” while driving U.S. gasoline prices toward $2.00 a gallon.
Gasoline prices are the main inflationary measure by which costs have fallen during the first year of the new Trump administration. But they’re nowhere close to $2.00 per gallon. The national average for a gallon of regular unleaded is $2.76 per gallon this week, down 32 cents from a year ago, primarily because of rising OPEC oil production.
But Trump drew a sharp contrast with Europe’s energy landscape. Trump mocked the “Green New Scam,” citing a 64% spike in German electricity prices and the “catastrophic” decline of energy production in the United Kingdom. He targeted the North Sea and the proliferation of wind farms, which he labeled “losers” that “kill the birds.”
“Stupid people buy” wind farms, Trump laughed.
Business
Slipping on ICE: innocent retailers are the latest collateral damage from Trump’s perpetual noise machine
Published
1 hour agoon
January 21, 2026By
Jace Porter
In her classic 1961 book The Death and Life of Great American Cities, pioneering urbanologist Jane Jacobs advised that the key to safe cities is “more eyes on the street.” She advocated that the best way to get these was to have neighborhoods filled with stores and restaurants. With local business providing a multitude of reasons for people to be active in city street life, eyes on the street would follow. It was these eyes that were mentioned by Minnesota Gov. Tim Walz in his January 14 primetime media appeal for the public to witness and document the increasingly horrific actions of the agency known as ICE, the once celebrated U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement office.
Increasingly known for daily video footage of seemingly arbitrary and brutal force, used by masked ICE agents against shoppers and workers at retail shops and restaurants, Walz urged shoppers to “take out that phone and hit record.” The public has been horrified by the killing of Renee Good, an unarmed 37-year-old mother of three and an American citizen, who was shot multiple times in the face by an ICE agent in her own Minneapolis neighborhood. But the footage of ICE brutality is everywhere, and much of it is occurring in retail establishments.
Consider the vivid hypocrisy of the ICE agents who were seen feasting at the popular El Tapatio Mexican Restaurant in Willmar, Minnesota, and then returning later to arrest the owner and employees of this café that had graciously served them. ICE actions have led several local establishments to close for foot traffic, taking only phone orders, while others reported sales drops of 75%.
As for larger enterprises, with recent raids occurring in Los Angeles, Charlotte, and Phoenix, Fortune 500 giants around the nation including Home Depot, Walmart, Target, Ross, Keurig Dr Pepper, and Constellation Brands have all increasingly warned about the impact of ICE raids on their businesses. Patrons and laborers at one Walmart in Van Nuys, California, faced multiple raids in the same day with people tackled and dragged away from ICE agents. Calls for boycotts of retailers who aid and abet ICE enforcement are understandable but retailers are also victims here. They can and should do more to make their roles more clear.
The eyes on the street
The impact of such ICE invasions into Minnesota is being shared nationally, with profound cost to local commerce and also local communities. Local merchants serve a deeper purpose to society than selling goods that are often available through ecommerce. Retail stores are among the last remaining shared civic spaces—places where people of all backgrounds still cross paths in the course of everyday life. Shopkeepers are community pillars because they build social ties, foster local identity, boost the economy by keeping money local, and act as hubs for connection, often providing personalized service and supporting local events, making neighborhoods more vibrant, resilient, and unique places to live and shop. They transform basic commerce into meaningful relationships and community gathering spots, strengthening the social fabric.
America’s great retailers have long understood this. From Walmart’s Sam Walton to J.C. Penney to The Home Depot co-founders Bernie Marcus and Arthur Blank, retail legends have long described stores not merely as institutions of public trust. Blank has spoken of retail as a civic platform—a space where people from different walks of life come together in ordinary, human ways. Marcus has emphasized that Home Depot was built on dignity: respect for customers, respect for workers, and a belief that welcoming people into shared spaces strengthens communities rather than fragments them.
So, what could possibly disrupt that vision?
