What consumer boycotts target companies perceived to support Trump or his allies?
Executive summary
Consumer boycotts aimed at companies perceived to support Donald Trump or his allies fall into two broad currents: organized, long-running campaigns like #GrabYourWallet that target retailers selling Trump-family products, and more recent, issue-specific boycotts that focus on firms seen as profiting from Trump administration policies—particularly immigration enforcement and government contracts. Reporting shows mixed results: some firms relented or cut ties after pressure, while others weathered campaigns with little financial consequence [1] [2].
1. The organized consumer campaign: Grab Your Wallet and its descendants
The most visible and enduring boycott network is GrabYourWallet, a grassroots campaign launched to pressure retailers and marketplaces that sold Trump-family brands or had board members who donated to Trump-aligned causes; the campaign published lists and spreadsheets of targeted companies and alternatives, and it pushed retailers to drop Ivanka Trump and Trump Home lines [3] [4] [5]. Business Insider reported that GrabYourWallet’s pressure helped brands and retailers such as Nordstrom and Jet.com to drop Ivanka Trump’s line in early waves of the movement, demonstrating that a coordinated consumer list can force retail decisions [1]. Wikipedia’s coverage of GrabYourWallet documents the campaign’s origins and early effects, including retailers removing Trump-branded products after activist outreach [6].
2. Issue-driven boycotts: immigration, detention and government contracts
A separate thread of boycotts targets companies tied to the administration’s immigration enforcement and detention apparatus—private prison operators, airlines, and contractors that profit from ICE contracts—with activists calling for divestment and consumer pressure on firms such as GEO Group, CoreCivic, Palantir and aviation services implicated in deportation logistics [7]. Legal and investor-focused reporting frames these as intersectional campaigns that combine ethical objections with shareholder activism; some campaigns explicitly seek to “knee-cap” companies seen as enabling policy outcomes favored by the Trump White House [2] [7].
3. Corporate donations, inaugural support and the shopping list of “who to boycott”
Mainstream outlets and compilations have also circulated lists of companies that donated to or provided services for Trump-related political events—ranging from corporate donations to inaugural contributions—fueling targeted consumer calls to withhold purchases from identified firms, including some high-profile tech and energy firms named in Newsweek’s roundup of donors and donors’ services [8]. Critics have seized on these lists to argue for economic accountability; defenders warn that such lists can be blunt instruments that conflate routine commercial relationships with active political endorsement [8].
4. Mixed effectiveness and counter-movements
Empirical signals suggest boycotts have uneven effects: some retailers removed Trump-linked products under pressure, while other targets remained commercially resilient—Palantir, for example, saw substantial revenue growth and a rising share price despite boycott calls, which commentators used to argue that some boycotts are “pebbles hitting a battleship” [1] [2]. Reporting also documents the “GrabYourWallet effect” in which counter-boycotts or partisan purchasing can blunt activist campaigns and reward firms that are targeted, making outcomes unpredictable [6].
5. The political economy and reputational dynamics
Longer-term coverage frames these boycotts within a broader debate over business, politics and “crony capitalism,” noting that firms’ responses depend on board-level choices, fears of White House retaliation, and the potential for partisan backlash; NPR reports that some companies avoid opposing the White House out of concern for targeted political attacks and the resulting financial damage [9]. Conservative outlets have criticized boycott lists as overreaching or punitive toward ordinary businesses, reflecting how consumer campaigns themselves become political flashpoints [10].
Conclusion
Taken together, reporting identifies two principal categories of anti‑Trump consumer boycotts—retailer-focused campaigns centered on Trump-family brands (led historically by GrabYourWallet) and policy-focused boycotts aimed at contractors and companies tied to enforcement or administration priorities (notably private prisons and tech contractors). Both approaches have produced tangible results in some cases, limited effects in others, and predictable political backlash that feeds counter-boycotts and partisan spending [3] [1] [7] [2] [9].