Fast or Boycott? Why the Target Conversation Isn’t Over
Every now and then, a moment comes along that reminds us how important clarity is in our movements. This week was one of those moments.
A video began circulating online in which Pastor Jamal Bryant announced that the “Target boycott” was over. For a lot of people who had been intentionally avoiding Target for more than a year, the news felt sudden. Confusing, even.
But the truth is simpler than the headlines made it seem because there’s a difference between a fast and a boycott. And that difference matters.
A Fast Is Temporary. A Boycott Is Accountability.
Many people understand the concept of a fast from religious traditions. During a fast, you voluntarily give something up for a limited period of time. It might be food, social media, or another daily habit.
Right now, many Muslims are observing Ramadan and many Christians practice fasting during Lent. In both cases, the abstention is temporary and spiritual.
A boycott is something different. A boycott is when people intentionally withdraw their money, attention, or participation from a company or institution in protest. It is not symbolic; it is economic pressure designed to force change.
One is temporary reflection and the other is organized accountability. In the case of Target, both things happened at the same time.
How We Got Here
To understand the current confusion, we have to go back a few years.
After the murder of George Floyd in 2020, many corporations rushed to make public commitments to racial justice. Target was among them. The company pledged to spend $2 billion with Black-owned businesses by 2025, expand partnerships with Black suppliers, and invest in programs meant to create economic opportunities for Black entrepreneurs.
For many Black consumers, those commitments mattered. Target had built a reputation as a place where Black brands could grow and where Black shoppers felt welcome. A lot of us had a relationship with that store.
But that was before the political climate shifted.
Once y’all’s president won in 2024, he demanded a rollback of diversity, equity and inclusion programs. Many companies (but not all - shout out to Costco) across the country began a full scale retreat from diversity initiatives. Target complied with Trump’s racist demands so fast that it was headspinning. The company abruptly abandoned its diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts. Adding insult to injury, Target also made a $1 million donation to the presidential inauguration fund of Donald Trump.
For many of us who remembered Target’s earlier promises, the move felt like a betrayal.
The Boycott Begins
In early 2025, activists in Minneapolis, where Target is headquartered, announced a national boycott. The boycott founders/leaders are Nekima Levy Armstrong, Jaylani Hussein and Monique Cullars Doty. They argued that Target had walked away from its commitments to Black communities and that economic pressure was necessary. In my video on this topic, I discuss the timeline extensively and you can also see the details in the timeline posted here at targetfast.org.
Shortly after the boycott began, Pastor Jamal Bryant launched a separate effort: a 40-day “Target fast.” The fast was designed to align with Lent and encourage people of faith to temporarily stop shopping at the store.
So from the beginning there were two parallel efforts:
A boycott, organized by activists demanding structural changes.
A fast, organized by faith leaders as a temporary protest.
They were never the same thing.
What Were the Demands?
Activists laid out several clear demands for Target:
Honor the $2 billion pledge: Target should fulfill its commitment to the Black business community through product purchases, services, and advertising.
Fully restore DEI commitments: Target should reinstate all programs promoting diversity, equity, and inclusion.
Pipeline community centers at 10 HBCUs: This would help establish retail business programs at Historically Black Colleges and Universities.
Deposit $250 million in Black banks: This would support Black financial institutions.
According to Pastor Bryant progress has reportedly been made on some of them. Target says it completed the $2 billion spending commitment - but with no receipts and no documentation, I supposed we’re just supposed to take them at their word…? Nah. Their word is trash in our community.
Unless they show receipts - this did not happen. Target also said they were not going to revive their DEI programs and instead they now have a new category called “belonging.” What the hell does that mean and how is it going to replace the positive impact that their Diversity Equity and Inclusion programs had for our community?
According to Pastor Bryant, Target has also made some work towards the HBCU demand but working with one HBCU on business programming is not the same as establishing pipelines of retail businesses at 10 HBCUs.
And the investment in Black banks, the demand many saw as the most important, has not materialized at all. That part pisses me off more than any of the others. We learned that Black people spent $12 million per day in the days before the boycott. Which means that they could’ve met that $250 investment pledge with just 21 days of Black community spending alone.
Three weeks of Black community spend at Target is a rounding error for them. But that $250 million investment in Black owned banks could’ve produced billions and beyond in investments, interest, and financial product benefits for our people.
In other words, none of the key issues that sparked the boycott have been fully resolved. At all.
Why the Confusion Happened
When Pastor Bryant recently announced that the “Target fast” was ending, many media outlets interpreted that statement as the end of the boycott itself. But the activists who launched the boycott say otherwise. Levy Armstrong and other organizers issued a statement that made it clear that the national boycott continues until Target restores its diversity commitments and addresses the remaining demands.
For them, hell, for me, the issue is not just about policy, it is about trust and how we wield our economic power..
The Real Lesson
What this moment really highlights is the importance of understanding how economic power works. Boycotts are not about anger alone. They are about leverage.
For decades, Black consumers have been among the most powerful economic forces in the United States. Our spending shapes industries, elevates brands, and builds corporate reputations. But that power only works when it is used intentionally.
Some people participated in the fast and have decided their protest is complete. That is their choice. As for me and my house, we are going to stick with the boycott. Target won’t be allowed to spit in my face and tell me its raining.
Where We Go From Here
The larger question is not just whether people shop at Target again. The deeper question for me is where our money and economic power goes next.
A boycott becomes transformational when it pushes us to build stronger economic ecosystems: supporting Black-owned businesses, investing in Black financial institutions, and strengthening the communities we say we care about.
If this moment teaches us anything, it’s that our collective choices matter.
And clarity, clarity about our goals, our strategies, and our power, is the first step toward using that power wisely.