In a recent development, America First Legal, an organization founded by former Trump advisor Stephen Miller, has taken aim at the Kellogg’s food company. The organization filed a complaint against Kellogg’s for what it perceives as excessive promotion of employment diversity, contending that the company is attempting to “politicize and sexualize its products” in an effort to push a supposed “extreme social agenda.” The crux of the complaint, directed to the Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), alleges discrimination against white male employees. Strikingly, the complaint does not highlight instances of wage disparities or hiring biases but instead focuses on Kellogg’s diversity-centered programs, including initiatives aimed at uplifting racially underrepresented talents.
The spotlight then turned onto Kellogg’s LGBTQ+-friendly image, as America First Legal’s Twitter tirade accused the company of prioritizing LGBTQ+ customers to the detriment of shareholders. This comes in the wake of Kellogg’s introduction of products such as the “Together with Pride” cereal, released in select markets in 2021 and 2022. The group lambasted the use of iconic Kellogg’s cereal characters to advance what they label as an “extreme social agenda.” Further points of contention included RuPaul’s appearance on Cheez-It crackers’ packaging, the rainbow-themed “NEON Pink Block Party Lemonade Pop-Tarts,” and transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney’s interaction with Tony the Tiger at the Tony Awards.
This move against Kellogg’s is not isolated. America First Legal recently filed a lawsuit against Target, asserting that the company’s Pride displays led to decreased profits after conservative backlash. The strategy behind such actions is rooted in the assumption that LGBTQ+ marketing invites boycotts from conservatives, causing financial losses. It rests on the belief that corporations are caving to “woke elites.” This approach was mirrored in a letter by seven GOP state attorneys general, accusing Target’s Pride displays of jeopardizing investors’ interests based on unfounded claims.
Amidst these clashes, a larger battle is brewing — one that questions the dynamics between corporate inclusivity, shareholder interests, and conservative opposition.
