Today, February 28, 2025, marks a significant day of consumer activism in the United States. The People’s Union USA, a grassroots movement founded by John Schwarz, has called for a 24-hour “economic blackout”—a nationwide boycott against corporate greed and systemic issues. Participants are urged to halt all purchases, especially from major retailers, gas stations, and fast-food chains. If necessities must be bought, supporters are encouraged to shop at small local businesses and use cash to avoid benefiting large financial institutions.
The reasons behind this movement are complex: dissatisfaction with rising costs, corporate scaling back of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) initiatives, and a broader push for economic justice. This movement also reflects a growing trend—consumer activism tied to social values. But as history has shown, these actions lead to an important question: Do economic boycotts actually work? And, perhaps more importantly, who really feels their impact?
A Look Back: The History of Boycotts
Boycotts have long been a tool for political and social change. From the Montgomery Bus Boycott of 1955 to the modern “Buy Nothing Days,” the idea of withholding economic power to send a message has been effective—at times. The Civil Rights Movement’s boycotts led to policy changes, and in more recent years, consumer-driven efforts have pushed corporations to adjust policies around sustainability and ethical labor.
Yet, not all boycotts achieve their intended goals. The conservative backlash against Bud Light in 2023 over its collaboration with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney did result in a temporary drop in sales, but Anheuser-Busch, the parent company, continued thriving overall. Similarly, the Target boycott over transgender-inclusive swimsuits and LGBTQ+ merchandise made headlines, but the company remains one of the largest retailers in the U.S.
Who is the Real Target?
Boycotts aim to send a message to corporate giants, but these conglomerates are often well-insulated from short-term financial fluctuations. Companies like Amazon, Walmart, and Nestlé have deep pockets and diversified revenue streams that can absorb momentary dips in sales. The true burden of a boycott often falls on frontline workers—cashiers, warehouse staff, and hourly employees who may experience cut shifts, lost commissions, or even layoffs if a boycott significantly impacts revenue.
In the case of today’s “economic blackout,” large corporations may take notice, but history suggests that one-day actions rarely force long-term change. Sustained pressure campaigns, shareholder activism, and policy advocacy tend to be more effective in shifting corporate behavior.
The Double-Edged Sword of Activism
Economic boycotts are an attractive form of activism because they offer a simple way for individuals to feel like they are part of a movement. Opting out of spending for a day is an easy symbolic gesture, and for many, that symbolism feels empowering. However, for boycotts to be truly effective, they must be backed by sustained action, clear demands, and alternative solutions.
For example, if the goal is to challenge corporations on their DEI rollbacks, then engagement in shareholder meetings, lobbying for labor protections, or supporting unions may be more effective tools. If the aim is to curb corporate greed, then investing in policies that strengthen worker rights and holding politicians accountable may have a greater impact than a temporary spending freeze.
Unintended Consequences
While well-intentioned, boycotts can sometimes hurt the very communities they aim to help. In the case of LGBTQ+ rights, boycotting companies that make inclusivity efforts—like Target—could discourage future corporate support for marginalized communities. If businesses see financial risks in supporting LGBTQ+ initiatives, they may pull back to avoid controversy, leaving queer workers and consumers with fewer safe spaces.
Similarly, if today’s economic blackout leads to losses for small businesses rather than corporate giants, the action may inadvertently harm local economies more than it pressures large corporations.
The Reality of Corporate Change
Corporations respond most strongly to financial incentives and public relations risks. While boycotts can create headlines, companies are more likely to shift policies when faced with legal action, regulatory pressure, or sustained consumer behavior changes. For instance, the fight for fair wages at McDonald’s gained traction not through boycotts but through labor organizing and advocacy for minimum wage increases.
If The People’s Union USA wants to push back against corporate greed and the rollback of DEI initiatives, their best strategy may not be a single-day boycott but a long-term effort that includes:
- Transparent demands: Clearly stating what policy or practice they want corporations to change.
- Sustained consumer shifts: Encouraging ongoing support for ethical alternatives rather than momentary boycotts.
- Political engagement: Pressuring lawmakers to implement corporate accountability policies.
The Bottom Line
Are boycotts effective? The answer is complicated. In some cases, they create awareness and pressure corporations to take action. In others, they cause more harm to workers than the corporations themselves. While today’s economic blackout highlights important concerns, the true challenge lies in what happens after the boycott ends.
Will participants commit to long-term action? Will they push for policies that hold corporations accountable? Or will this be another fleeting moment of consumer activism that, in the end, does little to shake the very system it seeks to challenge?
For transgender individuals, their families, and allies, these questions are crucial. Corporate allyship has often been inconsistent—performative during Pride Month and silent when it matters most. If we truly want to see businesses stand by the LGBTQ+ community, the real power doesn’t come from a one-day spending freeze, but from long-term, targeted activism that makes it clear: Our support is conditional, and our money follows our values.
