Al Sharpton holds 'constructive and candid' meeting with Target CEO over DEI initiatives
The CEO of Target met MSNBC host Rev. Al Sharpton on Thursday as the latter's organization puts pressure on companies that previously scaled back DEI (Diversity, Equity and Inclusion) initiatives.
Sharpton met with Brian Cornell, Target's CEO, to discuss how Sharpton has encouraged his followers to boycott the chain as it has reduced its DEI efforts. The news of the meeting was first reported by CNBC.
He called the meeting with Cornell "very constructive and candid," and said that he would "inform our allies, including Rev. Dr. Jamal Bryant, of our discussion, what my feelings are, and we will go from there."
Bryant is an Atlanta pastor who organized a Target fast for Lent to protest that chain's scaling down of its DEI policies.
Fox News Digital reached out to Target, Cornell, and Sharpton for comment but did not immediately receive a response.
In a reported statement to CNBC, Sharpton said that Target reached out to him for the meeting.
"You can't have an election come and all of a sudden, change your old positions," Sharpton said. "If an election determines your commitment to fairness, then fine, you have a right to withdraw from us, but then we have a right to withdraw from you."
In January, President Donald Trump signed the executive order "Ending Illegal Discrimination and Restoring Merit-Based Opportunity" directing federal agencies to end all DEI practices and asking the private sector to "end illegal DEI discrimination and preferences."
On Feb. 20, Florida Attorney General James Uthmeier filed a class action lawsuit with America First Legal, and law firms Boyden Gray and Lawson Huck Gonzalez, against Target for the company's alleged intentional deception of investors regarding its "radical LGBTQ activism."
The lawsuit says that Target shareholders lost tens of billions of dollars and that the company "actively misled" investors, claiming that they would look out for the possible risks of their DEI and Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) policies, but actually only tracked the response of left-leaning activist groups.
Part of Target's Pride merchandise that drew headlines in 2023 included an adult one-piece swimsuit featuring a "tuck-friendly construction" and "extra crotch coverage." The retailer also reportedly sold chest-binders.
Following the rollout of the merchandise, the store's market value fell to $57.7 billion from $74 billion.
In a Thursday post on Instagram, Sharpton wrote, "As attacks on Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion escalate nationwide, we're standing up, not backing down. DEI is under siege, and some are acting like it's already dead. But at NAN, we know the fight is far from over. Today marks 67 straight weeks of action. We've been on the frontlines outside Bill Ackman's office in NYC, demanding accountability and pushing back on the corporate rollbacks. Now is not the time to slow down, it's time to turn up."
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Canadian Industry Rebuffs Trump's DEI Rollback
The Canadian film and TV industry won't be sweeping efforts to boost diversity, equity and inclusion as part of a racial reckoning under the carpet anytime soon in the face of the Donald Trump administration's DEI crackdown. That commitment came Monday at the Banff World Media Festival, where major Canadian broadcasters, producers, guilds and funding agencies unveiled a statement of values to double down on efforts to advance diversity and inclusion in the domestic screen industry to reflect the country's multicultural communities. More from The Hollywood Reporter Trump's Trade War Will Loom Large Over the Banff World Media Fest 'Maxton Hall: The World Between Us' Renewed for Season 3 at Prime Video Stephen Curry, Nicola Coughlan, Patton Oswalt Lead All-Star Voice Cast of Sony's 'GOAT' 'It's holding each other to our promises, our commitments,' Christa Dickenson, CEO of CPAC, Canada's C-SPAN network, told The Hollywood Reporter. The statement of values asserts 'we believe that diverse perspectives, backgrounds, and lived experiences (including those of individuals from diverse racial, sexual, and gender identities and expressions, as well as those with disabilities) lead to stronger, more engaging, and innovative content.' The goal for Canadian media players is to continue reflecting and representing all domestic audiences with a diverse field of programming. 