The Unprecedented Double-Edged Boycott: 5 Shocking Reasons Why Target Is Being Protested From Both Sides (2025 Update)

The question of "Why is Target being boycotted?" is more complex now than ever before, representing an unprecedented situation where the retail giant is facing significant backlash from two opposing ends of the political and social spectrum. As of December 15, 2025, the initial 2023 conservative protest over LGBTQ+ Pride merchandise has spiraled into a new, more damaging boycott from civil rights and labor groups following Target's decision to drastically scale back its Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives. This double-edged controversy has resulted in a massive financial hit, wiping out billions in market value and leading to a significant change in corporate leadership. The company's attempt to navigate a polarized consumer landscape by making concessions to one side ultimately triggered a stronger, negative reaction from the other, proving that corporate social responsibility is a high-stakes tightrope walk. The fallout reveals a critical shift in how consumers, activists, and investors are evaluating corporate values, often holding companies accountable for both their actions and their perceived capitulations.

The Dual-Sided Controversy: Why Target Is Facing a Boycott From the Left and the Right

The current situation is not a single boycott but a series of interconnected protests that have battered Target's reputation and its bottom line. The controversy began with one issue and then intensified dramatically when Target's response to the initial pressure alienated a different, equally powerful consumer base.

1. The Initial Conservative Backlash Over LGBTQ+ Pride Merchandise

The first major boycott wave began in mid-2023, primarily driven by conservative consumers and activists.

• The Core Issue: Target's annual Pride Month collection, which included over 2,000 items, became the focal point of intense criticism.
• Specific Controversies: Particular items, such as "tuck-friendly" swimsuits for adults and items designed by a trans-identifying designer who faced previous controversy, were highlighted by critics as inappropriate for a general retail store, especially due to their proximity to children's sections.
• Target's Response: In an effort to de-escalate the situation, Target removed some of the most controversial items and relocated the Pride collection to less prominent areas in some stores nationwide. This move was intended to protect employees who were reportedly facing threats and harassment.
• The 2024/2025 Concession: The company further scaled back its Pride collection for 2024, announcing that the merchandise would no longer be sold in all of its stores, reducing both the overall size of the collection and the number of locations carrying it. This action was widely seen as a capitulation to the initial conservative pressure.

2. The Liberal and Civil Rights Boycott Over DEI Rollback

Target's attempt to appease the conservative backlash by scaling back its Pride efforts inadvertently triggered a new, more profound boycott from the progressive and civil rights communities. This second wave is centered on the company's subsequent decision to dismantle key diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives.

• The Rollback of DEI: Target Corp. (TGT) made the decision to roll back significant DEI commitments, a move that was viewed by many as giving in to anti-DEI pressure sweeping corporate America.
• The Activist Response: In February 2025, civil rights groups and prominent Black leaders, including Atlanta pastor Dr. Jamal Bryant, publicly called for a boycott of Target stores across the US. The boycott, which began on February 1, was a direct response to the company's decision to end its DEI programs.
• The Core Argument: Activists argued that reversing DEI commitments not only harmed marginalized employees and vendors but also sent a message that Target was willing to abandon its stated values under pressure. The perception was that Target had chosen to sacrifice its commitment to diversity for the sake of profit or political peace.
• Labor Advocacy Concern: Labor advocacy groups also joined the protest, citing the decision to cut DEI initiatives as a failure to support and protect its diverse workforce.

The Devastating Financial and Corporate Impact

The dual boycotts have had a catastrophic and measurable impact on Target's financial health and corporate structure, demonstrating the high cost of navigating cultural flashpoints in business.

3. Massive Stock Plunge and Market Value Loss

The most tangible evidence of the boycotts' success is the significant financial fallout that has been reported throughout 2024 and into 2025.

• Billions Wiped Out: Target's market value plummeted by over $20 billion following the rollback of DEI initiatives. Earlier reports indicated a loss of approximately $12.4 billion in market value after the initial conservative boycott.
• Stock Price Decline: Target's stock (TGT) has fallen by a staggering 33% since the controversy began, amid sales decline and the ongoing boycotts. This sharp drop suggests that the boycotts, particularly the one triggered by the DEI rollback, are having a substantial effect on consumer behavior and investor confidence.
• Sales Decline: The boycotts have contributed to stalled sales and a massive decline in foot traffic across stores, directly impacting quarterly earnings reports.

4. CEO Brian Cornell's Announced Departure

The financial and reputational crisis has also led to a significant shift in corporate leadership.

• Leadership Change: CEO Brian Cornell, who had been leading the company through the tumultuous period, announced that he would be replaced next year.
• Context of Departure: While executive departures can be complex, Cornell's exit comes as the retailer is actively navigating weak sales and the deep customer backlash over its scaling back of DEI initiatives. The timing underscores the severity of the crisis and the pressure from the board and investors to stabilize the company's performance and image.

5. The Unintended Consequence: Alienating Both Sides

The core reason why the Target situation is so unique is the company's inability to satisfy any single group, ultimately drawing fire from all sides. The initial removal and reduction of the Pride collection was a reaction to anti-LGBTQ+ activism, but it led to a "second backlash" from customers and advocates upset by Target's perceived abandonment of its progressive stance. Organizations like GLAAD highlighted that Target’s actions came during a tense period for marginalized groups, making the company’s retreat particularly disappointing. When Target then proceeded to cut its DEI programs, it confirmed the fears of the progressive community that the company was prioritizing a specific political agenda over its commitment to diversity and inclusion. This created a new, prolonged boycott from civil rights groups who felt betrayed by the reversal of commitments, further deepening the rift with a significant portion of its consumer base. The result is a retailer caught in the crossfire, facing a boycott that is both a conservative protest against progressive merchandise and a liberal protest against conservative capitulation.