What a rise in political boycotting hopes to accomplish
The new policies the US administration has been passing has brought forward a rise in political boycotting. What does this mean for you?
Courtesy photo from Adobe Stock
The Target logo with an arrow with the word boycott above it moving towards the logo.
You may have noticed a Target boycott in the news and a recent surge in the discussion of political boycotting. A big intrigue in this discussion is what this political act hopes to accomplish and how successful it can really be. Should consumers and producers be worried about it or hopeful for what it can do?
What is political boycotting?
A boycott is defined as a collective and organized ostracism applied to labor, economic, political, or social relations to protest practices that are regarded as unfair.
Elizabeth Theiss-Morse, a professor of political science at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, said that boycotting is the act of stopping business at a particular company to put strain on them financially, causing them to change policies that the consumers disagree with.
Theiss-Morse said that this phenomenon of political consumerism was rarely paid attention to by political scientists until these recent surges had started to take place. So why has it become so popular?
Theiss-Morse said that in the political climate of today people are looking for ways to voice their beliefs. Their actions can come from where a consumer feels helpless versus in control.
Theiss-Morse said that as an everyday consumer you, might feel helpless with the idea of having to be the person that can cause political change in United States policies. But you do feel control in the power you have over the places that you feed economically.
Inherently meaning, that the popularity in political boycotting comes from the support and strength that individuals feel in the potential to make a change in this form of political activism.
What has caused this recent surge in political boycotting?
This surge in political boycotting started in late February 2025, when a grassroot organization encouraged U.S. residents not to spend any money on Feb. 28th as an act of economic resistance. They hoped that this would influence big corporations and the political parties to see the malign influence they have on working Americans.
This particular surge comes from the U.S. administration's new policies towards diversity, equity and inclusion. Tina Opie, a diversity, equity and inclusion consultant and professor at Babson College, says that diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives are intended to address and correct discriminatory policies or practices that may be found within an organization.
With the current administration, the Director of the Office of Management and Budget, assisted by the attorney General and the Director of the Office of Personnel Management, shall coordinate the termination of all discriminatory programs, including illegal diversity, equity and inclusion and “diversity, equity, inclusion, and accessibility” (DEIA) mandates, policies, programs, preferences, and activities in the Federal Government, under whatever name they appear.
Theiss-Morse said that with this, consumers that do not agree with these policies have turned towards boycotting establishments that have already terminated their diversity, equity and inclusion policies. A few companies that were included in this recent boycott were Target and Amazon.
Theiss-Morse said that it is likely that Target faced a lot of scrutiny because of how strongly they supported diversity, equity and inclusion in the past. This made them an obvious and visible company to target in this political act because of the contradictory that was made when they removed their diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.
What it can do for politics
Politically, a boycott is meant to put strain on a company financially, influencing them to change their policies to align with the consumers' wants.
However, Theiss-Morse said that this can be a complicated approach as it is not likely to end up pleasing every consumer. In fact, she said that it will likely just cause counter reactions from the opposing viewpoint that does support the termination of diversity, equity and inclusion policies. Meaning that regardless of what they decide to do it is likely that they will be boycotted anyways.
Something to keep in mind, with the influence in consumer purchasing, Theiss-Morse said that Democrats are more likely to boycott whereas conservatives are more likely to buycott. Meaning that they will shop more at stores that do support their political beliefs.
If this is true, Theiss-Morse brought up an interesting argument, where these companies might not actually see pushback if diversity, equity and inclusion is reimplemented because conservatives are less likely to participate in this showing of political activism.
What it can do for the economy
In theory, a boycott is beneficial because it puts stress on the producer but not the consumer. In a perfect understanding, Shatil Anaholy, a professor of economics at the University of Nebraska-Lincoln, said that driving down revenue will drive down demand. This puts strain on the producers, influencing them to listen to the consumers' wants.
However, Anaholy said that dramatic changes in the economy could lead to negatively impacting the U.S. individual consumers as well. Some of those things include the labor workforce as well as the stress it can put towards a recession when the economy is off balanced.
These downturns in the nation's economy test the economic resilience limit. Where consumers are able to see the ability that they have to quickly recover from a disruption. If consumers push the economy too far, rather than show producers their strength, they risk breaking their economic resistance.
What is the reality of consumers' next steps?
In reality, Theiss-Morse said that it is difficult but not impossible to cause tangible change through political boycotting.
​
She said that with over 50% of Americans participating in political boycotting, consumers hold a position of power within corporate America. But the success is still determined on how far these movements are able to grow.
Theiss-Morse also suggested that on top of boycotting large corporations, you can also support local companies that help support your message. You can also use social media to spread your cause and create more of an impact because this form of political activism is only effective when done in magnitudes.
Theiss-Morse encourages consumers to be more active in the politics that back these movements. She said that while these actions can cause change, effective change is made in passing policies. While it can be discouraging to take actions towards administrations, Morse emphasizes the importance in making more permanent changes.