Last week, videos ricocheted across social media showing federal immigration agents restraining a man inside a Walmart in Minnesota and detaining individuals at the entrance of a Target. Days later, in Los Angeles, Home Depot parking lots—long informal hiring sites for day laborers—again became flashpoints for enforcement actions and community backlash. These were just a few of many ICE raids playing out across the country, in locales as varied as New York, Georgia, Texas and beyond, where shoppers have reported increased immigration enforcement activity near department stores and shopping centers, triggering protests, boycotts, and a growing sense that retail spaces are being repurposed into stages for public confrontation.
This is surely not the retail experience that Marcus and Blank had in mind when they spoke of dignity and friendly community commons.
President Donald Trump is likely pulling this lever unprovoked to tear apart communities’ harmonious fabric as the kind of diversionary tactic that he often utilizes. Trump’s first year has been soundly rated a failure in all major national polls and in each dimension of national and international priorities. Barely 37% say that Trump places the good of the country above his personal gain, and 32% say that he’s in touch with the problems ordinary Americans face in their daily lives. As we write about in our new book, Trump’s Ten Commandments, the president has long resorted to “perpetual noise machine” distractions when faced with plummeting poll numbers and challenges on the economy and affordability, seeking to divert attention away from his difficulties. This diversion comes at a real cost to retailers and to the American economy.
Multiple major national polls reveal that the ICE mission is failing, with most Americans condemning these raids as making American cities less safe — with 82% of Democrats and Democratic-leaning independents leaning in this direction, but also 67% of Republicans and Republican-leaning independents. Even MAGA-friendly podcaster Joe Rogan launched a harsh takedown of ICE, likening them to the Gestapo secret police of Nazi Germany.
In fact, Minneapolis Police Chief Brian O’Hara, recently showed on Fox TV that, before the ICE invasions, all major categories of crime including violent crimes like murders and carjacks were down last year from 20% to 50%. Former Secretary of Homeland Security Jeh Johnson has shown this weekend that there has been no surge of undocumented immigrants in Minneapolis to justify what is now five times the number of federal law enforcement officers as there are municipal police.
It appears that even Trump is recoiling, offering a surprising criticism of ICE overreach in a New York Times interview this week. Indeed, unless there is some inexplicable policy goal to get Americans to buy ladders, hammers, toilet seats, piles of bricks, washers, dryers, and garage doors online instead of at neighborhood stores, there is no reason why retailers need to become ground zero.
Why would ICE want to hurt businesses that form the backbone of the American economy? After all, we don’t know how good UPS is at delivering garage doors house-to-house, or if FedEx could really handle deliveries of bricks, sinks, and toilets, if they were bought from Amazon instead of from neighborhood stores. While that notion might seem ridiculous, there is nothing funny or ludicrous about the fact that these administration/ICE overreaches risk serious and genuine economic damage if they continue unabated.
The facts about retailers’ lack of complicity
While ICE might be slipping on the ice, the activists who are attacking America’s most beloved retailers as somehow “complicit” with ICE raids in their stores are similarly slipping up. That narrative is wrong, and retailers need to throw rock salt urgently, to avoid flipping over themselves. Here are the facts, which are too often lost in the crossfire, and should be clarified urgently.
First, retailers need to clarify that they have not been complicit and have had no advance knowledge of these raids. Retailers are not accessories with ICE, nor enablers; they are also victims, caught in the crossfire of a political and legal dispute they did not choose.
This clarification is urgent, because critics on all sides misrepresent what retailers can—and cannot—do. One widely circulated myth holds that retailers invite ICE into their stores. In reality, ICE agents, like any law enforcement officers, may enter public spaces open to all customers without needing a warrant.
