McDonald’s, one of the most recognisable brands in the world, is facing a growing backlash this week as consumer activists call for a nationwide boycott. The protest—led by grassroots organisation People’s Union USA—targets the fast-food giant’s recent decision to quietly pull back from several of its diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) investment initiatives. Running from June 24 to 30, the boycott marks a new chapter in a wider movement that’s putting pressure on big retail to pick a side, or stay silent.
On Tuesday, a McDonald’s spokesperson responded to the “economic blackout” campaign, saying:
“As a brand that serves millions of people every day, McDonald’s opens our doors to everyone, and our commitment to inclusion remains steadfast.
McDonald’s generates billions in federal, state and local taxes annually, and we’ll continue to pay our fair share.
We welcome honest dialogue with the communities we serve, but we’re disappointed to see these misleading claims that distort our values and misrepresent our actions. Our focus remains on serving our customers and communities. We’re here and ready to serve.”
This is far from an isolated case. Over the past year, brands including Target, Bud Light and Amazon have found themselves caught in the crosshairs of the US culture war, with marketing campaigns, hiring policies and investment frameworks triggering fierce political and consumer reactions. What was once seen as a reputational asset—embracing DEI values and inclusive messaging—is now, in some quarters, viewed as a liability. As companies reassess their public commitments, a new question is emerging: is DEI still good business?
A new reality: Brands in the political crossfire
In the wake of the George Floyd protests in 2020, corporate America embraced DEI with unprecedented urgency. From boardroom diversity pledges to billion-dollar equity funds, many brands moved swiftly to show alignment with calls for racial and social justice. But four years on, the landscape has shifted dramatically, and retail brands are now navigating a far more fractured and reactionary environment.
While progressive groups continue to push for transparency and accountability on diversity, conservative campaigns have begun actively targeting what they deem “woke capitalism.” Organisations like Consumers’ Research and political figures across several US states have accused major corporations of prioritising social activism over shareholder value. In some cases, such pressure has led to internal reviews, policy rollbacks, or even quiet removals of DEI-focused content and investment vehicles.
The result is a squeeze from both sides. Target, for instance, faced backlash from conservative groups in 2023 over its LGBTQ+ Pride collection, leading the retailer to scale back displays in select stores, only to then face criticism from LGBTQ+ advocacy organisations for appearing to backpedal. Bud Light’s short-lived partnership with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney triggered a sustained boycott that saw parent company Anheuser-Busch lose billions in market value and reposition its marketing strategy.
According to research by Morning Consult, the number of Americans who say they’ve participated in a boycott rose to 37% in 2023, up from just 24% in 2021. On the flip side, “buycotts,” where consumers actively support companies aligned with their values, have also grown. A 2024 CivicScience survey found that nearly half of US Gen Z and millennial shoppers consider a brand’s stance on social issues before making a purchase, suggesting that silence, too, can come with a cost.
For retailers, this has created a precarious balancing act. Decisions once rooted in HR policy or ESG frameworks now carry brand-wide implications, often playing out in real time across social media. As the political temperature continues to rise in an election year, the margin for neutrality is shrinking.
The risk calculation: Why brands backtrack
McDonald’s isn’t the only major retailer rethinking its public commitments to DEI. In recent months, companies across the retail sector have been quietly recalibrating their strategies, not necessarily because of shifting values, but due to intensifying scrutiny from lawmakers, activist shareholders, and customers in politically conservative regions.
The trigger in many cases is legal or political. More than a dozen US states have introduced or passed legislation restricting the use of public funds for environmental, social and governance (ESG) investments, or targeting corporate DEI initiatives in hiring, procurement, and training. In Texas and Florida, in particular, companies with strong DEI commitments have faced threats of contract termination or fines.
This is the context in which McDonald’s removed mentions of diversity investment targets from its website earlier this year. In 2021, the fast-food giant made headlines with a pledge to spend $2 billion with diverse-owned suppliers by 2025 and link executive bonuses to DEI goals. But as lawsuits emerged from conservative shareholders accusing the company of breaching fiduciary duty through race-conscious policies, the language softened—and the firm now faces boycotts for backtracking on those very promises.
Retailers are also watching the fallout from other big brands. In March, Starbucks settled a high-profile lawsuit brought by a shareholder group alleging the company violated civil rights laws by prioritising diversity in executive hiring. The case, though dismissed, raised fears of legal vulnerability that some boards are now treating seriously. Walmart, meanwhile, quietly scaled back some of its public DEI messaging after facing similar investor pressure and political heat.
Investor sentiment is also playing a role. A growing segment of institutional investors, particularly those managing pension funds in Republican-led states, are pressuring boards to deprioritise ESG and DEI considerations in favour of pure financial performance. In response, some companies are choosing to de-emphasise their DEI targets publicly, even if those goals persist behind closed doors.
Ultimately, for many retail brands, the calculation is not about abandoning values, but about navigating a climate where supporting them could cost contracts, trigger lawsuits, or alienate key customer bases. And in an election year, the risk profile only intensifies.
Authenticity or adaptation?
As brands face pressure from every direction, the question at the heart of the DEI debate becomes clearer: are these commitments rooted in genuine values, or are they surface-level signals that crumble under scrutiny?
For Wander Bruijel, Chief Strategy Officer at creative agency Born Ugly, the answer often lies in how brands respond when the backlash begins. “Brands are no longer moving culture on — they’re adding to the noise and losing their way,” he says. “Driven by a fear to be on the wrong side of a polarised environment… brands clamour to signal (or repent) their allyship to causes well outside of their lane.”
He points to Bud Light’s infamous partnership with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney as a cautionary tale. When the campaign sparked outrage among conservative consumers, the company quickly distanced itself. “Had it been genuine,” Bruijel argues, “its subsequent backtracking would never have happened. The brand would have stood its ground and faced the redneck country music… A value isn’t a value unless it costs you something.”
That tension between profit and principle is precisely what many brands are now reckoning with. Sarah Dear, CEO of Born Ugly, believes the key to surviving these moments lies in corporate clarity; knowing what you truly stand for and sticking with it. “Brands that are authentic should, like real people, have values and beliefs — meaningful things that the culture and people who work there believe in… things their customers will align themselves to,” she says.
Dear warns that inconsistency in DEI messaging can erode credibility. “If brands start flip-flopping on whether they are committed to DEI programmes or not depending on which colour party is in the White House, then they weren’t really committed… and so what came before was most likely just ‘diversity-washing.’”
In a world where political polarisation is only deepening, both experts agree: neutrality is becoming untenable. “Changing any of your policies to suit the political scene says you never really believed in it in the first place,” Dear adds. “Maybe all brands need to become a bit more Marmite — and face the truth that sitting on the fence probably won’t work in the future.”
Conclusion: The price of standing still
While the McDonald’s boycott may fade from headlines by the end of the week, the questions it raises for retail brands will linger far longer. As political pressures mount and consumers grow more vocal about the values they expect from the brands they support, DEI has become more than just a corporate initiative. It’s now a litmus test for authenticity, consistency, and long-term brand integrity.
For some companies, the instinct will be to pull back, softening public commitments, trimming policies, and trying to weather the storm quietly. But as the past year has shown, silence can be just as damaging as missteps. Retailers are learning that the real risk is in taking one, then walking it back.
In an environment where every message is magnified and every reversal scrutinised, the strongest brands may not be the most inoffensive, but the most anchored. In the battle between backlash and belief, knowing what you stand for—and sticking to it—might be the most valuable strategy of all.
Click here to sign up to Retail Gazette‘s free daily email newsletter
