Have boycotts or consumer campaigns targeted Target for alleged support of Trump and what were their outcomes?
Executive summary
Multiple grassroots and civil-rights groups organized boycotts and “economic blackout” campaigns targeting Target in 2025–2025 for allegedly cooperating with the Trump administration — chiefly accusing Target of rolling back diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs and having financial ties to the administration (examples include the “We Ain’t Buying It” Thanksgiving weekend boycott and calls for a Lent “Target Fast”) [1] [2] [3]. Reporting ties those campaigns to measurable pressure on Target’s traffic and reputation: activists and some outlets say a DEI-related boycott slowed store traffic and contributed to leadership changes, while organizers continued holiday- and faith-based actions aimed at depressing holiday sales [4] [5] [2].
1. What organizers said they were targeting — DEI rollbacks, donations and cooperation with the administration
Campaigns named different grievances but converged on the claim that Target “caved” to pressure from the Trump administration by scaling back DEI programs, cutting support for Black-owned suppliers, removing some LGBTQ+ products, or otherwise enabling policies tied to the White House; some organizers also highlighted corporate donations to the inauguration fund as evidence of alignment [1] [2] [6]. Separate groups framed the issue through immigration enforcement, accusing Target of cooperation with ICE in some campaign materials [7].
2. The major boycott campaigns and tactics
Two high-profile tactics recurred: short, high-visibility Black Friday/Cyber Week “blackouts” that urged consumers to withhold holiday spending (the “We Ain’t Buying It” coalition and similar local actions), and longer moral/faith-driven fasts such as a Lent “Target Fast” promoted by religious leaders and community activists [8] [5] [3] [2]. Organizers urged shoppers to patronize local, Black-, immigrant- and POC-owned businesses instead [9] [10].
3. Who led the campaigns and how broad the coalitions were
A mix of grassroots groups and civil‑rights organizations took part: Black Voters Matter, Indivisible, Until Freedom, The People’s Union USA, Blackout the System and faith leaders were all named in reporting as organizers or supporters of different actions [5] [9] [10]. Some campaigns were coalitions explicitly designed for short, coordinated holiday actions [8] [5].
4. Reported outcomes and corporate response
Journalistic accounts and activists say the boycott activity coincided with reduced store traffic and contributed to reputational pressure on Target; one PBS classroom piece reported that a boycott “slowed store traffic nationwide” and was among factors preceding CEO Brian Cornell’s departure [4]. News outlets covering the holiday blackouts described explicit aims to depress holiday sales and noted varying expectations about effectiveness [5] [11]. Target’s public statements emphasized long-standing community commitments and said it works to “unlock potential” across communities, while critics argued corporate philanthropy and donor ties didn’t absolve policy rollbacks [2].
5. Evidence of scale and durability — mixed and contested
Polling and analysis cited by reporting show some public willingness to avoid companies perceived to align with Trump: a Guardian-cited poll found roughly 20% of Americans say they would avoid such firms, suggesting a nontrivial base for action [3]. But observers also noted the historical difficulty of sustaining boycotts: academic literature and business analysts say participation often wanes over time, and outlets described debate over whether weekend blackouts can produce lasting financial damage [11]. Reporting therefore presents both claims of concrete impact (traffic slowdowns, executive shakeups) and skepticism about long-term efficacy [4] [11].
6. Competing perspectives and potential agendas
Organizers frame boycotts as democracy- and equity-preserving economic pressure; many are explicitly anti‑Trump and seek to pressure companies into restoring DEI commitments [8] [2]. Business and neutral reporting emphasize that boycotts can harm small suppliers or Black-owned brands sold through Target, a point activists themselves acknowledged, and Target’s PR highlighted community investments to counter the narrative [1] [2] [6]. Some campaign origins trace to politically partisan groups, which may shape target selection and messaging [8] [10].
7. Limits of the record and what reporting does not say
Available sources document the campaigns, their organizers, and reported short‑term effects, but do not provide a definitive, audited measure of total lost sales attributable only to these boycotts, nor a neutral causal study linking the actions to executive turnover or long-term financial decline; those claims remain grounded in contemporaneous reporting and activist claims [5] [4] [11]. Available sources do not mention independent, peer‑reviewed analyses proving a single cause for Target’s financial or leadership changes.
Bottom line: multiple coordinated boycotts and “economic blackouts” explicitly targeted Target for alleged support of or acquiescence to the Trump administration; reporting credits those campaigns with reputational harm and some short‑term traffic declines, while also noting debate about how durable or decisive that impact will be [4] [5] [11].