Target Faces 40-Day Boycott Over DEI Rollback Amid Economic Challenges

Target, the well-known chain of stores, is currently facing a 40-day consumer boycott organized by Rev. Jamal Bryant, the powerful Atlanta-area megachurch pastor. The boycott comes after Target recently announced that it would be rolling back its Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, a move that has generated significant controversy and intense debate among consumers and business owners.

Target reversed its DEI initiatives in January 2025 by abandoning its REACH program and refashioning its Supplier Diversity unit into Supplier Engagement. The move was seen as backsliding by the majority on previous company commitments to embrace diversity and support minority-owned business enterprises. Target's action has been denounced as being more for consumerism rather than decency by Rev. Bryant, who laments that such a move by Target disempowers the Black community, making up the largest population of its consumers.

The boycott, planned to coincide with the Lent season, has been a resounding success. More than 110,000 signed up for membership, getting directories of Black-owned businesses to shop at in place of Target. The campaign is one of many where consumers are using their buying power to make corporations change and fight social injustice.

But the boycott has not been without controversy, especially for Black business owners who have their wares retailed at Target. Melissa Butler, founder and CEO of The Lip Bar, a successful Black-owned cosmetics company that is stocked at Target, said she worried that the boycott would damage minority-owned businesses that depend on Target's enormous presence to drive visibility and sales. She said one must think through the potential adverse effect on these businesses before joining in the boycott.

Target's recalcitrance in going back on its DEI initiatives fits a wider trend among major US retailers. Similar organizations such as Amazon and Tractor Supply reduced their DEI programs in the open but secretly kept the operations running within-house. Most of this trend has been caused by political pressure and the threat of litigation from the Donald Trump administration due to the fact that President Trump declared certain elements of DEI programs unlawful. Traders are trying to reconcile compliance with the law and their company culture following mounting political pressure.

The criticism of Target has had tangible consequences on the performance of the company. Target store traffic is declining in recent weeks, a trend partly explained by the backlash over the reversal of DEI. Target is experiencing external pressures, such as possible price increases due to new tariffs under the Trump administration. The tariffs have the potential to increase prices for everyday consumer goods, placing pressure on Target's relationship with consumers.

The case illustrates the intricate dynamics that corporations have to navigate in the current socio-political environment. On the one hand, there are legal and political forces pushing corporations to amend or abandon DEI initiatives. On the other hand, there are consumers and activist groups that are more sensitized and inclined to hold corporations accountable for conduct that is viewed as contrary to social justice and equity.

The result of this boycott and Target's action may provide a precedent for how companies deal with DEI efforts in the future. It serves notice that actions by corporations on matters of public significance are subject to intense public scrutiny and can have profound effect on brand, customer loyalty, and bottom-line performance.

As the boycott goes on, observers will be watching how Target handles balancing competing expectations from its customers, employees, and business partners. What it does in the next few weeks not only may determine its own future but will have broader implications for the corporate response as a whole to diversity, equity, and inclusion in a more polarized world.

Short of it, Target's new DEI policy and the subsequent boycott illustrate the tightrope that business firms have to walk in complying with the law, social conscience, and consumer pressures. The unfolding dynamics of this case will probably yield useful insights on the future direction of corporate DEI initiatives and consumer activism.