Critics say it was the dark hood, the enormous painted smile, the black gloves, the orange-and-black suit.
And inside it was a Black child.
For $25, Target was selling a children’s Halloween costume that drew criticism for looking less like something for trick-or-treating and more like an image dragged out of America’s ugliest racial past.
The retailer called it the “Kids’ Glows under Blacklight Circus Clown Halloween Costume Bodysuit.” But when photographs spread across social media over the weekend, many people saw something else: blackface, minstrelsy and the grotesque caricatures once used to turn Black people into entertainment.
“Target, for real? I’m not surprised, but this is a new low,” comedian LaTrez Anderson said in an Instagram video as anger spread online.
Target apparently reached a similar conclusion about how indefensible the product had become.
By Sunday, the costume was gone.
“As a company, we know we got this wrong, and we are deeply sorry,” Target said in a corporate apology statement on Monday, Aug. 24. “The costume is offensive and should never have been part of our assortment.”
But removing it did not resolve the question now hanging over one of America’s largest retailers: How did it get there in the first place?
[Target], I know you pulled it, but how did this even make it past being a fired intern’s last project? Because I know an adult [with a] fully formed frontal lobe ok’d this,” read one X user’s post, which included pictures detailing the historic context behind the image’s controversy. “After everything you’re still playing in [the] faces of Black Americans.”
‘This is So Reckless of Them’
The photograph that drew particular fury showed a young Black model wearing the dark hood with an exaggerated mouth, standing on one leg with the other kicked back and one hand raised. Critics said the pose recalled the exaggerated poses and facial imagery associated with minstrel performances and Jim Crow-era caricatures.
Blackface minstrelsy was built on distortion, where Black people were portrayed with darkened faces, enormous lips, exaggerated expressions, and buffoonish movements for the amusement of white audiences. Those images did not remain confined to theater stages; they migrated into advertising, toys, postcards, cartoons, household products, and popular culture, advancing racist stereotypes into ordinary American merchandise.
One social media commenter wrote that the young model might not understand the connection to minstrelsy, but the adults around him should.
“This is so reckless of them,” the comment read.
Target itself acknowledged that the damage landed particularly hard in the Black community.
“We know this is especially hurtful for our Black guests, team members and partners,” read the company statement. “Removing the costume is an important first step, and the company is looking closely at how this happened and what needs to change to ensure this won’t happen again.”
That promise may be harder to sell for a corporation arguably in the throes of amending a more than year-long boycott. After the decision to roll back diversity, equity and inclusion (DEI) initiatives, a retreat that infuriated African American clergy, activists and customers, boycotts and calls for Black consumers to take their dollars elsewhere ensued.
Those in favor of protest argued that Target had enthusiastically embraced racial-equity commitments when they were popular and began backing away as the political winds shifted.
Now comes an image that critics say embodies precisely why corporations need Black voices in the rooms where product, advertising, and marketing decisions are made.
Target has not publicly disclosed who approved the costume or its marketing photographs. Instead, its statement says the company is examining “how this happened.”
“You sided with the Trump administration’s scare tactics over DEI, lost a loyal Black customer base as well as Black voices that were formerly in the room. That’s HOW it happened,” read one user’s response to the company’s tweeted apology, “and why we will continue to boycott you until you put some REAL CHANGE in motion.”
‘The Issue Could Not Be More Pressing’
The controversy also arose only months after another significant development in Target’s relationship with Black institutions.
In January, the Target Foundation entered into an agreement with the National Newspaper Publishers Association (NNPA), the trade association representing the Black Press of America, for an unspecified three-year grant. The amount has not been publicly disclosed.
Separately, the American Federation of Teachers is urging its roughly 1.8 million members and their families to avoid Target during the back-to-school season, accusing the retailer of not speaking forcefully enough about federal immigration enforcement actions. Target now faces that campaign just as teachers and parents are buying pencils, notebooks, backpacks and classroom supplies.
“The issue could not be more pressing: Seven months since the murders of Alex Pretti and Renée Good, masked ICE agents are still in our streets, our schools and our communities, terrorizing families in the name of Donald Trump’s illegal and immoral assault on immigrants striving for their American Dream,” said AFT President Randi Weingarten in an Aug. 19 press release. “That’s why we’re urging our members to avoid Target and patronize more ethical shopping alternatives this back-to-school season.”
The latest outrage also exposes the nearly impossible political corner Target has backed itself into. Conservatives previously attacked the company over Pride merchandise; Black consumers revolted against the reneging on DEI. And just as Target attempts to persuade alienated customers to return, a $25 Halloween costume has reopened one of the deepest wounds in American racial history.
Online, some people immediately began talking about boycotting again.
One commenter on Anderson’s post offered a warning with considerably fewer words than any corporate crisis consultant might use: “Lol wanna lose $12 billion more? This is how you do it.”
