These 14 corporations have stopped or scaled back sponsorship of LGBTQ+ Pride events
Garnier micellar water bottle; Stack of Mastercard credit cards; Skyy Vodka bottle; Target store
When corporations got rid of their diversity, equity, and inclusion initiatives, many also axed their commitments to LGBTQ+ Pride Month.
Even before Donald Trump's executive orders terminating all DEI positions in the federal government, dozens of major companies had already abandoned their practices. Many made their decisions after conservatives online specifically targeted them for their policies and threatened boycotts, with failed filmmaker turned failed congressional candidate Robby Starbuck taking credit for spearheading the movement.
This withdrawal didn't just encompass inclusive work environments and hiring practices, or participation in the Human Rights Campaign's Corporate Equality Index — in abandoning DEI, companies also ceased many of their community partnerships. This included small businesses, minority- and women-owned businesses, and organizations supporting underserved groups: veterans, people of color, and LGBTQ+ people.
As a result, many of the companies abandoning DEI have stopped sponsoring Pride Month events. Here are the companies that have walked back their support, some of them after decades of allyship.
ImagineerInc / Shutterstock.com
Anheuser-Busch products in store fridge
The brewer behind brands such as Bud Light, Budweiser, Corona, and Stella Artois declined to sponsor Pride in its home city of St. Louis after a partnership of over 30 years. DEI and outreach director, Jordan Braxton, told NBC News that St. Louis Pride was left $150,000 short of its goal, until donations from the community made up the difference within days.
The company also withdrew from San Francisco Pride and Columbus Pride. Anheuser-Busch, which was the target of a conservative boycott after simply sending a free beer to a transgender influencer, has not yet commented publicly on its backing out of Pride events.
DCStockPhotography / Shutterstock.com
Booz Allen Hamilton building in Washington D.C.
U.S. government defense contractor Booz Allen Hamilton Holding Corp. dropped its sponsorship of WorldPride, which is being hosted in Washington, D.C. from May 17 to June 8., shortly after it ended its DEI programs.
Chief People Officer Aimee George Leary said during a virtual company town hall first viewed by Bloomberg : 'While our existing people programs comply with law, it is clear from [Trump's] executive orders and other public statements, that the definition of what's allowed is changing, so we must make changes. If we don't, we could be ineligible for contracts with the federal government. This would put our ability to operate and our company at risk.'
Below the Sky / Shutterstock.com
Citi building in Warsaw, Poland
Banking giant Citi was one of the low-level donors that withdrew or scaled back its sponsorship of NYC Pride. Spokesperson Kevin Kilbride told The New York Times that 'the vast majority of what we have heard is that folks are treading carefully from an economic perspective."
Tada Images / Shutterstock.com
Comcast Xfinity car in neighborhood
Comcast was another major company that withdrew from San Francisco Pride, according to Ford. A spokesperson for the corporation would not comment on why it backed out, but noted to NBC that it is sponsoring other Pride celebrations in its home state of California, including Silicon Valley Pride, Oakland Pride, and some events at San Francisco Pride that are hosted by other nonprofits.
Patcharaporn Puttipon4289 / Shutterstock.com
Smirnoff vodka bottles in ice
Diageo, the company behind alcohol brands such as Baileys, Captain Morgan, Crown Royal, and Smirnoff among others also withdrew from San Francisco Pride. A spokesperson told NBC that the company backed out due to some changes in the sponsorships budget for California, but that it would still be active in the city during June, and would be involved in Pride events around the country through its Smirnoff vodka brand.
darksoul72 / Shutterstock.com
Garnier body wash bottle
Heritage of Pride, the organization that produces New York City's annual Pride events, previously had five "Platinum" donors — those who had donated $175,000. This year, it has just one. Hair care company Garnier was one of the four "Platinum" donors that has withdrawn its support in 2025 after several years of sponsorship.
refrina / Shutterstock.com
Lowe's Home Improvement store
Lowe's Home Improvement withdrew its support for Pride Month events this year in Columbus, Ohio. Stonewall Columbus Executive Director Densil Porteous told The Columbus Dispatch that the $125,000 in lost donations was made up for by the community and their other partners.
