Did more people begin practicing contentious consumerism in 2025 in the United States?

1. Economic headwinds produced more people rethinking purchases, but motivation is mixed

By early 2025 multiple industry trackers and surveys reported consumers cutting discretionary spending, hunting for lower prices, and postponing big-ticket items—freshproduce industry data recorded high price sensitivity and behaviors like switching brands or stores (82% seeking lower prices, 67% reducing spending) and McKinsey found spending intentions down across discretionary categories amid rising concerns about cost of living and job security ^{[4] [3]}. Those shifts are consistent with prudence and financial necessity rather than activist choices alone, and several commentary outlets explicitly frame 2025 as a year of “underconsumption” driven by inflation and tariff fears ^{[1] [5]}.

2. Activist and social‑media driven “no‑buy” movements grew in visibility, but scale is unclear

Journalistic and cultural reporting documented a surge in viral “no buy” challenges, “project pan” pledges, and hashtags promoting reuse and second‑hand shopping—as Fortune and student media note, influencers and users promoted No Buy 2025 and related underconsumption trends on platforms ^{[1] [2]}. Academic and historical accounts remind that consumer boycott and ethical purchasing have deep roots in U.S. politics and have long functioned as contentious consumerism, lending context to why such online movements gain traction ^[6]. Yet the sources documenting the trend are descriptive and platform‑based; none in this set provides a robust national penetration rate to prove mass adoption beyond heightened visibility ^{[1] [2] [6]}.

3. Corporate responses and market signals show emergent but tentative alignment

Some brands and resale channels began leaning into secondary markets, refillables, and sustainability messaging—reporting cites companies like Levi’s and H&M experimenting with resale programs—indicating firms perceive either consumer demand or reputational risk tied to overconsumption narratives ^[2]. Market commentaries and trend firms also flagged sustainability and value alignment as 2025 priorities for some buyers, suggesting that contentious consumption (buycotts, ethical purchasing) is part of broader marketplace shifts rather than a dominant national behaviour ^{[7] [2]}.

4. Media amplification and interest‑group agendas complicate interpretation

Opinion pieces and advocacy groups amplified both the critique of rampant consumerism and the appeal of “no‑buy” actions—student newspapers and blogs highlighted the environmental cost of trend‑driven buying and social media’s role in promoting overconsumption, which can magnify perception of a movement ^{[8] [9]}. Conversely, trade and industry summaries focus on pragmatic price sensitivity and spending reductions that may be apolitical responses to macroeconomic signals, which risks conflating necessity‑driven thrift with ethically motivated contentious consumption ^{[4] [3]}. The reporting available shows competing narratives: cultural actors and influencers promoting ethical restraint, and industry studies noting financial caution.

5. Bottom line: more people visibly practiced forms of contentious consumerism in 2025, but causation and scale remain ambiguous

There was clearly increased visibility and uptake of “no‑buy,” underconsumption, and ethical‑purchase messaging in 2025—driven by social media virality, activist history, and some corporate experimentation—but much of the measured change in consumer behavior reported by surveys appears explained by economic prudence ^{[1] [2] [3] [4]}. The reporting does not establish that a majority or plurality of Americans adopted contentious consumerism as a primary identity or long‑term habit; available sources describe trends and pockets of activism but lack a single, representative dataset proving a nationwide, sustained shift ^{[3] [10]}.