A powerful nurses union in Minnesota just endorsed mass protests against federal immigration enforcement while simultaneously insisting its members continue caring for patients—a carefully calibrated move that raises profound questions about where professional obligations end and political activism begins.
Story Snapshot
- Minnesota Nurses Association endorsed statewide anti-ICE protests scheduled for January 23, 2026, following the fatal shooting of a Minneapolis woman by an ICE agent
- The union explicitly rejected work stoppages, instead urging nurses to provide patient care as “an act of solidarity” while participating in rallies and an economic blackout
- Coalition includes labor unions, faith leaders, and business owners demanding investigation of ICE, congressional defunding, and severance of corporate ICE relationships
- Three thousand ICE agents deployed to Minneapolis area amid reports of workplace raids affecting postal workers, transit employees, and manufacturing facilities
- Healthcare workers report patients delaying medical care due to immigration enforcement fears, creating ethical tensions for medical professionals
When Healthcare Workers Enter the Political Arena
The Minnesota Nurses Association represents thousands of healthcare professionals who now find themselves navigating treacherous territory between patient advocacy and political resistance. MNA President Chris Rubesch framed the organization’s position bluntly: nurses cannot remain silent when fear drives people away from medical care and tears families apart. The union’s January 17 announcement supporting the “ICE Out of Minnesota: A Day of Truth and Freedom” action came ten days after ICE agent Jonathan Ross shot and killed Renee Nicole Good, a poet and mother of three, during a federal enforcement operation in Minneapolis.
Minnesota Nurses Association Urges Medical Professionals to Join Anti-ICE Protests https://t.co/hjpE0zoiVE
— DLW 🔥#MAGA (@Dlw20161950) January 20, 2026
What distinguishes this situation from typical labor activism is MNA’s insistence that nurses continue working. First Vice President Melisa Koll emphasized that participation means “showing up—visibly and collectively—while continuing to do the work our patients rely on us to do every day.” This creates an unusual hybrid: political demonstration without work stoppage, solidarity without strike. The organization rejects the label of walkout while embracing the mantle of resistance, a distinction that may seem subtle but carries enormous practical and legal implications.
The Catalyst and the Broader Campaign
Good’s death became the flashpoint for organizing that had already been building across multiple sectors. Letter carriers held rallies in December demanding ICE agents leave postal parking lots in South Minneapolis. Metro Transit workers documented violent arrests at bus stops and established rapid-response networks after a Somali-American transit worker was detained. School workers negotiated contract language requiring judicial warrants before ICE could access school grounds. The coalition now spans unions representing teachers, transit workers, postal employees, and healthcare providers, alongside faith communities and business owners.
The January 23 action calls for a comprehensive economic blackout: no work except emergency services, no school attendance, and no shopping. Organizers demand Congress withhold additional ICE funding, investigate the agency for constitutional violations, and pressure Minnesota companies to become “4th Amendment businesses” by refusing ICE access to their property. The Minneapolis Regional Labor Federation is deploying union peacekeepers to protect participants exercising First Amendment rights, and a legal defense fund targeting one hundred fifty thousand dollars has been established for workers illegally detained.
The Professional Ethics Dilemma
Healthcare workers face a genuine ethical tension that deserves serious consideration. MNA’s January 13 board statement asserted that every individual deserves safe, unbiased, and confidential healthcare, and that medical professionals are not law enforcement agents. Nurses report direct observation of patients arriving sicker because they delayed care due to immigration fears. This creates a professional mandate to address barriers to healthcare access, which the union argues includes immigration enforcement activities that deter patients from seeking treatment.
Yet this framing conflates two distinct issues. Federal immigration enforcement is a lawful government function, regardless of one’s opinion about current policies. Healthcare workers certainly have the right to advocate for policy changes, but characterizing continued patient care as “solidarity” against law enforcement fundamentally politicizes the nurse-patient relationship. Patients deserve medical care based on clinical need, not as a statement about immigration policy. When professional organizations officially endorse political demonstrations, they risk transforming healthcare settings into ideological battlegrounds rather than neutral zones focused solely on healing.
What Comes Next
The success or failure of the January 23 action will likely influence healthcare worker activism nationwide. If substantial participation occurs without compromising patient care, other nursing organizations may adopt similar models of political engagement. If healthcare services suffer or public backlash emerges, the strategy may be reconsidered. The broader coalition’s effectiveness will be measured by economic impact, media attention, and any subsequent policy changes at state or federal levels.
The underlying question remains whether professional healthcare organizations should formally endorse political demonstrations, even when framed around patient advocacy. Nurses individually possess every right to participate in lawful protests on their own time. But when their professional association officially supports actions explicitly designed to pressure federal law enforcement, it transforms the nursing profession itself into a political instrument. That transformation may serve immediate activist goals while potentially undermining the long-term public trust essential to effective healthcare delivery. Patients of all backgrounds and political persuasions deserve confidence that their medical care remains untainted by their provider’s political agenda, just as they deserve access to care without fear.
Sources:
Labor Notes – “Will ICE Ignite Mass Strike in Minnesota”
Minnesota Nurses Association – MNA Board Statements
Minnesota Nurses Association – Official Website