Nestlé boycott over DEI rollback starts this week. See how it differs from Target, Amazon
Show Caption
Hide Caption
Consumers to boycott companies retreating from DEI. Here's what we know.
Consumers are planning to boycott certain companies retreating from diversity, equity and inclusion initiatives.
The Nestlé boycott begins March 21 and lasts until March 28.
Nestlé produces several everyday items, including Cheerios cereal, Purina and Fancy Feast pet food, KitKat chocolate, Cerelac baby food, and more.
Additional economic boycotts include Walmart, McDonald's, and General Mills, plus additional Amazon and Target boycotts.
Next up, Nestlé.
After boycotts of Amazon and Target for rolling back their DEI initiatives, activists are targeting the brand behind Purina pet foods, Coffee-Mate creamers and Toll House chocolate chips, among many more. Here's what to know.
Why are Nestlé, Amazon, Target being boycotted?
After President Donald Trump called to rescind diversity, equality and inclusion policies at the federal level, many companies began rolling back their own programs. In response to that, activists have organized boycotts of those companies, including Amazon, Target, Walmart, Nestlé and more.
A 40-day boycott of Target, timed to coincide with Lent, a 40-day period of prayer and fasting leading up to Easter, began last week. An Amazon boycott wrapped up last week, but another is coming in May, the Arizona Republic reports.
DEI explained: What is DEI and why is it so divisive? What you need to know.
When does the boycott of Nestlé begin? Why this boycott is different
The boycott of Nestlé products begins Friday, March 21 and ends March 28, per the Arizona Republic.
While the Target and Amazon involved not shopping with either major retailer, the Nestlé one will have participants avoiding a slew of products, from pet food to chocolate as well as cereal and frozen pizza.
What brands does Nestlé own?
According to its website, Nestlé owns hundreds of brands in several categories:
Nestlé produces Purina, Alpo, Fancy Feast and many more pet foods
Alpo dog food
dog food Bakers dog food
dog food Beggin' dog treats
dog treats Beneful dog food
dog food Beyond dog food
dog food Busy Bone dog treats
dog treats Cat Chow cat food
cat food Dog Chow dog food
dog food Fancy Feast cat food
cat food Felix cat food
cat food Gourmet pet food
pet food Lily's Kitchen pet foods
pet foods Merrick pet food
pet food Pro Plan Veterinary Diets pet food
pet food Purina pet food
pet food Purina One pet food
pet food Purina Pro Plan pet food
pet food Supercoat dog food
dog food Terra Canis dog food
dog food Tidy Cats litter
Sorry, chocolate fans: Nestlé makes KitKat and several other brands
Aero chocolate bars
chocolate bars Baci Perugina chocolate-hazelnut candies
chocolate-hazelnut candies Cailler chocolate
chocolate Damak chocolate-pistachio candies
chocolate-pistachio candies Garoto chocolate
chocolate Hsu Fu Chi biscuits, chocolates and jellies
biscuits, chocolates and jellies KitKat chocolate bars and cereal
chocolate bars and cereal Milkybar chocolate
chocolate Milo chocolate malt
chocolate malt Munch chocolate
chocolate Quality Street chocolates and candies
chocolates and candies Sahne Nuss chocolate
Baby food and supplements made by Nestlé
Cerelac baby food
baby food Compleat tube feeding
tube feeding Gerber baby food
Nestléproduces Coffee-Mate, Carnation, bottled water and more beverages
Acqua Panna mineral water
mineral water Bear Brand milk drinks
milk drinks Boost nutritional drinks
nutritional drinks Buxton British mineral water
British mineral water Carnation dessert sauces, drinks and powders
dessert sauces, drinks and powders Coffee-Mate creamer
creamer Erikli water
water Essentia water
water Henniez mineral water
mineral water Hepar mineral water
mineral water La Vie mineral water
mineral water Levissima water
water Nescafé coffee
coffee Nespresso coffee
coffee Nesquik drinks, cereal, chocolate syrup and powder
drinks, cereal, chocolate syrup and powder Nestea drinks
drinks Nestlé Pure Life water
water Nestlé Sustainable Sourced Cocoa
Nido milk
milk Perrier sparkling water
sparkling water Plant-based and so good dairy alternatives
dairy alternatives Roastelier by Nescafé coffee roasting system
coffee roasting system S.Pellegrino water
water Sanpellegrino water
water Starbucks Coffee at Home coffee
coffee Vittel mineral water
DiGiorno, Lean Cuisine, Stouffer's and more prepared meals under Nestlé umbrella
DiGiorno frozen pizza
frozen pizza Garden Gourmet meals
meals Harvest Gourmet meals
meals Hot Pockets snacks
snacks Lean Cuisine meals
meals Life Cuisine meals
meals Stouffer's frozen meals
Nestlé makes well-known cereal, ice cream and supplement brands
Nestlé is also responsible for several popular cereal brands U.S. consumers will recognize, including Cheerios, Corn Flakes, Shredded Wheat Original and Trix.
