The retail sector just ran a natural experiment in corporate political risk, and the results are in. In the months following pressure from the Trump administration to roll back diversity, equity, and inclusion programs, two of the largest U.S. retailers — Target and Walmart — capitulated. A third, Costco, held the line. Fortune has tracked the divergence in outcomes, and the numbers tell a story that corporate boards navigating this pressure will be studying closely.
The financial scoreboard
Costco reported revenue of $65.98 billion, representing 8.2% growth year-over-year. Member loyalty remains extraordinarily high, traffic is robust, and the company's combination of high employee wages and low executive-to-worker pay ratios continues to drive the operational culture that produces those numbers. Costco does not win on DEI grounds alone — it wins because its operational model is built differently than most retailers — but the DEI stance is part of the same cultural architecture that produces the business results.
By contrast, Target announced a rollback of its Racial Equity Action and Change program (REACH) within days of President Trump's executive orders on DEI, and allowed its three-year diversity goals to expire. Walmart moved even earlier, beginning to shift language and reduce visibility of internal equity efforts months before the executive orders were issued. Both companies made the calculation that capitulation would reduce political and regulatory risk. What they may not have fully modeled was the consumer response.
Costco's shareholder revolt that wasn't
The most revealing data point in this story is not a revenue figure. It is a vote. In late 2024 and early 2025, conservative activists mounted an anti-DEI shareholder resolution campaign targeting Costco. The result: over 98% of shareholders voted against the proposal. In a business context, a 98% shareholder vote is not a narrow win — it is an institutional consensus. Costco's investors, who are not a charitable organization, looked at the DEI programs and made a judgment that they were value-accretive, not a liability.
