Target Boycotts Anti-DEI Policy 2025 Impact Analysis

Target DEI Policy Backlash Ripples Through Community

By Darius Spearman (africanelements)

Support African Elements at patreon.com/africanelements and hear recent news in a single playlist. Additionally, you can gain early access to ad-free video content.

Early 2025 marked a significant shift for Target Corporation. The retail giant scaled back central Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. This move didn’t happen quietly. Instead, it triggered immediate and widespread criticism, particularly resonating within the Black community and among advocates for corporate responsibility.

The company’s decisions set off a chain reaction. This reaction included organized protests and serious questions about Target’s commitment to racial equity. Furthermore, the financial consequences started stacking up almost immediately, revealing the tangible cost of rolling back DEI commitments.

Target’s DEI Policy Backlash Sparks Boycott

Target’s retreat from its DEI commitments was swift and specific. The company notably ended its $2 billion REACH (Racial Equity Action and Change) program, which was originally designed to advance racial equity (The Damaging Consequences of Target’s DEI Rollback). Additionally, Target rebranded its Supplier Diversity team, renaming it “Supplier Engagement.” The company also withdrew from important third-party diversity evaluations, like the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index (Target’s DEI Rollback Update (Feb 2025)).

These changes prompted a strong response. In March 2025, Rev. Jamal Bryant spearheaded a 40-day consumer boycott. The protest directly challenged Target’s policy shift. Rev. Bryant cited a betrayal of commitments made to minority-owned businesses within the supply chain (Target faces 40-day boycott). Consequently, this organized action highlighted the deep sense of disappointment felt by many community members.

Financial Fallout: Target Stock Drop and Sinking Sales

The backlash against Target’s DEI rollback quickly translated into negative financial indicators. Shortly after the company announced the changes, its stock price experienced a significant dip, falling approximately 12% (The Damaging Consequences of Target’s DEI Rollback). Financial analysts began sounding alarms, warning that these actions could lead to long-term erosion of brand loyalty, particularly among consumers who value corporate social responsibility (Target flip-flopped on diversity).

Beyond the stock market, customer behavior also showed signs of impact. Location-tracking data provided by Placer.ai revealed a sharp decrease in customer visits to Target stores. This decline was noticeable compared to competitors like Walmart and Costco during the same period (Target faces 40-day boycott; Target flip-flopped on diversity). Furthermore, Target faced legal challenges; a class action lawsuit was filed alleging the company misled investors about the financial risks associated with its DEI policies, potentially worsening shareholder losses (The Damaging Consequences of Target’s DEI Rollback; Target flip-flopped on diversity).

Community Concerns and Retail Diversity Initiatives Scrutinized

The controversy surrounding Target’s decisions brought scrutiny from activists and eroded support among its progressive customer base. Rev. Jamal Bryant explicitly framed the boycott as a form of economic retaliation. He emphasized leveraging Black spending power against Target for “turning back on our community” (Target faces 40-day boycott). This sentiment captured the feeling that supplier diversity and community support promises were being broken.

However, not everyone agreed on the best path forward. Melissa Butler, CEO of The Lip Bar, voiced concerns that boycotts could unintentionally harm the very minority-owned businesses that rely on partnerships with retailers like Target (Target’s DEI Rollback Update (Feb 2025)). Criticism also came from unexpected places; descendants of Target’s co-founder publicly condemned the company’s actions as a “betrayal” (Target faces 40-day boycott). Ultimately, analysts pointed to Target’s wavering stance on diversity issues as a key factor in diminishing consumer and stakeholder trust (Target flip-flopped on diversity).

Understanding REACH: Beyond Target’s Program

Target’s Racial Equity Action and Change program (REACH) had ambitious goals. It aimed to create systemic change benefiting Black team members and guests. The committee focused its efforts on four main pillars: Team, Guests, Communities, and Civic Engagement (Here are Target’s Latest Actions to Advance Racial Equity). Essentially, it sought to address racial disparities in hiring and employee experiences, customer interactions, community partnerships, and even access to voting and policy advocacy.

It’s worth noting that other organizations use the “REACH” acronym for different equity-focused initiatives. For instance, the CDC’s REACH program (Racial and Ethnic Approaches to Community Health) tackles health disparities. It uses culturally specific strategies to lower chronic disease rates among marginalized groups (About REACH – CDC). Similarly, the REACH Collaborative in higher education works to increase credential attainment for Black, Hispanic, and Native American adults by connecting education pathways with workforce needs (REACH Collaborative | OCCRL; Racial Equity for Adult Credentials in Higher ed). Also, a Regional REACH program in Massachusetts helps municipalities apply racial equity tools to dismantle systemic disparities (MAPC – Racial Equity Advancement & Collaborative Hub). Although separate from Target’s initiative, these programs reflect a broader societal focus on addressing equity through targeted action.

ABOUT THE AUTHOR

Darius Spearman has been a professor of Black Studies at San Diego City College since 2007. He is the author of several books, including Between The Color Lines: A History of African Americans on the California Frontier Through 1890. You can visit Darius online at africanelements.org.