Did Target or other retailers change policies about federal agents on their property after the Richfield incident?
Executive summary
There is no reporting in the provided sources that Target or other major retailers implemented new, formal policies restricting federal agents’ access to store property after the Richfield incident; community activists demanded Target bar agents without judicial warrants and sought employee training, while Target has not publicly answered those calls and at least one retailer declined to comment [1] [2] [3].
1. What happened that prompted calls for policy changes
Videos and multiple local outlets documented federal agents detaining two people at a Richfield Target, sparking protests and demands that retailers act to protect workers and customers; witnesses and elected officials said the detained employees identified as U.S. citizens, and footage shows agents pinning the men inside the store entrance [4] [5] [6].
2. Community demands and proposed retailer actions
Organizers and elected officials publicly pressed Target to adopt a specific rule: require a judge-signed warrant before allowing ICE/CBP onto private store spaces such as break rooms or entrances, and to train employees on their rights when federal agents appear; protesters urged Target to post signs clarifying that certain backrooms are private and cannot be entered without a warrant [1] [3].
3. What Target publicly said or did — the reporting gap
Across the reporting, Target did not issue an immediate, public policy change or formal statement addressing a new corporate rule about federal agents on property; multiple outlets note that Target had not responded to requests for comment in the wake of the incident, and one summary item explicitly says Target “has issued no public statement” about the Richfield episode [6] [2] [7].
4. Other retailers’ responses — limited evidence
The available reporting does not identify any retailer enacting a post‑incident policy change; the Star Tribune reported that Walmart declined to comment when asked about its protocol, and other pieces show protesters calling on “every Target store” to adopt warrant-only access practices rather than outlets reporting corporate actions [3] [1].
5. Political context and competing narratives that shape demands
Coverage situates the calls for retailer action amid a broader escalation of federal enforcement in the Twin Cities after a high‑profile killing by an immigration officer, and local politicians and community leaders argue agents were operating without warrants and targeting people of color — framing that motivates demands on corporations to set property rules; federal officials and enforcement proponents argue the operations are necessary in jurisdictions perceived as resistant to cooperating with federal immigration efforts, but the provided sources do not include a retailer-side defense or federal legal analysis of warrant requirements on private commercial property [8] [9].
6. Bottom line — what can be stated with confidence and what's unknown
Based on the compiled reporting, protesters demanded that Target and other stores require judicial warrants before allowing immigration agents into private areas and train staff on rights, and Target had not publicly adopted or announced such a policy as of these reports; similarly, there is no sourced evidence in this set that other major retailers changed their policies following the Richfield arrests, though several outlets noted outreach to retailers produced limited or no comment [1] [2] [3]. The sources do not provide documentation of corporate policy memos, store signage changes, or formal policy rollouts, so a definitive statement that no changes ever occurred cannot be made from this material alone.