Drumstick and Häagen-Dazs are among the frozen ice cream treats made by Nestlé, and the company also produces Garden of Life, Impact, Nature's Bounty, Peptamen and Resource nutritional supplements, among others.
Boycotts planned against Walmart, McDonald's and more; another economic blackout set
The Arizona Republic reports that a flier shared on social media lays out a series of upcoming boycotts:
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Newsweek
14 minutes ago
- Newsweek
Donald Trump Defends 'Weak Dollar,' Economic Analysts Respond
Based on facts, either observed and verified firsthand by the reporter, or reported and verified from knowledgeable sources. Newsweek AI is in beta. Translations may contain inaccuracies—please refer to the original content. President Donald Trump defended the weakening U.S. dollar during a conversation with reporters Friday. "Well, you know, I'm a person that likes a strong dollar, but a weak dollar makes you a hell of a lot more money," Trump said in a media Q&A. Newsweek spoke with financial experts about the matter. Why It Matters While the U.S. dollar gained ground Friday, it still set for a weekly drop amid ongoing tariff negotiations and The Fed's bank meeting scheduled for next week. This week marks the greatest drop in a month, with the dollar index standing at 97.448. That shows a 1 percent weekly decline, while the euro stayed at $1.1754, close to its four-year high of $1.183. U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to the media as he departs the White House on July 15, 2025 in Washington, DC. U.S. President Donald Trump speaks to the media as he departs the White House on July 15, 2025 in Washington, To Know During Trump's conversation with reporters, he defended the declining value of the U.S. dollar, arguing that there were actually some benefits to the currency losing value. "When we have a strong dollar, one thing happens," Trump said. "It sounds good, but you don't do any tourism.... You can't sell anything. It is good for inflation. That's about it." Trump went on to say the U.S. has wiped out inflation. "I will never say I like a low currency, but you remember the battles I China, with Japan... They always wanted a weak currency. They're trying to get a weak currency now." However, economists have warned that the weakening U.S. dollar is likely to spark a price hike on everyday items while also forcing U.S. travelers to pay more when abroad. "A weaker dollar does have certain benefits—particularly for multinational corporations and U.S. exporters. It makes American goods more competitive abroad and can boost earnings when foreign profits are converted back into dollars," Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek. "But let's be clear: the U.S. is a consumer-driven, import-heavy economy. A weaker dollar makes imports more expensive, which can drive inflation. So while there are benefits on the corporate side, it also hurts households by increasing the cost of everyday goods." Thompson also said Trump's comments on inflation were incorrect, as consumers are still facing price increases in many areas. "He's dead wrong," Thompson said. "We're still seeing elevated prices in areas like energy, particularly piped gas, and in household essentials. Food costs continue to climb, especially meat, and many families are seeing higher utility bills. Disinflation doesn't mean prices are falling—it just means they're rising more slowly, but they're still rising." In June, the consumer price index for all urban consumers climbed 0.3 percent, seasonally adjusted. Meanwhile, food was up 3 percent year-over-year, not seasonally adjusted. So far this year, the dollar has dropped more than 10 percent in value relative to foreign currencies from many of America's trading partners. Thompson said the U.S. dollar's weakness stems from a mix of concerns over U.S. fiscal policy. "Continued deficit spending and ballooning debt levels have led to questions about long-term economic stability. Since the dollar is the world's reserve currency, its strength is tied to global trust in our economy," Thompson said. Trump's ongoing tariff negotiations have also signaled alarm amongst some economists, who say that the heightened tariffs could be passed along by importers via higher prices. What People Are Saying Peter Schiff, chief economist and global strategist at wrote on X: "Trump said he wants a strong dollar but he also wants a weaker dollar. He says a strong dollar makes you feel better, but a weak dollar makes you richer. He also claimed he crushed inflation. His policies are highly inflationary. Trump's weak dollar dream will be a nightmare." Alex Beene, a financial literacy instructor for the University of Tennessee at