Target Boycott vs. Target Fast: Controversy, Leadership, and Community Accountability

Target Boycott vs. Target Fast: Controversy, Leadership, and Community Accountability

Over the past two years, the movement to boycott Target for its rollback of diversity, equity, and inclusion

(DEI) commitments has become one of the most talked‑about corporate activism campaigns in recent history.

What began as a grassroots boycott in Minneapolis has transformed into a national conversation, and a source

of controversy around leadership, strategy, and community representation.

From Boycott to Fast — Two Beginnings

In February 2025, activist Nekima Levy Armstrong, based in Minneapolis, where Target is headquartered,

helped organize an economic boycott of Target soon after the company scaled back its DEI initiatives. Local

activists felt betrayed by the rollback of programs and supplier commitments the company had made in

response to the racial justice uprising following the murder of George Floyd. 

Shortly afterward, Jamal Harrison Bryant, senior pastor of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in Georgia,

introduced a related but distinct strategy he called the “Target Fast”, a 40‑day period of protest that aligned

with Lent and asked participants to abstain from shopping at Target as a spiritual and economic act of

resistance. 

Bryant later framed the effort as an ongoing boycott after the 40 days, citing four major demands for Target,

including honoring its previous $2 billion pledge to Black businesses, investing in Black‑owned banks,

creating training pipelines at Historically Black Colleges and Universities, and restoring DEI programs. 

Dispute Over Origins and Leadership

A major point of controversy centers on who “owns” the movement. Local organizers in Minneapolis

— including Levy Armstrong, Monique Cullars‑Doty, and Jaylani Hussein, have asserted they started the

boycott in early 2025 and that Bryant’s 40‑day fast came after their original call to action. They question

why national attention shifted to Bryant’s leadership, particularly after he announced, in early 2026, that the

boycott had “ended” based on discussions with Target executives. 

Levy Armstrong has been outspoken that Bryant does not speak for the local organizers or Minnesota

activists and that his declarations about ending the boycott lacked basis because Target did not reverse its

DEI rollback or restore programs. 

Involvement of Other National Figures

Several nationally recognized voices also became associated with the movement:

• Nina Turner and
  
  

• Tamika Mallory
  
  

were reported to have met with Target executives alongside Bryant and participated in media and advocacy

work related to the boycott. Reports indicate these engagements did not necessarily represent a unified or

strategic plan co‑led by all parties, and some local organizers felt sidelined as broader media attention

focused on national leaders rather than Minneapolis organizers. 

Statements and Criticism

Critics have highlighted several issues in the way the movement was led and communicated:

1. Confusion over Strategy

Local organizers have said they were unaware of key parts of Bryant’s public strategy, including the fast

and coalition claims, leading to confusion among activists and reporters. 

2. Announcing the Boycott’s End

Bryant’s press conference in early 2026 declaring the boycott concluded was met with immediate pushback

from Levy Armstrong and other original organizers, who emphasized the boycott was not over and that

Target had not reversed its DEI decision. 

3. Questions About Outcomes

While Bryant asserted in some interviews that many demands were met, reporting from outlets including

USA TODAY notes that Target did not reverse the rollback of DEI programs and did not publicly commit

to additional investments beyond commitments the company had previously announced. 

The Mahdi Ali Case and Expanded Demands

As part of their broader demands for accountability, some organizers, particularly Levy Armstrong and

coalition partners, connected the boycott to the case of Mahdi Ali, a Minnesota man convicted at age 15 in

2010 of a triple homicide. Independent investigations and advocates argue Ali’s conviction was based on

unreliable testimony, including involvement by corporate forensic analysts associated with Target — and

that this should be addressed as part of demands for justice and corporate accountability. 

This complex element, tying corporate influence on criminal convictions to demands in a consumer

boycott, illustrates how some organizers sought to broaden the movement well beyond DEI policy alone.

Context and Reflection

The Target boycott and Target Fast surged onto the national scene in part because they tackled broader

themes of corporate accountability, racial justice, and Black consumer economic power, issues that intersect

with social justice movements across the United States. However, the controversy over leadership and

strategy highlights ongoing tensions between local grassroots organizers and national figures, especially

when media attention, public perception, and fundraising become involved.

For many community activists in Minneapolis, the fight continues not merely over Target’s policies but over

the authentic representation of grassroots leadership and their demands, a conversation that will likely

continue beyond any single boycott or campaign.

