The American Federation of Teachers is leading a coalition of labor unions and activist groups to boycott Target over the retailer’s stance — or lack of a stance — on Immigration and Customs Enforcement. This isn’t the first time Target has been boycotted for political reasons, but it’s usually conservatives threatening to take their business elsewhere.
The Minneapolis-based Fortune 500 company has often loudly expressed its progressive values. Democrat Mark Dayton, an heir of the family that founded the parent company in the early 1900s, served as a senator and governor in Minnesota.
In the early 2000s, Target was part of what some conservatives called the “War on Christmas” for not using the word “Christmas” in holiday season promotions. In 2014, the chain announced a no-gun policy in all stores, even in places where carrying is allowed by law. In 2015, Target stopped separating some of its products into boys’ and girls’ sections to counteract gender stereotypes.
Conservative Christian groups said they were boycotting Target in 2016 after the retailer announced a pro-transgender bathroom policy in its stores. The company’s CEO likened it to Target’s 1960s efforts to include African American models in its advertising.
In 2020 and 2021, Target was at the forefront of corporate pledges around diversity, equity and inclusion after George Floyd was killed. The chain promised to increase Black representation in its workforce by 20 percent and spend over $2 billion with Black-owned businesses.
In 2023, conservatives boycotted again over Target’s Pride Month merchandise. The company pulled back in response and subsequently seems to have become decidedly less interested in staking out political positions.
Part of the explanation is that Target faces much bigger challenges to its business model. Its stock price peaked in 2021 and was trading at about one-third of its all-time high in late 2025. Michael Fiddelke, the CEO since February, is leading a turnaround effort that has pushed shares upward, but there’s still a ways to go.
The AFT and AFL-CIO are telling their members not to buy school supplies from Target because it has “stayed silent on ICE’s occupation of its own hometown.”
The company said it shared guidance with store employees about protocols for dealing with ICE and resources related to their personal safety. Fiddelke also recorded an internal video message for staff, saying that “the violence and loss of life in our community is incredibly painful.”
It’s understandable that the CEO wants to focus on executing his plan to “elevate the guest experience” with a “trend-forward assortment” of products, but people grew accustomed to Target taking political stances due to his predecessors’ outspokenness.
The left has had grievances with Target in the past, as well. In 2010, the company donated to a pro-business group that supported a Republican for governor who opposed same-sex marriage. Target has also attracted ire for backtracking on some DEI plans.
Perhaps relevant to the current boycott is that Target is a nonunion company. That’s hardly unusual in a country where 94 percent of private sector workers aren’t union members, but the AFL-CIO’s involvement might be intended as a subtle reminder that a nationwide drive to unionize stores could make the situation for management much worse.
People of all political persuasions shop at Target, and there’s no pleasing everyone. The retailer appears to have learned that lesson from past combat in the culture wars. Rather than caving to activists, Target executives would be wise to stick to their turnaround strategy. Resisting union bullying would set a promising new precedent of selling goods based on the needs of customers, not the demands of whoever yells the loudest at the company.
The post Target is a store, not a political party appeared first on Washington Post.
