The New Reality of Social Justice Boycotts

Angered by the brutal tactics of U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement agents in Minneapolis, activists in late January called for a national shutdown on Jan. 30. “No work. No School. No Shopping. Stop Funding ICE,” Minnesota activists declared on their website.

The call for action quickly drew endorsements from student and immigration groups, both locally and across the country, from Boston to Detroit and North Texas. The aim was to disrupt daily routines—and spending—in protest of federal immigration enforcement, using the collective power of consumers and workers to apply pressure.

But as the movement spread, it also revealed the limits of that strategy in practice. Some restaurants voiced support for the action but said they could not fully participate.

“As a small business owned and operated by hardworking immigrants, we want to show support by donating rather than taking away tips and hours from our immigrant staff,” Hooni Kim, the cookbook author and owner of the first Michelin-starred Korean restaurant in the U.S., wrote on his Instagram account.

“We are remaining open today. In lieu, we are donating a percentage of sales to the Michigan Immigrant Rights Center. Be safe out there,” posted Side Biscuit, a wings-centric spot in Ann Arbor, Mich.

“We encourage you to support small businesses in whatever way feels right. For us, staying open matters,” Bagel Miller, a Chicago shop, said. “Our staff is largely made up of people from marginalized communities who have worked incredibly hard through a difficult year and deserve consistency and stability.”

Together, the responses underscored a central tension facing modern social justice boycotts. They can raise awareness and signal solidarity — but asking people to abandon routine, convenience, or income often collides with economic reality.

“In some ways, the point isn’t necessarily to change the sales revenue. People who organize boycotts know they are not going to have a (financial) impact,” said Brayden King, a professor at Northwestern University’s Kellogg School of Management and an expert on boycotts.

The greater goal is often reputational, he said. “If they can do that, [they] have accomplished their mission.”

When values meet habit

That dynamic has played out repeatedly in recent years as activism has increasingly targeted consumer-facing brands — particularly during the Covid pandemic and amid ongoing economic uncertainty.

In 2021, workers from Starbucks stores around Buffalo filed petitions with the National Labor Relations Board to form a union, which they called Starbucks Workers United (SBWU). “We quickly understood that partners across the U.S. and in different types of stores — cafes, drive-thrus, mall kiosks, Reserve Roasteries, and beyond — all faced the same persistent and long-standing challenge,” which the group described as short staffing, unpredictable scheduling, low wages, harassment, and other gripes.

By late 2025, SBWU said it had organized more than 550 of the company’s 18,000 U.S. stores and represented more than 12,000 workers. In 2024, Starbucks said it had reached an agreement with the union on the framework of a contract.

But the company has yet to reach a master agreement, prompting the union to apply pressure through public actions and consumer appeals, including a “No Contract, No Coffee” pledge asking customers to stop making purchases until a deal is reached.

In November, more than 1,000 baristas staged a “Red Cup Rebellion,” a mini-strike timed to the annual return of Starbucks’ refillable red cups. Union members distributed leaflets, held protests, and asked customers not to make purchases.

The timing was deliberate. So was Starbucks’ response.

Visits to Starbucks jumped 5.8% during the week Red Cups returned, compared with the year before, according to a 2025 Placer.ai report. The week prior, foot traffic jumped 11.6% after the company sold limited-edition glass bear-shaped bottles dubbed “Bearistas.”

In the second half of 2025, visits to Starbucks outpaced those of comparable coffee brands, the report found. Starbucks also said same-store sales grew 4% worldwide, while its U.S. sales rose 3% compared with 2024 — the first increase in eight quarters.

“Most consumers, even when they say they support a boycott, don’t actually do it,” King said. “Consumption is a private matter.” Buyers might express sympathy for the baristas, he added, “but I’m getting the coffee I want.”

Alongside limited-edition products, Starbucks has leaned heavily into perks for its rewards members. On January 29, the Seattle-based company emailed participants about its revamped Starbucks Rewards program, promising 25 stars for every card reload, along with “new perks, new status levels, and new choices,” including more flexibility around birthday rewards.

Starbucks, King said, “has learned how to weather the ups and downs of the political environment.”

When reputation becomes the battleground

At Target, the collision between politics and consumer behavior has taken a different form.

In January 2025, the retailer announced it was rolling back its Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) program, joining companies such as Walmart, Meta, and McDonald’s. In a memo to employees, Target said it would end the three-year effort, stop providing data to outside groups tracking corporate actions, and eliminate a $2 billion initiative aimed at businesses run by people of color.

The program had been launched after the 2020 killing of George Floyd in Minneapolis. The rollback followed President Trump’s order to end government DEI programs and place officials overseeing them on leave.

The backlash was swift. Rev. Jamal Bryant, senior pastor of the New Birth Missionary Baptist Church in suburban Atlanta, launched a 40-day boycott during Lent that became known as the “Target Fast.” He said $12 million was spent daily by Black consumers at Target stores, and that 50,000 people signed an online petition within a week.

In the months that followed, Target reported comparable sales declines in each of the first three quarters of 2025 and warned of another decline in the fourth, extending a period of uneven performance that has dogged the company since the pandemic.

Target plans to spend $5 billion this year to remodel its stores, a 25% increase. Its new chief executive, Michael Fiddelke, told analysts in November that the company was “acting with urgency to make the changes and investments to position Target for sustainable and profitable growth,” according to CNBC.

King cautioned against drawing a direct link between the boycott and Target’s sales struggles, pointing instead to broader economic pressures and shifts in consumer behavior. Still, he said, the campaign succeeded in reshaping the company’s image.

“Target has taken a huge hit publicly with how they are perceived,” he said. “Part of this has a lot to do with how much of a reputation they had built over time as a company that was a good placed to work if you were an underrepresented minority.”

For companies facing social justice campaigns, the challenge isn’t just financial recovery. It’s navigating moments when values-driven calls for action run up against people’s need for stability, income, and routine — whether that means keeping the lights on in a neighborhood restaurant, grabbing a daily coffee, or deciding where to shop.