"Those [companies] who probably only saw this opportunity as a marketing moment have backed down, and we are sorry to see them go," Porteous said. "But we are thankful for those partners who continue to support us."
hodim / Shutterstock.com
Mastercard logo on card
Mastercard was another one of NYC Pride's four "Platinum" donors that withdrew support after several years of sponsoring the celebration. However, the company will still be participating in the march and other events.
'Mastercard is a longstanding supporter of the many communities of which our employees are members, including the LGBTQIA+ community globally,' a spokesperson told The Wall Street Journal.
Jonathan Weiss / Shutterstock.com
Nissan car at dealership
Automaker Nissan was another one of the low-level donors that withdrew or scaled back its sponsorship of NYC Pride, while also withdrawing from San Francisco Pride and Columbus Pride.
A spokesperson told NBC that the company is 'currently reviewing all marketing and sales spending, including auto shows, sports properties and other entertainment activations, to maximize both efficiency and breakthrough effectiveness," adding, 'Nissan remains committed to promoting an inclusive culture for employees, consumers, dealers and other key stakeholders.'
MeSamong / Shutterstock.com
Pepsi bottles on store shelf
PepsiCo — which makes Aquafina, Cap'n Crunch, Cheetos, Doritos, Frito's, Gatorade, Lay's, Life, cereal, Lipton, Mountain Dew, Tostitos, and Quaker Oats among other snacks and drinks — was another one of the low-level donors that withdrew or scaled back its sponsorship of NYC Pride.
William Barton / Shutterstock.com
PricewaterhouseCoopers building
Consulting firm PricewaterhouseCoopers was another one of the low-level donors that withdrew or scaled back its sponsorship of NYC Pride, as first reported by WSJ.
calimedia / Shutterstock.com
Skyy Vodka bottles and cases
Skyy Vodka was another one of the four "Platinum" donors that either stopped or scaled back support, or asked for their involvement to go unpublicized, as first reported by The Times.
ZikG / Shutterstock.com
Target shopping cart in parking lot
Target is the fourth "Platinum" donor to alter its commitment to Heritage of Pride. While the company is still "sponsoring NYC Pride at a level consistent with last year,' according to spokesperson Joe Unger, Kilbride told The Times that it is contributing as a 'silent partner' and requested not to be listed as a Platinum donor to avoid 'the publicity."
Conversely, after Target made the decision to drop DEI initiatives, the largest Pride festival in the company's home state of Minnesota decided to drop them as a sponsor. Twin Cities Pride raised over twice the amount pledged by Target in less than 24 hours.
Related: Target dropped DEI, so Minnesota's largest Pride festival dropped Target's sponsorship — and raised even more
Framalicious / Shutterstock.com
Walmart store
Walmart withdrew its sponsorship from Stonewall Columbus' Pride Month Events. The company said that store employees in the Columbus area will still be volunteering with community organizations, including LGBTQ+ organizations.
Spokesperson Jimmy Carter told The Dispatch that the company is focused on 'creating an environment where our associates and customers feel they belong.'