Martin, told Newsweek: "A weaker dollar can have some benefits, namely in the form of cheaper exports which can boost demand for our goods and services internationally. However, the cons can easily outweigh the pros. A weaker dollar equates to higher prices on many items for American consumers, particularly on imports." Kevin Thompson, the CEO of 9i Capital Group and the host of the 9innings podcast, told Newsweek: "Despite no rate cuts yet this year, the dollar has weakened due to shifting interest rate expectations and a broader macroeconomic backdrop. Historically, higher U.S. interest rates attract capital, strengthening the dollar—but even with relatively high rates, the dollar is off to one of its worst starts in decades." What Happens Next For everyday Americans, the declining U.S. dollar could continue to impact their wallets after years of inflationary pressures, experts say. "Inflationary pressures have already left a sizable dent in many Americans' wallets in the years since the pandemic. Further weakening of the dollar could just prolong this effect," Beene said.
New York Times
14 minutes ago
- New York Times
What does Trump's college sports executive order mean? Breaking down the impact
'President Donald J. Trump Saves College Sports.' If only it was that simple. The 176th executive order President Trump signed in the past seven months was announced Thursday with an audaciously headlined statement from the White House. We don't know how this will play out long term. But these are the key facts surrounding the executive order and the questions that need to be answered. Advertisement The NCAA has been under attack on numerous legal fronts for more than a decade, particularly when it comes to paying athletes. Its policy for decades was strict amateurism — any compensation athletes received beyond their scholarships would render them ineligible. The model began cracking through a series of antitrust cases brought by former athletes, most notably Alston vs. NCAA in 2021. The Supreme Court ruled 9-0 that schools must be allowed to provide additional academic awards. By then, states began passing legislation allowing athletes to earn money from their name, image and likeness — i.e. endorsement deals — in direct opposition to the NCAA's longstanding ban. On July 1, 2021, the NCAA relented and began allowing NIL payments, which touched off another antitrust case, House v. NCAA. A class of former athletes sued for back pay for missing out on NIL opportunities. The defendants agreed to a $2.8 billion settlement, part of which allows schools to pay athletes directly for the first time, up to $20.5 million. A judge approved the settlement on June 6, 2025. But the lack of an organized NIL system has led to chaos, with boosters exploiting the lack of enforcement. And with other legal challenges forcing the NCAA to eliminate its longstanding rules about transfers, athletes now routinely hop from one school to another in search of their next payday. Desperate for regulation, college sports leaders have been lobbying Congress for help in the form of a federal law for years, but not until recently has there been any significant movement on a bill. The order essentially makes recommendations for how college athletic departments should operate and directs several government agencies to weigh in on issues that will shape the future of college sports. It also delivers the NCAA and conferences much of what it has been lobbying for on Capitol Hill. Advertisement However, the order's ability to turn ideas into action is questionable. The order: Considering how much it falls in line with what college sports leaders have been asking for, it would be difficult to call it athlete-friendly. Yes, it tries to protect non-revenue programs and force schools to fund a wide-range of teams for athletes to participate in college sports, but limiting compensation by regulating NIL compensation and banning pay-for-play has been at the root of problems for decades. 'Looks like an NCAA press release,' said Marc Edelman, professor of sports law at Baruch College and antitrust expert who has been a critic of NCAA policies. Several ideas for student-athlete compensation have emerged over the years to help relegate the market, from collective bargaining agreements to defining student-athletes as university employees. Though how much athletes actually want those things is hard to say; with more than 190,000 athletes competing in Division I sports, gauging consensus is tricky. In the short term: no. In the long term: maybe. The biggest possible downside of the executive order is it could create more uncertainty for college sports, creating policies that may or may not hold. 