Salesforce Employees Urge Benioff to Cancel ICE Ties Public
Introduction: Salesforce Employees Urge Benioff to Cancel ICE Ties Public
A protest in California against ICE (Photo by Tayfun Cokun/Getty). The January 2026 killings of two Minneapolis residents – Renée Nicole Good by an ICE agent and Alex Pretti by a Border Patrol officer – “sparked protests and outrage throughout the nation”. In Silicon Valley and beyond, tech workers have been among the most vocal critics. In late January, more than 450 tech employees from Google, Amazon, Salesforce, Meta, and other firms signed an open letter urging CEOs to demand ICE withdraw from U.S. cities and to cancel all corporate contracts with the agency. Salesforce’s workforce soon joined this call.
Table of Contents
Salesforce’s Ties to ICE: History and Scope
Salesforce has long been a major contractor for U.S. government agencies, including the Department of Homeland Security (DHS). It provides cloud services and AI tools used by immigration and border enforcement agencies. For example, industry watchdogs note that Salesforce technology powers the Unified Immigration Portal – a shared CRM platform (built by Deloitte on Salesforce) that links U.S. Customs and Border Protection (CBP), ICE, USCIS, and others. Between 2018 and mid-2024, CBP alone spent over $148 million on Salesforce products (via various contracts) to manage border activities. In sum, Salesforce has been authorized to serve over 50 federal agencies, and DHS agencies often receive Salesforce-based solutions through partners like Deloitte.
Salesforce executives have in the past defended these ties as standard infrastructure work. For instance, in 2018, Benioff emphasized that Salesforce only provided “basic computing or staff management services” and noted it had no direct ICE agreement. But employees have seen these arrangements as troubling. During the 2018 border “family separation” crisis, 650 Salesforce workers petitioned their CEO to cancel a $0.8M CBP contract on ethical grounds.
The Texas immigrant-rights group Raices even refused a $250,000 donation from Salesforce over the deal. (Benioff initially blew off their concerns – “sorry I’m scuba diving” – before insisting the software was not directly causing harm.) In the end, Salesforce continued its CBP work and sold tens of millions in licenses that year. These precedents set the stage for 2026’s renewed scrutiny of Salesforce’s government contracts.
The Minneapolis Incidents: Catalyst for Outcry
Tensions boiled over after two controversial shootings in Minnesota. On Jan 7, 2026, ICE agent Renée Good fatally shot 41-year-old Renée Nicole Good in Minneapolis during a traffic stop. Her killing, captured on video, stunned the nation. Two weeks later, on Jan 24, Border Patrol officers shot and killed Alex Pretti, a 37-year-old U.S. citizen, under circumstances that were immediately disputed. Both deaths among at least eight people killed by federal agents in the month “sparked protests and outrage throughout the nation”. In cities across the U.S., activists and community members demanded accountability and even called for ICE’s removal from major cities. Tech workers, many of whom are immigrants or have immigrant families, found themselves particularly outraged.
Immediately after Good’s killing, tech employees from Google to TikTok banded together to pressure leadership. A petition (iceout.tech) gathered signatures from hundreds of engineers demanding their CEOs call the White House to remove ICE from cities and end ICE contracts. In the wake of Pretti’s death, that petition swelled to over 450 signatories, including employees at Google, Amazon, Salesforce, Meta, OpenAI, and others. As noted in Time and Axios, this marks “the first major organized protest from the tech world against [the Trump administration] in years,” signaling that Silicon Valley’s rank-and-file are “shocked…into realizing they have to say something”.
Salesforce Employee Protests: Letter, Signatories, and Demands
The outrage translated into an internal uprising. Over 1,400 Salesforce employees signed a leaked open letter to CEO Marc Benioff demanding an immediate break with ICE. This letter (circulated on internal channels and later posted publicly) draws directly on the Minnesota shootings as evidence that “state violence” is happening under the Salesforce cloud. It condemns newly reported pitches by Salesforce to help ICE recruit and onboard 10,000 new officers as a “fundamental betrayal” of the company’s professed ethics. The letter’s language is forceful:
- Stop all ICE-related deals. Signers demand cancellation of any “active pitches” or contract opportunities with ICE and CBP. They cite reports of an internal Salesforce plan (codenamed “Agentforce”) to use AI to expedite ICE hiring, arguing that participating in “Agentforce” infrastructure to scale a mass deportation agenda is unacceptable.
