By Megan Sayles
AFRO Staff Writer
msayles@afro.com
It’s been almost a year since Georgia Pastor Jamal Bryant’s Lenten Target fast began. The movement, started in March 2025, was spurred by the retailer’s decision to axe their equity, diversity and inclusion efforts last January— just days after the 47th president issued an executive order banning the same kind of initiatives in the federal government.
The fast later evolved into a full-scale boycott that hit Target executives where it hurts the most– in their pockets. The big-box store lost nearly $12.5 billion in market value and experienced drops in foot traffic, stock and sales.
Bryant, who leads Georgia-based New Birth Missionary Baptist Church, described the collective action by Black consumers as the most impactful boycott for African Americans since the Montgomery Bus Boycott.
“I think the Black community, in the consumer arena, is a sleeping giant with a trillion dollars in spending power,” Bryant told the AFRO. “When we mobilize it and focus, we can bring empires down. A year ago, nobody really thought there would be such an impact, and here we are having a Fortune 500 company up against the ropes.”
Experts say the financial hit to Target has accumulated over time.
“Target’s recent losses are significant, but they did not happen overnight. They reflect a decline that has been building for at least five years— not a short-term setback the company can easily bounce back from,” said Dina El-Mahdy, an accounting professor at Morgan State University. “The roughly $12.5 billion drop in market value in early 2025, along with a nearly 30 percent fall in stock during the 40-day ‘Target fast’ boycott led by Dr. Jamal Bryant, came on top of years of flat sales and weaker performance compared with peer firms, like Walmart, Costco, Aldi and T.J. Maxx.”
El-Mahdy noted that while a number of Target’s competitors have seen their shares grow, Target’s stock has lost more than 60 percent of its value over the past five years. She said that this decline indicates a weakening of investors’ confidence in the retailer’s strategy, brand and performance outside the shifts in the market.
“The boycott tied to Target’s rollback of DEI commitments strikes at the heart of the brand’s identity. Target built its reputation as an inclusive, culturally-relevant retailer,” said El-Mahdy. “Scaling back DEI and reframing it as a broader, ‘Belonging At Bullseye’ initiative alienated key customers, including Black shoppers, faith communities and civil rights groups.”
She said a recovery is possible, but it will take years for Target to regain trust with consumers, repair its brand and deliver consistent sales and profits.
The boycott continues to demand that Target honor its $2 billion commitment made to Black businesses in 2021, invest $250 million in 23 Black-owned banks, open 10 retail training centers at historically Black colleges and universities (HBCUs) and a complete reinstatement of diversity, inclusion and equity principles.
Target did not respond to multiple requests for comment from the AFRO before publication.
Though the retailer has yet to fulfill any of these demands, Bryant said he remains optimistic, particularly as a new CEO, Michael Fiddelke, is stepping in to head the company on Feb. 1. The move follows the announcement last August that Brian Cornell would leave his CEO role amid the boycott fallout. Though some view it as a punishment, others say the move is really a “step up” for Cornell, who will now lead the company as executive chairman beginning in February. Still, Bryant remains hopeful.
“We have signals that he has a whole different mindset than the present one,” said Bryant. “We’re waiting for him to assume the chair, and we really believe that talks will begin to go into motion at that point.”
Bryant’s movement has drawn significant support—with more than 200,000 people signing the boycott’s pledge and organizations, like the American Federation of Teachers and Coalition of Labor Union Women, endorsing the boycott. Yet, some consumers have spoken out against it.
Anita Naves, a Prince George’s County resident and longtime community advocate, has voiced concerns that the boycott could hurt the very people it aims to support. She argues that Target is often one of the only affordable, accessible stores in many Black neighborhoods and that the movement risks jobs and shames people who do not support it.
Naves also challenged Bryant and other pastors’ authority to lead the boycott, noting that they themselves wear designer and other luxury brands.
“Stop tearing down stores in your neighborhood. There may be vulnerable people who only have a Target in their neighborhood. They can’t drive to other stores, like Walmart,” said Naves. “There may be senior citizens who can only walk to the Target.”
She believes leaders of the boycott are more interested in publicity than in meaningfully helping the community with affording goods and services.
“You don’t care. That’s how it makes me feel. You’re rich, and you don’t care. You just want people to do your work,” said Naves. “You want them to be the wheels on the bus to go round and round while you get all the media exposure.”
Bryant addressed these criticisms, emphasizing that while boycotts are inherently burdensome, they serve a larger purpose.
“A boycott is synonymous with inconvenience. When the Montgomery bus boycott took place, the majority of Black people didn’t own cars. There was no such thing as an Uber, no such thing as Lyft,” said Bryant. “We realize that is an inconvenience, but we also look at the greater good. The good news is that because we now have online shopping available, you can get items delivered to your house. We’ve got to get past the inconvenience and see how it will benefit our community in the long haul.”
