In the aftermath of Alex Pretti’s killing by federal immigration officers, two public statements emerged that reveal very different understandings of civic responsibility.
One came in the form of an open letter from more than 60 Minnesota-based CEOs, released by the Minnesota Chamber of Commerce. The letter exemplifies a now-familiar pattern of corporate timidity and reticence: it takes no position, names no facts, and identifies no responsible actor. Instead, it relies on generic language about “de-escalation” and “finding real solutions,” urging officials at all levels of government to work together in response to what it vaguely describes as “yesterday’s tragic news.”
What is most striking is not what the letter says, but what it avoids saying. There is no mention of the fatal use of force by federal agents. No reference to due process, civil liberties, or the constitutional limits on state power. No acknowledgment of the right to protest or the obligation of public accountability when an American citizen is killed by officers acting under color of law. The victim is not named; the event itself is not described. The overriding concern, instead, is a return to economic normalcy—so that families, businesses, and communities can “resume our work to build a bright and prosperous future.”
But the disruption at issue here is not merely economic or civic. It is also moral — and legal. When agents of the federal government use lethal force without judicial process or transparent justification, the matter cannot be addressed solely through calls for calm or cooperation. It demands scrutiny, accountability, and an explicit reckoning with the constitutional principles that govern state authority. By responding with such studied evasiveness at a moment like this, the CEOs did more harm than good; the letter diminished the seriousness of what occurred and would have been better left unpublished.
A second statement, issued by the National Basketball Players Association (NBPA), takes a different approach. While still restrained in tone, it at least situates the event within a broader legal and civic context. Referring explicitly to “yet another fatal shooting in Minneapolis,” the NBPA declares that “NBA players can no longer remain silent,” and emphasizes the need to “defend the right to freedom of speech” while standing “in solidarity with the people in Minnesota protesting and risking their lives to demand justice.” The statement names the victims, extends condolences to their families, and warns against allowing “the flames of division” to threaten “the civil liberties that are meant to protect us all.”
The NBPA statement is not beyond criticism; it could have gone further. But it meets a basic threshold the CEOs’ letter does not: it treats the death of an American at the hands of the state as a constitutional concern, not merely an inconvenience to be managed.
That distinction matters—not only as a question of law, but of moral responsibility. History offers sobering reminders of what can happen when economic leaders insist on remaining “apolitical,” narrowly focused on stability and growth, even as fundamental rights are eroded. In 1930s Europe, many business leaders chose accommodation over confrontation and compliance over courage, reassuring themselves that their role was to preserve normalcy, not to challenge the direction of the state. The cost of that convenience is now a matter of record.
Over the past year, public displays of moral clarity and courage have been rare. They have been rarer still among business leaders, many of whom appear unwilling to speak plainly when the rule of law is undermined and the values and institutions that undergird our democracy are threatened. Authoritarianism depends less on loud extremists than on the quiet acquiescence of those who had the power to resist it—but who choose, instead, the comforts of convenience and self-interest. The question now is not whether business leaders will say something, but whether they are prepared to say what the moment requires—and to bear the costs of true moral leadership.
The opinions expressed in Fortune.com commentary pieces are solely the views of their authors and do not necessarily reflect the opinions and beliefs of Fortune.