'It very much depends on how this gets enforced moving forward, and whether it gets enforced moving forward,' said Sam Ehrlich, assistant professor at Boise State's college of business and economics. 'Maybe this could just end up being just a statement that goes absolutely nowhere.' It's not so much what an executive order can do as what it can't. It can't make a law, it can't provide an antitrust exemption and it can't override state laws. Congress can do that. And that's what college sports needs. Advertisement Any policies that come from an executive order can either be challenged in court and reversed by the next administration, which means college sports continues to operate under a blanket of uncertainty when it comes to defining the relationship between schools and athletes. That's exactly what college sports leaders are trying to stop. The executive branch does not have the authority to provide straightforward solutions to college sports' problems, most importantly some form of antitrust exemption. That has to come from Congress, and right now will require bipartisan support. The president's involvement could prioritize the issues in a way that motivates lawmakers to build on recent momentum in the Republican-controlled House, where a college sports bill made it out of committee for the first time earlier this week. Or maybe pervasive political divisiveness makes Democrats recoil from the idea of giving the president a symbolic victory. While the complicated problems facing college sports now are not quite a matter of life and death, it remains to be seen if presidential involvement makes finding solutions easier or harder. The SCORE Act is a House bill that would provide the NCAA and conferences some antitrust protection, pre-empt state laws related to NIL compensation and bolster the terms of the House settlement. The SCORE Act made it through two Republican-led House committees on partisan lines earlier this week. No college sports bill has ever gotten so far. When Congress returns for the fall session, the bill could go to the House floor for a vote and it will probably pass. That's meaningful and a positive sign for many in college sports after years of inaction by lawmakers. The bill also has little support from Democrats in the House and stands very little chance of making it through the Senate, where seven Democrats would have to vote with Republicans to get the 60 necessary to pass. Advertisement The debate over college sports legislation on Capitol Hill is akin to a labor dispute. Republicans, who currently control both chambers and the White House, are focused on ways to shield the NCAA and college sports conferences from litigation and state laws that make it impossible for them to effectively govern national competition. Democrats are demanding greater protections for the workers (the athletes) and are hesitant to provide the antitrust protections college sports leaders have been lobbying for. The NCAA and conferences want a law that would prevent college athletes from being deemed employees. Democrats want that option left open, along with athletes' rights to organize and maybe even join unions. The president's EO is the most significant and direct entry by the executive branch into college athletics since Teddy Roosevelt's calls for safety reforms in football led to the creation of the NCAA in 1906. Lyndon Johnson's executive order signed in 1967, led to the passage of the federal Title IX gender discrimination law, which has been credited with paving the way for an explosion of opportunities for women in college sports. The NCAA as a governing body is ceding power to conferences and the newly formed College Sports Commission. However, it played a pivotal role in lobbying for federal legislation and has been much better received by lawmakers since former Massachusetts Gov. Charlie Baker took over as NCAA president two years ago. The NCAA's future will ultimately be determined by college sports stakeholders, not politicians. The White House's announcement hailed Trump's long-held interest in college athletics, including preserving Olympic and women's sports amid the changing landscape. Until now, Trump's engagement with higher education has been adversarial, threatening federal funding and litigation against schools for Title IX violations or allegations of antisemitism and discrimination through the promotion of diversity at universities. Advertisement Trump came away from a meeting with former Alabama football coach Nick Saban in May motivated to get involved. The formation of a presidential commission led by Saban and billionaire oil businessman Cody Campbell, a former Texas Tech football player and current board chair, was considered then put on hold as lawmakers worked on legislative solutions.
