McDonald's to face nationwide boycott in US from June 24 to 30: Here's what to know
McDonald's is expected to be one of the several companies boycotted this year by The People's Union USA, calling for 'economic resistance' as a way to hold corporations accountable and achieve 'real justice for the working class.' McDonald's has also been fighting a boycott since late 2023, spearheaded by the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement, which supports Palestine, for allegedly being involved in the Israeli military's operations in the Gaza Strip.(Representative Image/AFP)
During its current 'Economic Blackout Tour,' the organising group behind Target and Walmart boycotts, The People's Union USA, is asking Americans to avoid buying at the restaurant chain from June 24 to June 30.
A number of well-known firms have been boycotted in the first half of 2025, which was prompted by certain companies reversing their diversity, equality, and inclusion efforts. There has been a broader backlash against activities including tax evasion and labor underpayment. McDonald's facing boycott from BDS
McDonald's has also been fighting a boycott since late 2023, spearheaded by the Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions (BDS) movement, which supports Palestine, for allegedly being involved in the Israeli military's operations in the Gaza Strip.
Also Read: Prince William turns 43: Kate Middleton, kids celebrate his birthday with new puppies and heartfelt message Know about People's Union USA's McDonald's boycott
On its website, The People's Union USA describes itself as 'a grassroots movement focused on economic resistance, corporate accountability, and real justice for the working class.' The organization is spearheading the boycotts.
The group has been organizing boycotts of Amazon, Walmart, and Target since February. It has also hosted frequent 'economic blackouts,' during which it advises people to 'avoid shopping, streaming, online orders, fast food, and everything in between,' and to only do business with small, local companies.
The efforts against Walmart, Amazon, and Target have garnered more attention than the McDonald's boycott. The People's Union USA's founder, John Schwarz claimed that a 'permanent boycott' of these companies would allow them to experience 'the full power of the people.'
The People's Union USA posted a list of their main issues against each targeted corporation on its website earlier this year. The majority of the grievances were on general monopolistic behavior, labor conditions, and tax dodging. McDonald's was included for 'tax avoidance and known lobbying against wage increases,' which have led to serious backlash of the firm in recent years.
In addition to an Independence Day boycott, the People's Union USA intends to launch a month-long boycott of Home Depot, Amazon, and Starbucks. in July A boycott of McDonald's, Walmart, and Lowe's is scheduled for August, according to Schwarz.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
&w=3840&q=100)
Business Standard
17 minutes ago
- Business Standard
Harvard 'violated' civil-rights law on Jewish students' safety: Trump admin
The Trump administration has found Harvard University in violation of federal civil-rights law for "failing to protect" Jewish and Israeli students, escalating a battle that could cost the university its federal funding. In a letter sent to Harvard President Alan Garber and viewed by The Wall Street Journal, federal attorneys said the university had acted with 'deliberate indifference' to concerns raised by Jewish and Israeli students who reported feeling unsafe on campus. The letter warned that failure to implement 'adequate changes immediately' would result in the loss of all federal financial support and affect Harvard's relationship with the federal government. 'Harvard may of course continue to operate free of federal privileges,' it stated, 'and perhaps such an opportunity will spur a commitment to excellence that will help Harvard thrive once again.' Harvard denies govt findings While the Ivy League university has not publicly commented on the latest development, a spokesperson told The Wall Street Journal that the university had taken substantive steps to combat antisemitism and foster civil discourse. 'Harvard is far from indifferent on this issue and strongly disagrees with the government's findings,' the spokesperson said. The university, they added, had strengthened policies, enforced disciplinary measures, and promoted respectful dialogue. The letter also detailed reports of assaults, harassment and antisemitic imagery on campus, such as a dollar sign inside a Star of David and a defaced Israeli flag featuring a swastika. It also accused Harvard of failing to take action over a two-year period. Donald Trump vs Ivy League universities In May, the Trump administration issued a similar notice of violation to Columbia University following an investigation into the alleged harassment of Jewish students. Columbia, like Harvard, is now in negotiations with the federal government over its funding and governance. The accusation follows earlier moves by the administration, including freezing $2.3 billion in research funding and demanding federal oversight of admissions, hiring, and campus speech. Harvard rejected those demands and sued, citing violations of free speech and due process. Talks between White House and Harvard stalled Despite the escalating tensions, Trump signalled earlier this month that progress might be possible, posting on social media that Harvard had acted 'extremely appropriately' during negotiations and appeared committed to 'doing what is right'. However, the latest reports indicate that for now, talks between the White House and Harvard have stalled.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
30 minutes ago
- First Post
Why a nuclear-armed Iran doesn't spell doom for Israel or the West
