Target is currently facing significant backlash following its decision to scale back its Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives.
This move coincides with growing criticism from conservative groups and the Trump administration, which has pushed for the dismantling of such programs. As a result, the retailer is now the focus of a nationwide boycott, with many consumers pledging to abstain from shopping at Target for a period of 40 days.
The boycott, dubbed the “Target Fast,” was launched by Rev. Jamal Bryant, a senior pastor at New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in Georgia. The boycott coincides with the first day of Lent, a period of spiritual reflection observed by many Christians. Over 110,000 people have signed up to participate, with many supporters also calling for financial support to be redirected to Black-owned businesses instead of Target.
In January, shortly after President Donald Trump returned to the White House and issued an executive order limiting DEI efforts in the federal government, Target announced its decision to scale back several of its DEI programs. Among the changes, the company eliminated hiring goals for minority employees and shut down its Racial Equity Action and Change (REACH) initiative. The retailer also terminated its participation in the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index, which rates companies based on their LGBTQ+ policies.
Previously seen as a champion for Black and LGBTQ+ rights, Target had been widely recognized for its support of Black businesses, having pledged to invest over $2 billion in Black-owned enterprises by 2025. The company’s decision to roll back these programs has sparked anger from those who view it as a step backward for civil rights.
Rev. Bryant criticized Target’s actions, claiming that the company’s decision represented a larger erosion of moral and ethical commitments that are necessary to create a just society. Bryant emphasized the need for resistance, arguing that the rollback of DEI policies undermines the progress made during the civil rights movement.
The “Target Fast” movement has already gained momentum, and Bryant’s call for a 40-day boycott highlights the growing dissatisfaction among certain consumers. Many of these participants are members of historically Black churches who feel betrayed by Target’s reversal on its DEI promises. Bryant explained that Black consumers spend millions daily at Target and expressed frustration that the company was not honoring its previous commitments.
Target has responded by stating that, while it is scaling back some DEI initiatives, it remains committed to fostering a sense of belonging for its employees and customers, and it will continue to evaluate its efforts in line with the “evolving external landscape.” However, this message has done little to quell the anger from those involved in the boycott.
The retail giant’s decision to scale back DEI policies is part of a wider trend, as several other major companies such as McDonald’s, Walmart, Amazon, and Meta have made similar moves in recent months. Many of these companies have cited growing scrutiny over DEI programs from conservative activists and policymakers.
Target, in particular, is facing criticism because of its diverse consumer base, which includes younger, more inclusive shoppers who have been drawn to the company’s previous efforts to champion diversity and inclusion. This demographic is now increasingly disillusioned with the company’s shift in policy.
Additionally, Target is grappling with economic challenges related to new tariffs on goods imported from Mexico, which could lead to price hikes on certain products. CEO Brian Cornell recently warned that the company may be forced to raise prices, particularly on items like fruits and vegetables. The combination of these challenges has further compounded the company’s troubles, contributing to a decline in foot traffic and online engagement.
As the 40-day boycott continues to unfold, Target faces the challenge of addressing the concerns of both its diverse customer base and the political pressures surrounding its business decisions. The company’s future performance may depend on how it responds to this backlash and whether it can find a balance between corporate responsibility and external political influence.
With input from Newsweek and Independent.
