Which retailers issued formal public statements explicitly condemning Donald Trump, and what did those statements say?

1. Macy’s: an explicit corporate rebuke

Macy’s publicly announced it would end its relationship with Donald Trump and explained the decision by saying it did not believe Trump’s “disparaging characterizations” accurately portrayed the many Mexicans, Mexican Americans and Latinos who contribute to the nation, and that his statements were “inconsistent with Macy’s values,” language that amounts to an explicit corporate condemnation ^[1].

2. Farouk Systems and Perfumania: moral framing from vendor and distributor

Farouk Systems — the hair-care firm that owns CHI and BioSilk — issued a statement that framed Trump’s comments about immigrants as incompatible with the company’s ethos, noting it is “multicultural” and that Trump’s remarks “do not and will never reflect our company’s philosophy or practices,” a direct repudiation reported by ABC News ^[1]. Perfumania told outlets it was “winding down its retail business with the Trump fragrance brand” after Trump’s remarks; that corporate action was reported alongside Perfumania’s distancing language and framed as a response to those statements ^[1].

3. Retailers that removed Trump products without explicit condemnation

Several major retailers removed Trump-branded lines or quietly reduced inventory but did not publicly condemn Trump in the reporting provided: Nordstrom, Neiman Marcus and others pulled Ivanka or Trump Home items while describing the moves as merchandising or “streamlining” choices rather than political statements, and some retailers declined to comment at all when asked for reasons ^{[2] [3]}. HSN explicitly said it did not take a political position while noting it recognized varied views among employees, partners and customers — a public statement that denied political motivation rather than condemning Trump ^[2].

4. Where the line between business decision and moral stance blurs

The record in the sources shows a spectrum: Macy’s and some vendors issued value-based condemnations tied to specific remarks ^[1], while other retailers framed removals as purely business or operational choices, avoided commentary, or provided neutral language about diverse customer views ^{[2] [3]}. That mix matters because a removal framed as “streamlining” can have the same market effect as a public rebuke but lacks the moral language that constitutes an explicit condemnation in corporate communications ^{[3] [2]}.

5. Limits of the reporting and alternative interpretations

The available reporting documents clear, quoted statements from Macy’s and vendor statements from Farouk Systems and Perfumania condemning or distancing from Trump’s remarks ^[1], but it does not provide a comprehensive, contemporaneous list of every retailer’s internal communications or legal filings; several outlets are recorded as having cut ties without issuing public statements, and activist lists and boycott campaigns catalog many retailers that carried Trump products without distinguishing which companies issued moral condemnations versus operational explanations ^{[4] [5] [6]}. The evidence therefore supports a narrow conclusion about explicit public condemnations while leaving open the possibility that other firms issued private or less direct statements not captured in these sources.

6. Bottom line

Based on the reporting provided, Macy’s stands out as the retailer that explicitly condemned Donald Trump’s comments in a formal public statement, while Farouk Systems and Perfumania issued vendor-level distancing statements; many other retailers removed Trump products but either framed those choices as business decisions or did not issue explicit condemnations in the coverage available ^{[1] [2] [3]}. Any broader claim that “retailers” en masse publicly condemned Trump is not supported by these sources, which show a mix of value-based rebukes, neutral explanations and silence.