Timeline: Target Boycott & “Target Fast”

Movement

2020 – Corporate Commitments After George Floyd

Following the murder of George Floyd in Minneapolis, many corporations announced commitments to

racial equity.

• Target pledged $2 billion in spending with Black-owned businesses by 2025.
  
  

• The company expanded its diversity, equity, and inclusion (DEI) initiatives and increased

• shelf space for Black-owned brands.
  
  

These commitments helped position Target as one of the corporations publicly supporting Black communities.

---

2024–January 2025 – Target Scales Back DEI

Programs

In early 2025, Target began rolling back or restructuring several DEI initiatives.

Community leaders and activists argued that:

• The company was abandoning promises made in 2020.
  
  

• Black-owned brands might lose support and shelf space.
  
  

• Corporate accountability was necessary.
  
  

The decision sparked national concern among civil rights leaders and economic justice advocates.

---

February 2025 – Organizing the Economic

Response

Several prominent leaders began organizing responses.

Jamal Bryant

Jamal Harrison Bryant, senior pastor of New Birth Missionary Baptist Church, began organizing a

national boycott strategy.

He framed the movement around:

• Black economic power
  
  

• Corporate accountability
  
  

• Faith-based activism
  
  

Bryant encouraged churches and consumers to redirect spending to Black-owned businesses.

---

Nekima Levy Armstrong

Nekima Levy Armstrong, a Minneapolis civil rights leader, also began organizing pressure campaigns.

Her actions included:

• Calling for economic accountability from corporations benefiting from Black consumers
  
  

• Encouraging community members to spend intentionally with Black businesses
  
  

• Using social media to educate consumers about the impact of corporate DEI rollbacks.
  
  

Levy Armstrong emphasized that economic activism is a continuation of civil rights strategies used historically.

---

Nina Turner

Nina Turner spoke publicly about the need for corporations to honor their commitments.

Turner:

• Used social media and interviews to highlight the issue.
  
  

• Encouraged consumers to hold corporations accountable through spending choices.
  
  

• Connected the Target controversy to broader conversations about economic justice

• and corporate responsibility.

---

Tamika Mallory

Tamika Mallory also joined the conversation.

Mallory:

• Amplified calls for economic pressure.
  
  

• Encouraged supporters to rethink where they spend their money.
  
  

• Emphasized that boycotts have historically been powerful tools for civil rights movements.
  
  

---

March 5, 2025 – The “Target Fast” Begins

Bryant officially launched the 40-day Target Fast beginning on Ash Wednesday, aligning the movement

with the Christian season of Lent.

Participants were asked to:

• Stop shopping at Target (online and in-store)

• Shift spending to Black-owned businesses

• Sell Target stock if possible

• Participate in prayer and reflection

Bryant described it as both spiritual discipline and economic protest.

---

March–April 2025 – National Momentum

The fast gained national attention.

Faith leaders, activists, and influencers helped promote the movement.

Reports suggested:

• Over 100,000 participants joined the fast
  
  

• Social media campaigns encouraged people to support Black business directories
  
  

• Community discussions began around Black economic power
  
  

Leaders like Turner, Mallory, and Levy Armstrong continued amplifying the message online.

---

April 2025 – The Fast Ends, Boycott Continues

The 40-day fast ended near Easter.

However, Bryant announced the movement would continue as a full boycott until demands were addressed.

Demands Presented to Target

1. Fulfill the $2 billion commitment to Black-owned businesses
   
   

2. Deposit $250 million in Black-owned banks
   
   

3. Restore and expand DEI initiatives
   
   

4. Establish retail training pipelines for HBCU students
   
   

---

Mid–Late 2025 – Corporate Pressure Continues

Activists continued applying pressure through:

• Consumer boycotts
  
  

• Media appearances
  
  

• Social media campaigns
  
  

• Community organizing
  
  

Some reports suggested declining customer traffic at Target stores during parts of the boycott period.

---

Early 2026 – Continued Debate

The movement sparked broader national conversations about:

• Corporate responsibility
  
  

• The power of consumer activism
  
  

• Economic strategies within the civil rights movement
  
  

Some activists claimed the pressure pushed Target to reaffirm commitments to supporting Black-owned

businesses, though debate continues about how much change occurred.