Source Body Text

This year, as the United States commemorates the 250th anniversary of the nation’s founding and the signing of the Declaration of Independence, it’s worth remembering the substantial role boycotts played in the American resistance and independence movement. The founders’ sustained protest of Great Britain’s Stamp Act and Townshend Duties –which taxed printed materials, glass, lead, paper, paint and tea in the colonies – placed enough pain and pressure on British merchants and the parliament that the majority of these taxes were repealed. And while the colonists were boycotting taxed British imports, they built an alternative made-in-America marketplace in the process, becoming domestic producers of homespun clothing, paper and other necessities. This building of alternative institutions and self-reliance were an essential complement to their boycott. They divested from British goods while investing in homemade goods. Both types of actions were necessary. This legacy of effective boycott is relevant 250 years later because it illustrates the power of nonviolent action in targeting the pillars that support the most intractable autocratic rule. And Americans appear to be getting back into boycotting: 2025 was a banner year for such protests in the United States. Big box stores like Target and Walmart, for example, faced boycotts for rolling back their commitments to diversity, equity and inclusion. Shoppers boycotted Home Depot after immigration raids near its locations. Amazon was boycotted over its donations to Donald Trump’s administration, treatment of workers and growing monopolization of the market. Tesla was boycotted due to Elon Musk’s role in government dismantling and far-right saber-rattling. And recurring movements, like the Boycott, Divestment and Sanctions (BDS) movement to undermine Israel’s military actions in Palestine, also grew in impact. This year will see a continuation of these boycotts – as Target is back in the sights of boycotters – but the financial and reputational costs are already visible. Target has seen layoffs, decreased sales, lower store traffic and plummeting stock prices. Walmart warned investors of the rising deleterious impact from these boycotts. Tesla’s stocks and sales plunged as the brand became a liability for many current owners and prospective buyers. And even McDonald’s acknowledged its markets were significantly affected by BDS boycotts. In contrast, Costco, which was lauded by activists for doubling down on its commitments to DEI, reported a 7% increase in net sales in April compared with a year earlier. As these boycotts aim to increase their impact in 2026, there is a larger ecosystem of actions and campaigns to consider. Three imperatives come to mind: to communicate and grow the movement, to strategically create alternative institutions, and to sustain participation and morale. First, how can boycotts build community and identity? The colonists’ protests against the Stamp Act and Townshend Duties were a unifying sinew across a diverse set of regions and actors. Protest actions like spinning yarn together, instead of importing it, became a source of community pride and “spinning bee” competitions. The carpooling that was required for the Montgomery bus boycotts during the civil rights movement similarly brought communities closer together, creating a sense of unity, collective action and agency. Today, TargetFast.org is trying to do the same. All of this is a helpful prerequisite for boosting morale, withstanding backlash and creating the foundation for self-reliance. Second, how can boycotts create parallel institutions? Most boycotters will still need the services and goods that they’re protesting. When divesting from one institution, it’s essential to simultaneously build or invest in an alternative. That’s why the colonists started making their own fiber and clothes. That’s why the Montgomery bus boycotters created an entirely new transit system to ensure that everyone could work, shop and play without relying on the bus system. All of this takes strategy, of course. For the boycotters of today, creating alternatives to Target, Home Depot, Walmart and Amazon requires planning. Divestment alone is insufficient. And while Costco, as one alternative, witnessed a boost in consumer spending last year, campaigns that encourage shoppers visit local brick-and-mortar stores will need additional movement support if the boycotted big-box stores are to experience sustained financial and reputational cost. Third, how can boycotts maintain patience and perseverance? For companies or countries to feel the pain of economic noncooperation, it requires sustained discipline and diligence. A one-day boycott probably won’t hurt the pocketbooks of most billionaire owners of these big businesses. A multi-month or multi-year boycott that involves an entire community might, however, especially if there’s a compelling identity holding the movement together and the alternative institutions to support it. The colonists’ protests against the Townshend Duties spanned several years, starting in late 1767 until the taxes were repealed in 1770. That same kind of sustained commitment was visible in the civil rights movement when the Montgomery bus boycott lasted a year and involved about 40,000 Black residents. The United Farm Workers-led boycott against grape growers in the late 1960s, in response to poor wages and working conditions, lasted five years. While shorter efforts have sometimes been effective – like the recent successful weeklong boycott of Disney+ and Hulu, after Disney canceled comedian Jimmy Kimmel’s late-night show – most boycotts require longer engagement. US history is rich with case studies. For new movements, including emerging proposals for boycotting the World Cup in the US, assessing the vulnerability of a target is a key first step, as is an analysis of how a boycott will be perceived by the public. But the nation’s founders set a precedent – effective nonviolent boycott is replicable. Yes, it takes people, parallel institutions, and perseverance., but it’s what is built during the boycott that has the most lasting impact. And that’s the new history to be made, and celebrated, in 2026. What’s giving me hope now We’re witnessing new critical consciousness emerging everywhere and in the unlikeliest of locations. More and more people – who have never spoken out – are now speaking up. More and more people – who have never resisted – are now mobilizing. More and more people are ready to challenge oppressive systems and are hungry for a nonviolent playbook to do so. I’m witnessing this all around me, including in my own circles, and it’s incredibly inspiring. This is what gives me hope. Michael Shank is director of programs at the Albert Einstein Institution and adjunct faculty at New York University’s Center for Global Affairs and George Mason University’s Carter School for Peace and Conflict Resolution.