- Denounce ICE publicly. Employees urge Benioff to use his “unique weight” in Washington to publicly condemn ICE’s actions. They note that Benioff helped block an ICE deployment in San Francisco in 2025, and call on him to press similar influence again.
- Set ethical “red lines.” The letter insists Salesforce must draw clear boundaries on technology use. It calls for commitments that Salesforce cloud and AI services will never be used for “state violence” or mass immigration enforcement. In practice, signers want Salesforce to “pause or prohibit” any infrastructure, AI models, or apps that would enable ICE to rapidly expand its operations.
- Employee disclosure and safety. The writers demand transparency about what services Salesforce already provides to ICE and DHS, and they press for steps to protect affected workers (for example, flexible remote work for staff in cities where ICE is active). They request an “emergency, live, and recorded” town hall on the topic, so everyone from interns to executives can ask questions without censorship.
In short, employees explicitly “abjure any collaboration with genocide,” as one signatory put it. The letter frames the debate as one of moral consistency: Salesforce was born with a “social conscience” ethos, and workers say joining ICE’s mission violates that history. They argue that Benioff’s past support for progressive causes (e.g. homelessness initiatives in San Francisco) gives him extra responsibility to oppose ICE now.
Leadership’s Response (So Far)
By mid-February 2026, Salesforce’s leadership had made only limited public remarks. Benioff has not issued any direct apology or new statement regarding ICE. In fact, at the time of the letter’s circulation, Salesforce “did not immediately respond” to media queries about its ICE dealings. Nor has Benioff retracted his recent joke (“ICE agents in the building”) or explicitly addressed the staff petition. Company officials have instead emphasized longstanding policies:
Salesforce notes that U.S. government customers must agree to the terms of use and that the company historically viewed its ICE work as standard cloud computing. In an October 2025 statement, Salesforce reminded the public that it has served multiple administrations and insists all clients comply with “responsible use” rules. The message implies that Salesforce leadership sees its contracts as unremarkable parts of federal IT spending.
Internally, reactions have been tense. Some executives have distanced themselves from Benioff’s jokes. Slack general manager Rob Seaman (Salesforce owns Slack) publicly posted on an internal channel that he “cannot defend or explain” the ICE joke and that it “does not align with my personal values”. (Seaman’s candid message, reported by The Guardian, suggests at least some senior staff share employee concerns.) But beyond private messages and tweets by individual leaders (e.g., Google’s Jeff Dean and Meta’s Yann LeCun have publicly condemned the ICE killings), there has been no official Salesforce apology or policy change announced. In the National Guard controversy last fall, Benioff did eventually apologize after employee outcry. Whether he will similarly relent this time remains unclear.
Media and Public Reaction
The Salesforce-ICE news has drawn widespread media scrutiny. The tech and business press have reported on the leaked internal documents and the employee demands. Wired and Bloomberg’s Businessweek highlighted the AI recruiting pitch revealed by the New York Times. The San Francisco Chronicle noted Salesforce’s refusal to comment and its co-investment in the city, describing the new proposal as likely to “send more shock waves” through the region. Outlets emphasize the perceived hypocrisy: Salesforce has long marketed itself as a socially responsible company, yet it quietly builds tools used by ICE.
Social media and opinion pieces have likewise lambasted Benioff. Many commentators contrasted Salesforce’s silence now with its past activism on issues like equality or climate. As Axios observed, tech CEOs have been vocal about other political causes but remained “radio silent” on ICE until very recently. The prevailing narrative is that tech workers are shouldering the moral messaging; Wired even headlined that “Tech Workers Are Condemning ICE Even as Their CEOs Stay Quiet”.