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
10 minutes ago
- Yahoo
UK Reveals Deadly Reason Why Putin Wants Ukraine To Hand Over Unoccupied Land To End War
The Ministry of Defence has revealed why Vladimir Putin wants Ukraine to hand over large swathes of its unoccupied land to end the war. In its latest intelligence update on the conflict, the MoD said Russia would be forced to fight for more than four years and suffer nearly two million casualties if it had to fight for it. The analysis came as Putin set out his peace plans at a summit with Donald Trump in Alaska. According to the Reuters news agency, the proposed deal would see Ukraine fully withdraw from the eastern Donetsk and Luhansk regions in return for a Russian pledge to freeze the front lines in the southern regions of Kherson and Zaporizhzhia. But the MoD said: 'Based on the rate of Russia's incremental battlefield advances so far in 2025, it would take Russian forces approximately 4.4 more years to gain 100% of the four Ukrainian oblasts' territory. 'Based on Russia's average daily casualty rate in 2025 so far, as reported by Ukrainian general staff, 4.4 more years of war would lead to approximately 1,930,000 further Russian casualties (killed and wounded). 'This is in addition to the approximately 1,060,000 casualties Russia has already likely sustained since launching the full-scale invasion of Ukraine in 2022, including around 250,000 killed or missing (presumed dead).' After his talks with Putin, Trump told Fox News: 'I think we're pretty close to a deal. Ukraine has to agree to it. Maybe they'll say 'no'.' But speaking following talks with European Commission president Ursula von der Leyen in Brussels today, Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy said: 'The constitution of Ukraine makes it impossible to give up territory or trade land. ' He said any such moves would need to be discussed at a three-way summit involving him, Putin and Trump. Von der Leyen, also insisted that 'international borders cannot be changed by force'. Related... Volodymyr Zelenskyy Delivers Blunt Message To Donald Trump After His Ukraine War U-Turn Trump Floats Alternative After Failing To Secure Russia-Ukraine Ceasefire Deal: 'Lives Will Be Saved' Trump Writes Post About Moscow That's Absurd Even For Him
Fox News
12 minutes ago
- Fox News
Former NATO commander says 'it's up to the US' to stop Putin
Ret. Gen. Wesley Clark discusses Vladimir Putin's proposal to Volodymyr Zelenskyy to end the war in Ukraine and President Donald Trump's plan going forward as he pushes for peace.
CNN
12 minutes ago
- CNN
How the Supreme Court could wind up scrapping high-profile precedents in coming months
The Supreme Court's landmark opinion on same-sex marriage isn't the only high-profile precedent the justices will have an opportunity to tinker with – or entirely scrap – when the court reconvenes this fall. From a 1935 opinion that has complicated President Donald Trump's effort to consolidate power to a 2000 decision that deals with prayer at high school football games, the court will soon juggle a series of appeals seeking to overturn prior decisions that critics say are 'outdated,' 'poorly reasoned' or 'egregiously wrong.' While many of those decisions are not as prominent as the court's 2015 ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges that gave same-sex couples access to marriage nationwide, some may be more likely to find a receptive audience. Generally, both conservative and liberal justices are reticent to engage in do-overs because it undermines stability in the law. And independent data suggests the high court under Chief Justice John Roberts has been less willing to upend past rulings on average than earlier courts. But the Supreme Court's 6-3 conservative majority hasn't shied from overturning precedent in recent years – notably on abortion but also affirmative action and government regulations. The court's approval in polling has never fully recovered from its 2022 decision to overturn Roe v. Wade, which established the constitutional right to abortion. Here are some past rulings the court could reconsider in the coming months. Even before Trump was reelected, the Supreme Court's conservatives had put a target on a Roosevelt-era precedent that protects the leaders of independent agencies from being fired by the president for political reasons. The first few months of Trump's second term have only expedited its demise. The 1935 decision, Humphrey's Executor v. US, stands for the idea that Congress may shield the heads of independent federal agencies, like the National Labor Relations Board or the Consumer Product Safety Commission, from being fired by the president without cause. But in recent years, the court has embraced the view that Congress overstepped its authority with those for-cause requirements on the executive branch. Court watchers largely agree 'that Humphrey's Executor is next on the Supreme Court's chopping block, meaning the next case they are slated to reverse,' said Victoria Nourse, a professor at Georgetown University Law Center who worked in the Biden administration. In a series of recent emergency orders, the court has allowed Trump – ever eager to remove dissenting voices from power – to fire leaders of independent agencies who were appointed by former President Joe Biden. The court's liberal wing has complained that, following those decisions, the Humphrey's decision is already effectively dead. 