What briefly appeared to be the end of the nationwide boycott of Target has instead revealed a sharp divide among some of the movement’s most visible leaders.
The boycott began in early 2025 after Target joined several major corporations in scaling back DEI initiatives following federal pressure and political challenges to diversity programs.
Bryant Declares Victory — But Not Everyone Agrees
At a March 11 news conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C., Atlanta megachurch pastor Rev. Jamal Harrison Bryant announced that the yearlong “Target Fast” he had been leading was ending. Bryant said the campaign had achieved progress on three of the boycott’s four major demands.
“We asked for four things more than a year ago; we got three of them,” Bryant told reporters during the March 11 news conference at the National Press Club in Washington, D.C.
Bryant said Target had followed through on its pledge to spend $2 billion with Black-owned businesses, expanded partnerships with historically Black colleges and universities, and offered what he described as a renewed commitment to inclusion through its “Belonging” initiative. The remaining unmet demand, he said, was a $250 million investment in Black-owned banks.
But the announcement quickly sparked backlash from other boycott leaders — including two who had stood beside Bryant at the press conference.
Tamika Mallory, co-founder of the social justice organization Until Freedom, and Nina Turner, a former Ohio state senator and founder of the advocacy group We Are Somebody, both gained national recognition as leaders in the Target boycott and helped elevate the campaign nationally. While they appeared with Bryant during the news briefing, both later said they are not ready to return to Target and believe the company still owes the Black community a public apology.
“To date, that has not happened,” Mallory said in remarks reported by The Root.
Turner echoed that position, saying she would not return to the retailer until the company acknowledges the harm caused by its rollback of diversity initiatives.
“I’m not going back to Target,” Turner said in a social media post following the press conference.
Minneapolis Activist Says Boycott Is Still On
Meanwhile, another activist says Bryant never had the authority to declare the boycott over.
Dr. Nekima Levy Armstrong, a Minneapolis-based civil rights attorney and longtime community activist, argues the boycott began with grassroots organizers in Minneapolis — where Target’s corporate headquarters are located.
She has rejected Bryant’s declaration that the boycott is over.
“We are still boycotting Target,” Levy Armstrong said in a social media statement responding to Bryant’s announcement.
Target’s Policy Changes At The Center Of The Dispute
Levy-Armstrong said at the time Target announced it was concluding certain diversity goals, ending participation in some external diversity surveys and shifting its internal strategy to what it calls “Belonging at the Bullseye,” a broader inclusion framework the company says is designed to create opportunity for employees, customers and communities.
Bryant later cited that program as evidence that the company had not abandoned its commitment to inclusion. Critics, however, say the company has not restored the earlier diversity commitments activists originally demanded.
Levy Armstrong has also cited other concerns in urging supporters to continue the boycott. She has criticized Target for a $1 million donation to Trump’s inauguration and has pointed to reports and complaints in Minneapolis that ICE agents were given authorization to use Target parking lots as staging areas during immigration enforcement operations in the city.
Bryant Apologizes After Backlash
The disagreement over the boycott’s status quickly grew into a broader debate about leadership of the movement.
Bryant, pastor of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church near Atlanta, became the boycott’s most prominent national voice after launching a 40-day Lenten fast encouraging consumers — particularly Black Christians — to stop shopping at Target. What began as a temporary fast stretched into a yearlong economic protest that drew national attention.
But after facing criticism for declaring victory, Bryant later apologized and clarified that he had ended the fast he personally led — not necessarily the entire boycott movement.
“I’ve heard your emphatic outcry,” Bryant said on a recent episode of his “Let’s Be Clear” podcast.
“I made assumptions that were not true, and I want to apologize for being a leader that was out of touch,” he added on the podcast.
He also emphasized that the movement was started by Black women.
“Let the record reflect that it was Black women who started this movement,” said Bryant..
Measuring The Boycott’s Impact
While leaders continue to debate whether the boycott has succeeded, there is little dispute that the one-year boycott hit at a difficult time for the retailer.
During the year, Target’s CEO Brian Cornell stepped down and was replaced by Michael Fiddelke, and Target stock lost nearly 28% of its value.
Still, retail analysts caution that Target’s struggles reflect several factors, including inflation, changing consumer spending habits and broader challenges in the retail sector.
What Happens Next
For many consumers, the future of the boycott may come down to individual choice.
Some shoppers never stopped going to Target. Others say they will not return until the company restores its diversity commitments or offers a formal apology.
And some activists say the conversation should expand beyond a single company.
Mallory has suggested the movement should now ask a broader question: if corporations respond to pressure from consumers, what other companies should also be held accountable?
“Target is important,” she said in an interview with Roland Martin Unfiltered, “but there are other companies that should be facing the same kind of accountability.”