In public forums, analysts warn that ignoring employee voice could damage trust. A Semafor analysis called this moment “a resurgence for employee activism” reminiscent of Silicon Valley’s clashes with Trump-era policies. Investors and customers are watching too: some have questioned whether Salesforce’s values (pronounced on its website) are consistent with these ICE dealings.
The Time magazine correspondent noted a shift in Silicon Valley’s political climate. Former Google engineer Pete Warden, one of the ICE petition’s signers, told Time that the “sheer horror” of these events has “shocked” tech workers out of silence. He sees a contrast with recent years when the rank-and-file remained muted while leaders courted the administration. Axios quoted Warden-style logic, pointing out that tech companies wield enormous influence but have largely stayed quiet while workers speak up. In short, the media narrative is that Salesforce’s situation is part of a broader moral reckoning – and that public trust in Silicon Valley brands may hinge on how they respond.
Other Tech Companies’ Precedents
Salesforce’s employee-driven protest echoes similar actions at other tech firms. In February 2026, Google saw its own surge of activism: more than 1,100 Google employees publicly signed a petition demanding the company cut ties with ICE and CBP. That letter explicitly calls Google’s cloud and AI work in immigration enforcement “abhorrent,” and lists demands strikingly similar to Salesforce’s (emergency Q&As, contract disclosures, worker protections).
In 2018, Microsoft workers made headlines by presenting CEO Satya Nadella with a petition (with ~500 signatures) to cancel a small ICE contract. (Microsoft ultimately claimed its ICE work was limited to campus security, but has since continued working with the agency.) Even non-U.S. firms are feeling pressure: French IT giant Capgemini recently announced plans to divest its U.S. subsidiary after employees protested that unit’s $36M ICE contract.
In short, Salesforce’s showdown is part of a tech-industry trend. Dozens of petitions and open letters have emerged within the last month alone – at Google, Amazon, Meta, Palantir, and smaller companies – calling on executives to reject ICE contracts. Activist groups have also organized campaigns (e.g., ICEout.Tech and Tech Workers Coalition), asserting that tech workers will no longer stand by silently. As one industry analyst summarized, after years of quiescence, “we’ve seen that some big companies have really decided to go after the profits instead of maintaining the public interest”. The Salesforce case thus joins a chorus of employee activism demanding that corporate actions match company values.
Implications for Corporate Activism and Trust
Many experts view this episode as a bellwether for Silicon Valley’s values. Wharton professor Kevin Werbach notes that tech firms have long assumed they are “doing good,” so it comes as a shock to be suddenly seen as agents of evil when employees highlight morally fraught contracts. In Werbach’s words, workers feel projects like ICE enforcement or censored search go “against the company mission,” and they expect leaders to honor the firm’s principles. Harvard fellow Dipayan Ghosh concurs: companies today face a “profits vs. public interest” dilemma, and the balance is shifting because “employees see that they have power, too”.
For Salesforce, the stakes are high. A failure to address employees’ demands could erode internal morale and external reputation. The company famously builds its brand around trust and values – in fact, its motto is “Trust in Success.” If Salesforce continues business-as-usual with ICE, critics argue the firm risks being seen as hypocritical. On the other hand, actually cutting ties with ICE could set a precedent of principled non-participation in controversial government projects, potentially inspiring similar moves across the industry. At a minimum, the intensity of this internal revolt suggests that tech firms can no longer ignore social-justice concerns when negotiating contracts.
As one insider put it, many tech workers have hit “their limit” of what they can tolerate. In past cases (such as Google’s 2018 exit from the Pentagon’s Project Maven), employee pressure has proven powerful: Google quietly shelved that AI contract after staff objections. Now Salesforce is being tested in front of a public audience: will its leadership listen to employees and the public, or double down on its existing course?
The answer could signal whether corporate “social responsibility” is more than just marketing language. Either way, analysts agree this episode underscores a broader shift: tech employees are no longer content to defer to management on moral questions. The Salesforce-ICE conflict has become a high-profile proof point in that new era of corporate ethics.