'For 90 years, Humphrey's Executor v. United States has stood as a precedent of this court,' Justice Elena Kagan wrote last month. 'Our emergency docket, while fit for some things, should not be used to overrule or revise existing law.' Through the end of the Supreme Court term that ended in June, the Roberts court overruled precedent an average of 1.5 times each term, according to Lee Epstein, a law professor at Washington University in St. Louis who oversees the Supreme Court Database. That compares with 2.9 times on average prior to Roberts, dating to 1953. An important outstanding question is which case challenging Humphrey's will make it to the Supreme Court – and when. The high court has already agreed to hear an appeal – possibly this year – that could overturn a 2001 precedent limiting how much political parties can spend in coordination with federal candidates. Democrats warn the appeal, if successful, could 'blow open the cap on the amount of money that donors can funnel to candidates.' In a lawsuit initially filed by then-Senate candidate JD Vance and other Republicans, the challengers describe the 2001 decision upholding the caps – FEC v. Colorado Republican Federal Campaign Committee – as an 'aberration' that was 'plainly wrong the day it was decided.' If a majority of the court thinks the precedent controls the case, they wrote in their appeal, 'it should overrule that outdated decision.' Republicans say the caps are hopelessly inconsistent with the Supreme Court's modern campaign finance doctrine and that they have 'harmed our political system by leading donors to send their funds elsewhere,' such as super PACs, which can raise unlimited funds but do not coordinate with candidates. In recent years, the Supreme Court has tended to shoot down campaign finance rules as violating the First Amendment. A recent Supreme Court appeal from Kim Davis, a former county clerk from Kentucky who refused to issue marriage licenses to same-sex couples, has raised concerns from some about the court overturning its decade-old Obergefell decision. Davis is appealing a $100,000 jury verdict – plus $260,000 for attorneys' fees – awarded over her move to defy the Supreme Court's decision and decline to issue the licenses. Davis has framed her appeal in religious terms, a strategy that often wins on the conservative court. She described Obergefell as a 'mistake' that 'must be corrected.' 'If ever there was a case of exceptional importance, the first individual in the Republic's history who was jailed for following her religious convictions regarding the historic definition of marriage, this should be it,' Davis told the justices in her appeal. Even if there are five justices willing to overturn the decision – and there are plenty of signs there are not – many court watchers believe Davis' appeal is unlikely to be the vehicle for that review. Ilya Somin, a law professor at George Mason University, wrote recently that there are 'multiple flaws' with Davis' case. People in the private sector – say, a wedding cake baker or a website developer – likely have a First Amendment right to exercise their objections to same-sex marriage. But, Somin wrote, public employees are a very different matter. 'They are not exercising their own rights,' he wrote, 'but the powers of the state.' Days after returning to the bench in October to begin a new term, the Supreme Court will hear arguments in one of the most significant appeals on its docket. The case centers on Louisiana's fraught congressional districts map and whether the state violated the 14th Amendment when it drew a second majority-Black district. If the court sides with a group of self-described 'non-Black voters,' it could gut a key provision of the Voting Rights Act. Three years ago, a federal court ruled that Louisiana likely violated the Voting Rights Act by drawing only one majority Black district out of six. When state lawmakers tried to fix that problem by drawing a second majority-minority district, a group of White voters sued. Another court then ruled that the new district was drawn based predominantly on race and thus violated the Constitution. The court heard oral arguments in the case in March. But rather than issuing a decision, it then took the unusual step in June of holding the case for more arguments. Earlier this month, the court ordered more briefing on the question of whether the creation of a majority-minority district to remedy a possible Voting Rights Act violation is constitutional. The case has nationwide implications; if the court rules that lawmakers can't fix violations of the Voting Rights Act by drawing new majority-minority districts, it could make it virtually impossible to enforce the landmark 1965 law when it comes to redistricting. That outcome could effectively overturn a line of Supreme Court precedents dating to its 1986 decision in Thornburg v. Gingles, in which the court ruled that North Carolina had violated the Voting Rights Act by diluting the power of Black voters. Just two years ago, the court ordered officials in Alabama to redraw the state's congressional map, upholding a lower court decision that found the state had violated the statute. 