Fact check: Are there shareholder filings, corporate social responsibility reports, or employee handbook sections that describe Home Depot's law enforcement cooperation practices?

1. What advocates and reporters claim — and what Home Depot publicly denies

News reporting and community accounts describe Home Depot stores as recurring sites for immigration enforcement activity, with at least a dozen Southern California stores reported raided and local workers identified as targets; these articles note that Home Depot denied participating in or facilitating immigration arrests ^[3]. A separate fact‑check directly counters a viral claim that Home Depot holds a $250 million federal contract to allow immigration arrests on its property, reporting no evidence in government contract databases and quoting a company spokesperson denying such a deal ^[2]. The tension between ground‑level reporting of enforcement actions and the company’s public denials underscores a factual gap: reporters document enforcement activity proximate to stores, but corporate materials do not acknowledge or describe a standing operational partnership with law enforcement designed to enable those arrests ^{[2] [3]}.

2. What the company’s privacy and security language actually says—and what it implies

Home Depot’s Privacy and Security Statement details collection of customer information including location data and video recordings and explains circumstances under which data may be shared, including to respond to legal processes or protect safety and property; this language does not explicitly define a standing policy of proactive cooperation with immigration enforcement but does create a lawful-disclosure pathway for information and surveillance that could be requested by authorities ^[1]. The statement emphasizes commitments to customer privacy while acknowledging legal obligations; this is standard corporate practice but important because it establishes both the technical means (camera, location data) and legal rationale (compliance with law) by which information could flow to government agencies, even absent an explicit cooperation agreement ^[1].

3. What investor and governance documents disclose — the absence of an operational playbook

Home Depot’s SEC filings, proxy statement, and governance materials cover ESG reporting, political activity, shareholder proposals, and compensation matters, but do not contain language describing specific law‑enforcement cooperation practices or an explicit CSR policy that authorizes regular immigration‑enforcement operations on company property ^{[7] [4]}. The 2024 proxy materials address governance and stakeholder engagement broadly without operational details about police or federal agency collaborations; investor relations pages and contact materials likewise lack any operational disclosure on such cooperation. This absence suggests the company has chosen not to formalize public commitments on how it would interact operationally with law enforcement beyond standard legal compliance language in other documents ^{[7] [4]}.

4. What the employee-facing ethics code and whistleblower systems reveal about internal expectations

Home Depot’s Business Code of Conduct and Ethics frames associate obligations to obey applicable laws and report misconduct and directs employees to the AwareLine whistleblower channel for concerns, but it does not describe procedures for employees to engage with law enforcement, nor does it establish an internal policy about facilitating immigration enforcement ^{[5] [6]}. The Code stresses ethical conduct and compliance with law generally and encourages reporting; the AwareLine provides a mechanism to flag potential legal or ethical violations. Together these materials show the company maintains normative and reporting structures for legal compliance, yet they stop short of detailing operational protocols for interactions with external law‑enforcement agencies ^{[5] [6]}.

5. Big-picture takeaways, competing narratives, and what remains unknown

The available document trail presents a consistent pattern: public corporate materials emphasize legal compliance and data-use transparency but do not disclose a policy of active, operational collaboration with law enforcement for immigration arrests, while investigative reporting and community accounts document enforcement events occurring at or near stores ^{[1] [3]}. Fact‑checking cleared Home Depot of a specific contract allegation, illustrating how viral claims can outpace verifiable procurement records ^[2]. The key remaining unknown is the extent of ad hoc cooperation—how often store staff or local managers provide information or access to law enforcement in response to requests or in emergency situations—which would only be visible through law‑enforcement records, local agency statements, or internal company disclosures that are not present in standard investor, CSR, or handbook materials ^{[2] [3] [4] [5]}.