USA Today
16 minutes ago
- USA Today
Ivy League colleges face a reckoning after Columbia's Trump deal
Other prestigious universities, from Harvard to Penn, have taken vastly different approaches to dealing with pressure from the White House. WASHINGTON – It's a rough time to be the president of an Ivy League university. Although President Donald Trump graduated from one, he's made it clear he won't tolerate the liberal slant he sees at America's most prestigious colleges – and that he intends to reshape them accordingly. His administration's unprecedented deal with Columbia University in New York City has put many of its Ivy League peers in a tough spot. To shake the target off its back and unpause research funding, Columbia agreed on July 23 to pay fines of more than $220 million (and signed on to a sprawling list of other concessions related to admissions, academics and hiring practices). The accord has unnerved leaders at college campuses across the country. "This has opened up a Pandora's box," said Scott Schneider, an attorney and expert in higher education law. Read more: The details of Columbia's extraordinary $220 million deal with Trump, explained Trump, who has halted billions in research grants to a slew of schools, has said he envisions the Columbia deal as the first of many such agreements. His education secretary, Linda McMahon, called it a blueprint for other institutions to follow. Read more: After $220 million Columbia deal, Trump promises more to come "Columbia's reforms are a roadmap for elite universities that wish to regain the confidence of the American public," she said in a statement. While it's unclear whether the agreement has set a new precedent, the Trump administration is pushing for other colleges to pay similar types of fines, a White House official confirmed to USA TODAY. Some onlookers, including Larry Summers, a former president of Harvard, have lauded the deal. He called it an "excellent template" for resolutions with the administration. But critics such as Brendan Cantwell, a higher education professor at Michigan State University, believe the short-term benefits of conceding to broad demands from the Trump administration are not worth the long-term implications of redefining the relationship between the federal government and higher education. Still, he understands the arguments of people like Summers. When colleges choose to fight, he acknowledged, "individual people are going to be hurt." "And maybe that's an unacceptable cost," he said. Trump's other deal: the University of Pennsylvania Columbia isn't the only Ivy League school to strike a deal with the Trump administration this summer. On July 1, the University of Pennsylvania, the president's alma mater in Philadelphia, entered into an agreement ending a civil rights investigation brought by the U.S. Department of Education. In February, the agency accused Penn of violating Title IX, the primary sex discrimination law governing schools, when it allowed Lia Thomas, a transgender swimmer, to compete in 2022. By March, professors were told their research projects had lost funding. The school's president said $175 million in grants and programs had been jeopardized. As part of the deal, the White House said it would restore Penn's research funding. In return, the university apologized to cisgender athletes who swam against Thomas. The university also agreed to ban transgender women from sports. (Trans women athletes have been banned from competing on women's teams at National Collegiate Athletic Association schools since February, when new rules were imposed, although the NCAA's policy permits trans men to compete in men's sports.) Read more: Lia Thomas, Title IX and $175M — why Penn struck a deal with Trump Weeks after the deal was announced, many Penn faculty members remain in limbo, unsure about which grants have been revived. "Nobody really knows what was cut and what was restored," said Jonathan Zimmerman, a professor who studies the history of education at the university. "It feels like the theater of the absurd." Harvard keeps fighting Harvard, unlike the other Ivy League campuses immersed in similar conflicts, has continued to battle the Trump administration in court. At a key hearing in Boston on July 21, the university's lawyers urged a federal judge to force the White House to restore billions in funding for the school. Harvard has asked the judge to reach a decision by Sept. 3. But the White House's attacks on Harvard have extended far beyond financial issues: The Trump administration has threatened to revoke its tax-exempt status, tried to ban its ability to enroll international students, warned its accreditor, and considered placing a lien on the university's assets. All the while, Trump has hinted he believes Harvard may still be open to striking a deal. Other colleges in limbo Of the eight schools that make up the Ivy League, only two – Dartmouth College in New Hampshire and Yale University in Connecticut – have avoided targeted federal funding freezes. At Cornell, the government paused more than $1 billion. At Brown, it froze $510 million, and at Princeton stopped more than $210 million. Asked whether their university leaders were negotiating with the Trump administration to restore their funding, spokespeople for Brown, Cornell and Princeton declined to comment or did not respond to requests for comment. Additional agreements with those schools (and others) could happen before the start of the year, according to Robert Kelchen, a higher education professor at the University of Tennessee, Knoxville. The Trump administration, plagued by heightened attention to the president's reported ties to convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein, may be looking for ways to change the narrative, Kelchen said. And some schools might feel incentivized to resolve funding problems before students – and protests – return to campus for the fall. "The whole Epstein thing really has the potential to swamp the administration," he said. "They want victories they can point to." Zachary Schermele is an education reporter for USA TODAY. You can reach him by email at zschermele@ Follow him on X at @ZachSchermele and Bluesky at @