The West claims that Iran's nuclear weapons pose an existential threat to Israel and possibly the United States. However, if and when Tehran develops a nuclear weapon, this may not be the case. The reason? Nuclear deterrence read more There is a strong likelihood that Iran's nuclear programme is on course. Representational Image - Reuters Benjamin Zala, Monash University As the ceasefire between Israel and Iran seems to be holding for now, it is important to reflect on whether this whole episode was worth the risks. Wider escalation was (and remains) possible, and we do not know whether Iran will seek a nuclear weapon with renewed vigour in the future. So, could we live with a nuclear-armed Iran, if it does indeed continue to pursue a bomb? Why does the West worry The conventional wisdom, at least in the Western world, is that an Iranian nuclear weapon would pose an existential threat to Israel, and possibly the United States as well. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu said his country's strikes on Iran's nuclear facilities were aimed at rolling back 'the Iranian threat to Israel's very survival'. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD White House press secretary Karoline Leavitt described an Iranian bomb as 'an existential threat, not just to Israel, but to the United States, and to the entire world'. The same mantra has been repeated by leaders in Europe, at the G7 meeting, and in Australia. Iran, of course, did not yet possess a nuclear weapon when the strikes occurred, as the UN nuclear watchdog attested. The strikes were aimed at preventing Iran from being able to do so in the future – a prospect seen by Israel and the US as simply ' unthinkable'. But if Iran had built a nuclear weapon before the Israeli and US strikes – or manages to do so in the future – would this pose an existential threat to Israel or the US? The answer is no. And for a very simple reason: nuclear deterrence works. How does nuclear deterrence work? If Iran had a monopoly on nuclear weapons, it would be different. But it does not. Israel has maintained a robust nuclear arsenal for more than half a century. Every authoritative assessment of global nuclear weapons stockpiles includes Israel's roughly 90 nuclear warheads. The Israeli government officially neither confirms nor denies the existence of its nuclear arsenal. But thanks to leaks from inside the Israeli nuclear program – as well as the best assessments from around the world – we can be quite sure they exist. It also explains why Israel has never signed the Nuclear Non-proliferation Treaty – it can't without giving up this stockpile. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD The US, of course, has been nuclear-armed since 1945 and openly maintains an inventory of thousands of nuclear warheads. These provide a deterrent against nuclear attacks on the United States. Washington also provides extended nuclear deterrence guarantees to over 30 states, including members of Nato, Japan, South Korea and Australia. It does not need to provide this for Israel, given the Israeli arsenal. But if there was ever any doubt about Israel's stockpile, it certainly could. After 80 years of living with nuclear weapons, we know the deterrent effect of assured nuclear retaliation is very powerful. It deterred both the Soviets and Americans from using nuclear weapons against each other through multiple Cold War crises. It has deterred both India and Pakistan from using them in multiple standoffs, including quite recently. It has deterred both North Korea and the US from striking each other. Similarly, Iran would no doubt be deterred from using a nuclear weapon by a certain Israeli or American response. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD If Iran had built a nuclear weapon before the Israeli and US strikes – or manages to do so in the future – this would not pose an existential threat to Israel or the US because of nuclear deterrence. File image/Reuters Iranian leaders have called for the destruction of Israel, and the chants of 'death to Israel' and 'death to America' are a common occurrence at rallies held by supporters of the regime. But beneath the fiery rhetoric lies a truism: no Iranian leader would destroy Israel with a nuclear weapon if it came at the expense of the destruction of Iran. In the history of the nation-state, not a single one has ever knowingly committed suicide. Not for any reason – ideological, religious, political or any other. All nations value survival over everything else because this allows for the achievement of other goals, such as power and prosperity. Further, Iran is ruled by a brutally authoritarian, theocratic regime. And for authoritarian regimes, staying in power is the number one priority. There is no staying in power the day after a nuclear exchange. A risky business This does not mean an Iranian nuclear weapon would be a welcome development. Far from it. Every new nuclear-armed state provides another opportunity for miscalculation or accident. It adds extra stress to an already fragile non-proliferation regime. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD In addition, nuclear deterrence is not just and can be considered ethically questionable. It may not even be sustainable over the longer term. There is no doubt the existence of over 12,000 nuclear weapons globally poses a potentially existential risk to all of humanity. But the idea that a nuclear-armed Iran would pose a unique risk to Israel or the United States simply does not stand up to scrutiny. If we can live with a nuclear-armed North Korea, nuclear-armed Pakistan, and for that matter, a nuclear-armed Israel, we can live, however reluctantly, with a nuclear-armed Iran. Regardless of whether the current proposed ceasefire between Israel and Iran holds, the military operation initiated by Israel and bolstered by the United States was extremely dangerous and unnecessary, based on both countries' justification. The regime in Tehran is brutal, authoritarian, openly antisemitic and worthy of our disdain. But there is no evidence it is suicidal. The claim an Iranian nuclear bomb would pose an existential threat to Israel or the United States and justifies unilateral, preventive military attacks makes no sense. STORY CONTINUES BELOW THIS AD It is time to stop repeating it. Benjamin Zala, Senior Lecturer, Politics & International Relations, Monash University This article is republished from The Conversation under a Creative Commons license. Read the original article.
&w=3840&q=100)
First Post
an hour ago
- First Post
West Asia News Live: Pilots from Iran strike mission to visit White House on July 4
July 1, 2025, 10:00:06 (IST) Whatsapp Facebook Twitter U.S. vision for West Asia at odds with Gulf allies' concerns over Israel The U.S. administration's foreign policy goal of a 'new Middle East,' centered on the expansion of the Abraham Accords and the normalization of Israel-Saudi relations, is facing significant challenges, as per a report in The Washington Post. Key Gulf Arab allies, including Saudi Arabia and the UAE, are expressing deep concern over what they perceive as unrestrained Israeli military operations, particularly in Gaza. These states are worried about the broader consequences, such as regional destabilization exemplified by Houthi attacks in the Red Sea, rising public anger within their own countries, and the potential for the conflict to undermine their own governmental legitimacy. This diplomatic friction has stalled crucial U.S.-led initiatives and highlights a growing divergence between Washington's strategic goals and the immediate security and political anxieties of its regional partners.