'We commit to actively dismantling systemic discrimination, including racism, ableism, and other forms of oppression, within our organizations and throughout the screen industry,' the statement of values added. In the wake of the murder of George Floyd in 2020, whose death sparked protests for racial justice, the Canadian film and TV industry, backed by government financing and tax credits, committed itself to greater diversity of creative voices, including new talent from the country's Black, Indigenous and People of Color communities. But the second Trump administration has seen DEI efforts south of the border come under attack, with the U.S. entertainment industry putting efforts to diverse screen content on the back burner. The Canadian industry, after a series of consultations and bargaining, by contrast has looked to press ahead to maintain hard-won equality gains and resist pressures to once again marginalize and erase certain peoples on screen. Joan Jenkinson, CEO of the Black Screen Office, told THR that, at a time of retrenchment in Hollywood from diversity and inclusion efforts, Canada's screen industry is distinct and stepping forward. 'We're doubling down on what we believe and, despite the rhetoric and the vitriol coming from Trump and from other parts of Europe, we're saying we want to be leaders in this space,' she insisted. Jenkinson in her earlier address in Banff on Monday said the Canadian industry would not retreat, and instead will double down on its commitment to diversity and inclusion. 'Today, at Banff, we say this together: Canada's screen industry is not backing down. We're stepping forward.' Around 75 major Canadian industry players and organizations have so far signed the statement of values, and more are expected to come on board after the unveiling in Banff. That effort has been helped by the federal Canadian government, led by Prime Minister Mark Carney, continuing to invest in diverse homegrown talent, in front and behind the camera. And while the Canadian industry made early gains to close a gender gap in the film and TV industry, making strides in advancing and promoting talent from underrepresented Black, Indigenous and People of Color communities has been slower and more incremental. Canadian media players face the same economic headwinds and slimmed-down content budgets that has led some of its American peers to give up on ideals. Against that backdrop, a beneficiary of a shift to supporting underrepresented voices in the domestic industry has been indigenous content creators, which includes producers of the recent Netflix and CBC comedy North of North, starring Anna Lambe. 'As the world's first national Indigenous broadcaster, APTN is proud to be a founding signatory and to help lead this collective step forward. Together, we're shaping a screen industry that is more inclusive, more reflective of the communities we serve, and guided by values that represent us all,' Mike Omelus, CEO of APTN, Canada's indigenous-focused TV network, said in a statement. Best of The Hollywood Reporter 'The Studio': 30 Famous Faces Who Play (a Version of) Themselves in the Hollywood-Based Series 22 of the Most Shocking Character Deaths in Television History A 'Star Wars' Timeline: All the Movies and TV Shows in the Franchise
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump Border Czar Responds to Gavin Newsom's Arrest Taunt on ‘Morning Joe': ‘I'm Not Biting'
Trump border czar Tom Homan appeared Monday on MSNBC's 'Morning Joe' to justify ICE's immigration raids in Los Angeles and say he's 'not biting' on California Governor Gavin Newsom's taunt to arrest him. Homan began by defending ICE's controversial raids Friday at an L.A. Home Depot and in the city's fashion district. 'It wasn't an immigration raid. It was to service three criminal warrants at locations based on a large criminal conspiracy that ICE is investigating,' Homan said. 'This was a criminal investigation that they all responded to in the beginning. That's how it all started.' 'We took a lot of bad people off the street the last couple of days,' Homan continued. 'What ICE did the last couple of days is make Los Angeles safer by taking public safety threats off the street.' Watch the full 'Morning Joe' interview in the video below. Many would likely disagree with Homan's assessment, given that the protests between the city's residents and law enforcement officials over the weekend prompted President Trump to send in the National Guard. Around 300 troops arrived in the city Sunday. This, notably, marked the first time since the 1960s that a U.S. president had sent the National Guard to a state without first receiving a request from a governor. 'I support President Trump's decision,' Homan said of the National Guard's arrival in Los Angeles. 