What triggered the 2025 boycott against Target and which groups led it?
Executive summary
The 2025 boycott of Target was triggered mainly by the company’s January decision to roll back diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) programs and to scale back related hiring and spending commitments — actions activists said betrayed prior promises such as a $2 billion pledge to Black-owned businesses — and that rollback prompted sustained protests and measurable sales and traffic declines (e.g., Q3 sales drop and foot-traffic declines cited by reporters) [1] [2] [3]. Leadership and faith figures — including Atlanta pastor Jamal Bryant, Minnesota-based activists, Rev. Al Sharpton and coalition groups such as Black Voters Matter, Indivisible and the “We Ain’t Buying It” coalition — led and amplified the boycott alongside broader progressive coalitions including the No Kings Alliance and People’s Union USA [4] [5] [6] [7].
1. What set off the boycott: Target’s DEI rollback and the REACH retreat
In January 2025 Target announced it would scale back or end many of its DEI hiring, advancement and public-goal programs — a move critics framed as walking back commitments made after 2020, including the REACH racial-equity initiative — and that corporate realignment became the proximate trigger for organized economic protest [1] [2] [8]. Reporting links the rollback explicitly to activists’ fury: organizers said Target “reneged” on prior promises and that the company’s “realignment” amounted to abandoning diversity goals many communities had welcomed [2] [8].
2. Who organized and led the boycott: faith leaders, civil-rights figures and progressive coalitions
High-profile religious leaders and civil-rights activists converted local organizing into a national boycott. Pastor Jamal Bryant called for a 40-day “fast” from Target that evolved into a broader boycott; Rev. Al Sharpton and Minnesota activists were among those who galvanized early action; local Black Lives Matter groups were active organizers in Minneapolis, where protests began [4] [8] [9]. National advocacy groups and coalitions then amplified the effort: Black Voters Matter, Indivisible, the No Kings Alliance and the “We Ain’t Buying It” coalition figured prominently in calls for coordinated holiday boycotts [6] [7].
3. How broader coalitions and tactics expanded the campaign
By late 2025 several coalitions had folded the Target boycott into wider holiday actions. “We Ain’t Buying It” targeted Target (along with Home Depot and Amazon) for Thanksgiving–Cyber Monday pressure, urging withholding purchases and organizing pickets and rallies; parallel campaigns like “Mass Blackout” and People’s Union USA pushed similar holiday blackouts and social-media amplification [6] [7] [10]. Organizers combined spiritual fasts, street pickets, coordinated social-media hashtags and weekend spending freezes to maximize visibility and economic pressure [11] [12].
4. Evidence of impact and corporate response
Multiple outlets attribute measurable commercial pain to the boycott: Target reported declining foot traffic and missing sales expectations, and analysts and reporters linked a portion of the downturn to sustained boycotts by Black consumers and other activists; some coverage ties executive churn (CEO departure) and stock declines to the controversy [13] [3] [14]. Target has publicly emphasized its workforce size and past commitments while also attempting messaging shifts and outreach; activists say leadership changes are insufficient without restored DEI commitments [2] [1].
5. Competing viewpoints and limits of available reporting
Sources agree the DEI rollback sparked the protest, but they differ on scale and attribution. Corporate- and market-oriented accounts emphasize competition, macroeconomic forces and assortment mistakes as causes of Target’s struggles alongside boycott effects [2] [15]. Activist and advocacy outlets stress the boycott’s efficacy and moral rationale, while some business analysts warn participation in boycotts can wane over time and that impacts may be uneven [14] [16]. Available sources do not mention any single, independently audited figure that isolates boycott-caused revenue loss from other business pressures — the attribution is based on company reports, activist claims and journalistic analysis (not found in current reporting).
6. What organizers demanded and what they said would satisfy them
Organizers uniformly demanded a reversal of the DEI rollbacks and restoration of prior hiring and spending commitments; several pieces say boycott leaders view mere leadership changes as inadequate unless accompanied by substantive cultural and policy reversals at Target [1] [8]. Some campaigners also urged consumers to redirect purchases to Black- and brown-owned businesses rather than simply withholding spending [2].
Limitations: This account relies on the supplied reporting, which mixes activist claims, company statements and market analysis. Where sources disagree about magnitude or motive, this summary reports those competing views and notes gaps where independent audit figures are not cited [14] [2] [16].