The recent decision by a DoubleTree by Hilton hotel in St. Paul to evict Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) agents has sparked significant backlash and raised questions about the company’s commitment to public safety and its stance on immigration enforcement. The hotel chain’s actions, taken amid rising tensions in the region, seem to disregard the safety and service provided by ICE in combating illegal immigration and fraud.
On January 18, 2026, ICE agents staying at the DoubleTree received a notification that their reservations were being canceled and the hotel would temporarily close. The letter, which promised to assist the agents with alternate accommodations, cited “heightened public safety concerns” in St. Paul as the rationale for this decision. Yet, the timing and messaging raise eyebrows, especially considering the essential role ICE plays in the community. Critics argue that this move appears to cater to political correctness rather than the needs of law enforcement personnel tasked with keeping communities safe.
Fox News reporter Bill Melugin highlighted the situation through a post that included a photograph of the notification letter, prompting outrage among conservatives who viewed this as an attack on federal agents. They expressed their anger in the comments, with many calling for a boycott of Hilton properties. One commenter stated, “The Hilton is still doubling down on this BS! Never staying @HiltonHotelsever again!” This sentiment reflected a broader distrust of businesses perceived to side against law enforcement efforts.
Furthermore, reports indicated that a similar closure occurred at the Intercontinental St. Paul for matching reasons, drawing additional criticism. An ICE agent reported being informed by a front desk manager of threats against hotel staff for accommodating DHS agents. Such threats underscore the challenging environments federal agents often work in, making safe accommodations crucial to their operations.
The controversy around the hotel closures raises important discussions about the responsibilities of businesses in politically charged climates. As companies navigate public sentiment, decisions that seem to disregard law enforcement’s safety can lead to severe reputational damage and economic consequences. Some individuals online even suggested enlisting federal authorities to enforce policies to ensure the hotels remain open for agents working tirelessly for public welfare.
In a broader context, this incident spotlights the growing tension between ICE’s enforcement actions against illegal immigration, like the ongoing investigations into fraud in the Minnesota area, and the hospitality industry’s response to public safety concerns. The move by the DoubleTree reflects a trend in major corporations bowing to social pressures, potentially alienating substantial segments of the population that support law enforcement.
As the backlash unfolds, it remains to be seen how Hilton will respond and whether it will realize the ramifications of its actions. The calls for accountability indicate that public sentiment may push for a reassessment of how businesses engage with law enforcement entities going forward. The critical discussions surrounding the treatment of ICE agents could reshape expectations for corporate responsibility in these polarized times.
"*" indicates required fields