'They're there to protect property and life.' The border czar added, 'If [California officials] fail to control that city and we're there, we're going to do everything we can to protect our buildings, protect our officers. So calling up the National Guard I think is the right thing to do.' On Sunday, Newsom released a letter demanding that Trump's order be rescinded and that the National Guard be sent back. The California official accused Trump of creating further instability and pushing America one step closer to becoming an authoritarian nation. He also responded to comments from an interview with Homan in which the border czar said that anyone, including officials like Mayor Karen Bass and Newsom, would be arrested if they contributed to the impediment of ICE's raids. 'Come after me. Arrest me. Let's just get it over with, tough guy,' Newsom said in a Sunday interview. When asked on 'Morning Joe' about Newsom's taunt, Homan replied, 'I'm not biting on that.' The Trump official claimed that he had been misrepresented during his initial interview and that his words had been taken out of context. 'Here's what I said: They have a right to protest. They have the First Amendment rights, but they can't cross that line. They can't cross that line [into] impediment. They can't cross that line of putting their hands on officers,' Homan explained. 'I was clear [that Bass and Newsom] haven't crossed the line. But they're not above the law, either.' 'I never threatened to arrest Governor Newsom,' Homan concluded. The post Trump Border Czar Responds to Gavin Newsom's Arrest Taunt on 'Morning Joe': 'I'm Not Biting' | Video appeared first on TheWrap.
Yahoo
8 minutes ago
- Yahoo
Trump's troop deployment is a warning sign for what comes next, legal scholars fear
President Donald Trump's deployment of 2,000 National Guard troops to Los Angeles is stretching the legal limits of how the military can be used to enforce domestic laws on American streets, constitutional law experts say. Trump, for now, has given the troops a limited mission: protecting federal immigration agents and buildings amid a wave of street protests against the administration's mass deportation policies. To justify the deployment, Trump cited a provision of federal law that allows the president to use the National Guard to quell domestic unrest. But Trump's stated rationale, legal scholars say, appears to be a flimsy and even contrived basis for such a rare and dramatic step. The real purpose, they worry, may be to amass more power over blue states that have resisted Trump's deportation agenda. And the effect, whether intentional or not, may be to inflame the tension in L.A., potentially leading to a vicious cycle in which Trump calls up even more troops or broadens their mission. 'It does appear to be largely pretextual, or at least motivated more by politics than on-the-ground need,' said Chris Mirasolo, a national security law professor at the University of Houston. California Gov. Gavin Newsom called the deployment 'unlawful' and said he would sue Monday. 'This is about authoritarian tendencies. This is about command and control. This is about power. This is about ego,' Newsom, a Democrat, said Sunday on MSNBC. 'This is a consistent pattern.' At issue is the president's authority to deploy the military for domestic purposes. A federal law, the Posse Comitatus Act of 1878, generally bars the president from using federal troops — the Army, Navy, Marines, Air Force or Space Force — to enforce domestic laws. But there are exceptional circumstances when the president can use troops domestically. The most prominent exception is the Insurrection Act, which authorizes the president to deploy the military to suppress insurrections, 'domestic violence' or conspiracies that undermine constitutional rights or federal laws. At the end of Trump's first term, some of his most ardent supporters urged and expected him to invoke the Insurrection Act to push aside state election authorities and essentially void the 2020 presidential election results, although he never did so. During his 2024 campaign, he said he would invoke the act to subdue unrest if reelected. But so far, Trump has not invoked the Insurrection Act. Instead, in a Saturday order, he cited a different statutory provision: a terse section of the U.S. code that allows the president to use the National Guard — but not any other military forces — to suppress the 'danger of a rebellion' or to 'execute' federal laws when 'regular forces' are unable to do so. Notably, his order did not outright declare the unrest in L.A. to be a 'rebellion,' but suggested it was moving in that direction. 'To the extent that protests or acts of violence directly inhibit the execution of the laws, they constitute a form of rebellion against the authority of the Government of the United States,' the order said. California authorities and Trump critics say that local law enforcement was effectively managing the L.A. protests. And despite the National Guard's purportedly defensive role of protecting federal property and personnel, some experts see the deployment as throwing a lit match into a tinderbox. If the troops are drawn into violent confrontations, Trump might use the clashes as justification for invoking the Insurrection Act, which would pave the way for active-duty military forces to take more aggressive actions to subdue protesters and engage in law enforcement. Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth on Saturday said Marines could be mobilized to L.A. if unrest continues, writing in a post on X that the troops 'are on high alert.' 'The laws in this area are somewhat unsettled and untested,' said Rosa Brooks, a Georgetown University law professor who served as a counselor to the undersecretary of defense for policy under President Barack Obama. 'Federalizing Guard troops in this situation — and raising the specter of also sending in active duty military personnel — is a political stunt, and a dangerous one.' Experts are also eyeing whether the Guard members accompany immigration authorities when they venture away from federal buildings — a move that could signal a willingness to use troops to actively aid immigration enforcement, rather than simply protect agents from protesters. Trump has fueled the fears of further escalation, actively commenting on the protests while attacking the state's response. 'Looking really bad in L.A.,' he posted early Monday morning, shortly after midnight. 'BRING IN THE TROOPS.' He also called for immediate arrests of any protesters wearing masks and repeatedly described them as 'insurrectionists.' However, when asked by reporters Sunday if the violence amounted to an insurrection, Trump said no. On Monday, Trump also endorsed the idea of arresting Newsom. Trump is not the first president to deploy the military over a governor's objection. But it's the first time since 1965, when President Lyndon Johnson ordered troops to protect civil rights protesters in Alabama. President Dwight Eisenhower similarly overrode objections from Alabama's governor, deploying troops to help enforce the desegregation of public schools. When presidents view state and local authorities as being ineffective or recalcitrant, those steps may be justified, some experts say. 'Usually the President calls out the troops with the cooperation of the governor, which happened in LA itself during the Rodney King riots,' said John Yoo, a legal counselor to President George W. Bush. 'But there have been times when governors have been tragically slow, as during Hurricane Katrina, or actually resistant to federal policy, as with desegregation, or, arguably, in this case. ' Trump, when speaking about the decision with reporters Sunday, said he warned Newsom a few days earlier of the possibility. 'I did call him the other night,' Trump said. 'I said you've got to take care of this, otherwise I'm sending in the troops.' Newsom has railed against Trump's unilateral action, saying it will inflame rather than ease tensions on the streets and that state and local law enforcement were appropriately responding to the unrest outside federal buildings. Newsom got backup from Democratic governors across the country, who signed a letter calling Trump's National Guard deployment an 'alarming abuse of power.' 'The military appears to be clashing with protesters in the streets of our country. That's not supposed to happen,' said Elizabeth Goitein, a national security law expert at New York University's Brennan Center. 'It's such a dangerous situation. It's dangerous for liberty. It's dangerous for democracy.' The promised lawsuit from California will set up yet another high-stakes courtroom test of Trump's multifaceted bid to expand executive power in his second term. The last major political fight over the president's powers to call up the National Guard in an emergency came almost two decades ago, following a decision by President George W. Bush not to activate the National Guard to restore order in New Orleans after Hurricane Katrina. Bush reportedly balked at calling up the National Guard due to the objection of Louisiana Gov. Kathleen Blanco and uncertainty over the legality of the president doing so without her consent. In response, Congress passed an appropriations rider in 2007that explicitly granted the president that authority during 'a natural disaster, epidemic, or other serious public health emergency, terrorist attack or Incident' and in reaction to an 'insurrection, domestic violence, unlawful combination, or conspiracy.' While some legal experts said the measure simply reiterated existing law, an unusually broad coalition — including all 50 U.S. governors — called for repeal of the amendment. And the following year, Congress did repeal it, allowing the law to revert to language in place since the 1950s.