'Some opponents of the Voting Rights Act may urge the court to go further and overturn long-standing precedents, but there's absolutely no reason to go there,' said Michael Li, an expert on redistricting and voting rights and a senior counsel in the Brennan Center's Democracy Program. The case will not affect the battle raging over redistricting and the effort by Texas Republicans to redraw congressional boundaries to benefit their party. That's because the Supreme Court ruled in a landmark 2019 decision that federal courts cannot review partisan gerrymanders. What's at stake in the Louisiana case, instead, is how far lawmakers may go in considering race when they redraw congressional and state legislative boundaries every decade. Air Force Staff Sgt. Cameron Beck was killed in 2021 on Whiteman Air Force Base in Missouri when a civilian employee driving a government-issued van turned in front of his motorcycle. When his wife tried to sue the federal government for damages, she was blocked by a 1950 Supreme Court decision that severely limits damages litigation from service members and their families. The pending appeal from Beck's family, which the court will review behind closed doors next month, will give the justices another opportunity to reconsider that widely criticized precedent. The so-called Feres Doctrine generally prohibits service members from suing the government for injuries that arose 'incident to service.' The idea is that members of the military can't sue the government for injuries that occur during wartime or training. But critics say the upshot is that service members have been barred from filing routine tort claims – including for traffic accidents involving government vehicles – that anyone else could file. 'This court should overrule Feres,' Justice Clarence Thomas, a stalwart conservative, wrote earlier this year in a similar case the court declined to hear. 'It has been almost universally condemned by judges and scholars.' Thomas is correct that criticism of the opinion has bridged ideologies. The Constitutional Accountability Center, a liberal group, authored a brief in the Beck case arguing that the 'sweeping bar to recovery for servicemembers' adopted by the Feres decision 'is at odds' with what Congress intended. But the federal government, regardless of which party controls the White House, has long rejected those arguments. The Justice Department urged the Supreme Court to reject Beck's case, noting that Feres has 'been the law for more than 70 years, and has been repeatedly reaffirmed by this court.' Prominent religious groups are taking aim at a 25-year-old Supreme Court precedent that barred prayer from being broadcast over the public address system before varsity football games at a Texas high school. In that 6-3 decision, the court ruled that a policy permitting the student-led prayer violated the Establishment Clause, a part of the First Amendment that blocks the government from establishing a state religion. But the court's makeup and views on religion have shifted substantially since then, with a series of significant rulings that thinned the wall that once separated church from state. When the justices meet in late September to decide whether to grant new appeals, they will weigh a request to overturn that earlier decision, Santa Fe Independent School District v. Doe. The new case involves a Christian school in Florida that was forbidden by the state athletic association from broadcasting the prayer ahead of a championship game with another religious school. The Supreme Court should overrule Santa Fe 'as out of step with its more recent government-speech precedent,' the school's attorneys told the high court in its appeal. 'Santa Fe,' they said, 'was dubious from the outset.' It is an argument that may find purchase with the court's conservatives, who have increasingly framed state policies that exclude religious actors as discriminatory. In 2022, the high court reinstated a football coach, Joseph Kennedy, who lost his job at a public high school after praying at the 50-yard line after games. Those prayers, conservative Justice Neil Gorsuch wrote for the court at the time, amounted to 'a brief, quiet, personal religious observance.' Kennedy submitted a brief in the new case urging the Supreme Court to take up the appeal – and to now let pregame prayers reverberate through the stadium. The school, Kennedy's lawyers wrote, 'has a longstanding tradition of, and deeply held belief in, opening games with a prayer over the stadium loudspeaker.'