Another myth suggests that retailers can simply “ban ICE” from their properties if they choose, with some choosing to do so while other stores invite them in with open arms. That, too, misunderstands the law. A retail store is not a private home. As a public-facing space, retailers cannot selectively exclude certain groups—whether law enforcement or anyone else—from areas open to the general public. A store manager cannot “kick out ICE” the way they might remove a shoplifter. Even if a retailer tried to ban ICE, or any other law enforcement agency, from their otherwise public facing spaces, the law enforcement agency could simply ignore it under the law, and the retailer could be subject to a variety of legal claims, including discrimination or obstruction by the affected government entities. Some have suggested that perhaps stores could put whistles by the cash registers or parking lots, but in reality, retailers have no control.
A third myth claims that retailers are facilitating the arrest of their employees or customers. That is false. As Federal law enforcement officers, ICE agents have the authority to make arrests in any public spaces based on probable cause, without the consent—or cooperation—of the venue. While there are allegations that surveillance cameras operated by such retail partners as Flock Safety are being use to assist ICE raids as some activist investors charge, retailers should assert this electronic collaborating is not true—consistent with denials by Flock Safety.
Retailers did not ask to be put into the middle of America’s political and legal fight over immigration. But they are being drafted nonetheless, and need to scream these facts loudly from the mountaintops to deescalate a worsening situation. Fortunately, they are not likely to use needlessly incendiary language the way some overreacting public officials do. Home Depot’s public statements capture the hard edge of their dilemma: the company has said it is neither notified in advance nor coordinating with immigration enforcement, while also acknowledging that it cannot legally interfere with federal agencies.
Now that retailers find themselves in the middle, they deserve something too often missing from this debate: truth, and they need to be screaming this truth loudly from the mountaintops. They are neither covert Quisling collaborators nor law enforcement-subverting antagonists. They are institutions built to welcome the public of all stripes, not to adjudicate federal policy—and they should not be targeted as such by either side.
Some may wonder, why target retailers? If the goal is to trigger unruly public unrest to justify presidential invocation of the insurrection act as some charge, why not visit the spirited crowds at WWE instead. The average Home Depot store has an impressive 2,000 transactions a day but a WWE slapdown such as Raw or Westlemania easily draws five times as many for 10,000 heated fans. If the goal is to capture foreign guests, why not raid the Metropolitan Opera crowds filled with EU national as performers or the American Ballet Theater or the Colorado Ballet known for their high Russian degree of heritage dancers, or the several hundred heavily promoted high kicking Shen Yun performances each year sponsored by the Chinese Falun Gung religious movement.
It is painful to see ICE arrests taking place in the aisles, parking lots, and entry foyers of Minneapolis stores. Who would have thought that even the raucous reputation of the Minnesota Vikings would look refined compared to the hard-edged, ICE enforcement actions? Perhaps they should drop their cowardly masks to hide their identities by donning Viking helmets with horns to more accurately dress for their retail raids. Regardless of the bias in whatever racial or political agenda may be behind this nightmarish remake of Eugene O’Neil’s dark drama of societal miscreants, The Iceman Cometh, the ICE men are making sure their own approval rating melts, while doing damage to both commerce and community safety.
The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.
This story was originally featured on Fortune.com
Majority of South Florida residents support Fontainebleau redevelopment plan
How Sports Betting Has Changed Fan Conversations
Nearly 400 millionaires and billionaires are demanding Davos leaders to tax them more: ‘Tax us. Tax the super rich.’
Trending
-
Politics8 years agoCongress rolls out ‘Better Deal,’ new economic agenda
-
Entertainment9 years agoNew Season 8 Walking Dead trailer flashes forward in time
-
Politics9 years agoPoll: Virginia governor’s race in dead heat
-
Politics9 years agoIllinois’ financial crisis could bring the state to a halt
-
Entertainment9 years agoThe final 6 ‘Game of Thrones’ episodes might feel like a full season
-
Entertainment9 years agoMeet Superman’s grandfather in new trailer for Krypton
-
Business9 years ago6 Stunning new co-working spaces around the globe
-
Tech8 years agoHulu hires Google marketing veteran Kelly Campbell as CMO