DEI Rollback Stokes Controversy: In mid-2024, Lowe’s drew attention by announcing cuts to its diversity and inclusion initiatives. An internal memo showed the retailer would merge its separate resource groups into one umbrella and stop participating in the Human Rights Campaign’s LGBTQ+ workplace survey.
Lowe’s leadership said the changes would keep policies “lawful” while still “committing to include everyone”. The move stood out because Lowe’s has about 1,700 stores nationwide, making its reputation especially vulnerable.
After conspiracy theories surfaced, Lowe’s even took to social media to clarify, “Everyone is welcome at Lowe’s”.
Activists Mobilize Nationwide
In late July, People’s Union USA founder John Schwarz announced an August boycott targeting Walmart, McDonald’s and Lowe’s.
Schwarz said on social media that the campaign’s goal is to keep Americans from spending money at these chains all month, starting August 1.
The group’s posts stressed that it is “not a political party” but “a movement of people, organizing to take back control of our economy”.
Seen as a grassroots effort, the boycott quickly gathered interest online, with organizers urging their followers to support local businesses instead of big-box stores.
Taxes, Labor and Diversity
People’s Union USA has framed the boycott as a stand against corporate greed and inequality. Its petition and statements cite unfair labor practices, corporate tax avoidance and the rollback of diversity initiatives as key issues.
The group’s grievance list even calls out companies for “tax evasion, labor conditions, and general monopolistic conduct”.
In People’s Union leader John Schwarz’s words, Walmart in particular has become “a symbol of everything wrong with unchecked corporate power” – a sentiment that activists say also applies to Lowe’s, given its recent DEI cutbacks.
Lowe’s at the Center
In mid-2024, Lowe’s confirmed it had “scrapped some” of its diversity programs.
An internal memo announced it would stop participating in an annual LGBTQ+ workplace survey and fold all its employee resource groups into one umbrella organization.
Leadership said this refocus would fund causes like housing and training, but critics view it as direct fallout from right-wing pressure. With about 284,000 employees nationwide, Lowe’s has become the leading face of the boycott campaign.
Analysts say the company’s traditionally broad customer base now makes it a lightning rod, since any reputational damage at Lowe’s can ripple through communities across the country.
Boycott Goes Live
On Aug. 1, the boycott officially kicked off nationwide. The People’s Union USA urged Americans to refrain from shopping at Lowe’s (along with Walmart and McDonald’s) throughout the month.
Organizers even advised customers to redirect spending to small, local businesses during this period.
The campaign is framed as citizen empowerment: as Schwarz puts it, “if we stand together, we don’t just demand change, we create it”, emphasizing that consumers have the power to pressure corporate behavior.
In the first days, supporters mainly mobilized online, with hashtags like #BoycottLowes trending on social media and small local gatherings reported at a few stores.
Mixed Reactions on the Ground
In the first week of August, many Lowe’s stores saw business as usual, even as anti-Lowe’s chatter rose online. The company’s internal memo explicitly promised that amid these program changes, “what will not change… is our commitment to our people”.
That statement was meant to reassure employees. On the customer side, observers noted that boycott activity has been mostly online – social media posts and community discussions – with only sporadic demonstrations at stores so far.
To date, no major disruptions have been reported; some store managers say traffic is steady. But behind the scenes, many associates and shoppers are watching closely for any signs of impact.
Worker and Customer Perspectives
Lowe’s workers and shoppers have offered mixed takes on the boycott. Company leadership publicly emphasizes an inclusive message, while internally assuring staff of continued support (as seen in the “commitment to our people” pledge).
Some longtime employees say DEI initiatives were not a visible part of daily store life, but others privately worry about cutbacks.
Among customers, reactions vary: a portion express solidarity and say they will avoid Lowe’s this month, whereas others plan to “wait and see” before changing their shopping habits.
Industry analysts note that Lowe’s core clientele tends to be value-focused and less influenced by cultural messaging, so the ultimate effect will depend on whether the boycott can draw in enough consumers to make a difference.
Walmart and McDonald’s Also on Notice
The boycott campaign also encompasses Walmart and McDonald’s, but activists treat them more as symbols than the main focus. John Schwarz has said Walmart “represents everything wrong” with unchecked corporate power, citing unfair wages and tax avoidance.
McDonald’s is similarly targeted for its own mix of labor and social issues.
Both giants have been through boycotts before (Walmart faced a People’s Union protest in April, and McDonald’s has weathered worker-led actions), so organizers are focusing their spotlight on Lowe’s for now.
Even with Walmart and McDonald’s in the mix, all eyes keep returning to Lowe’s as the central target of this campaign.
Organizers Threaten Escalation
By mid-August, Schwarz and other organizers signaled that the month-long boycott was only a first step. The union’s mission statement speaks of taking back control of “our country’s economy”, and news reports note that the group is already planning new boycotts (Amazon, Uber, PepsiCo) in September.
The implicit message is clear: if companies like Lowe’s do not meet the activists’ demands on taxes, labor and community investment, the protests will escalate.
To supporters, the time-bound boycott is seen as building momentum — a way to force bigger conversations in the coming months.
As Schwarz writes, “if we stand together… we create it,” indicating a belief that continued action will pressure retailers to negotiate.
Corporate and Public Responses
Lowe’s public statements on the boycott have been limited. A spokesman told reporters that Starbuck only got involved after the company had already “begun making changes” to its DEI programs, reinforcing that the policy shifts were planned in advance.
CEO Marvin Ellison has stayed focused on customer service and growth in recent interviews, issuing no new remarks about the protests.
Meanwhile, critics remain outspoken: the Human Rights Campaign’s Orlando Gonzalez blasted the cutbacks as “shortsighted decisions contrary to safe and inclusive workplaces”, warning that companies should not “cower to a random guy with zero business experience.”
Some analysts note that even a small sales dip would grab Wall Street’s attention; others say the reputational impact is the bigger risk, since alienating LGBTQ+ or progressive customers could have long-term effects on brand loyalty.
Analyst Insights and Advocacy Voices
Experts and advocacy leaders have weighed in. Jen Stark of BSR cautions that by backing down on DEI, corporations risk “essentially giving in to hate”.
Orlando Gonzalez (HRC) similarly warns of unintended consequences: he says the policy retreats could start a “snowball effect” of lost support among employees and consumers.
Civil-rights veteran Rev. Al Sharpton even weighed in, declaring “Donald Trump cannot tell us what grocery store we shop at”, framing the boycott as a defense of consumer choice.
Economist and marketing experts also comment: Northwestern professor Anna Tuchman noted that one-day or month-long boycotts usually have limited economic impact, but they do convey public sentiment.
Media Coverage and Public Debate
The boycott has been widely reported in the press. International outlets like The Economic Times ran primers on the campaign’s goals, while U.S. business media (Bloomberg, Reuters) linked Lowe’s to a broader wave of corporate DEI rollbacks.
Television and cable news segments have debated the consumer movement, often framing it within the larger culture and economic debate. In short, coverage positions the event as a clash between grassroots demands (on taxes, labor and DEI) and corporate strategy.
This media attention has lifted Lowe’s story out of the local business pages and into national conversation, putting the company’s brand squarely in the spotlight.
Potential Impact and Future Outlook
Analysts predict that any sales impact will be modest. As Professor Tuchman puts it, the boycott is “an opportunity for consumers to show that they have a voice” but is “unlikely that we would see long-run sustained decreases in economic activity”.
Still, even a small dip in sales — or just the perception of one — could draw scrutiny. For Lowe’s, the key questions are whether it will return to old DEI commitments, placate activists with new concessions, or ignore the demands.
The company will be watching its August sales data and customer feedback closely.
Activists have signaled they will press on if their demands are unmet, hinting at future protests.
Comparisons and Patterns
The Lowe’s boycott fits a pattern of recent consumer protests against companies’ cultural and labor policies. Earlier this year, activists organized similar campaigns targeting companies like Target and Starbucks over their stances on diversity and politics.
Those efforts had mixed results — for example, Target saw only a temporary dip in some markets after a Pride merchandise controversy — but they signaled that brand decisions can trigger widespread consumer reactions.
In Lowe’s case, industry observers note that its customer base skews home and rural-focused, which may mean any backlash is geographically uneven.
Nonetheless, the broader pattern is clear: decisions on DEI and taxes are no longer made behind closed doors.
The Stakes for Lowe’s
By the time August ends, Lowe’s will have a clearer picture of the boycott’s bite. Even if only a modest number of customers actually stayed home, the campaign has underscored a reputational risk.
Some experts argue that consumer boycotts can force corporate change in ways lobbying cannot; others say the real test will be whether Lowe’s feels pressure from investors worried about brand image.
Regardless, the People’s Union and allied groups have made it clear they intend to continue applying pressure.
Lowe’s leaders now face a choice: re-engage with its earlier diversity and community commitments, address the activists’ broader concerns, or stand by the changes already made.