Something fascinating is happening in corporate America.

According to data from Gravity Research, 39% of corporations are scaling back external Pride Month engagements in 2025, a sharp increase from last year, when only 9% backed off. Only four NFL teams changed their logos to mark Pride this June, with most remaining silent.

Corporations didn’t back away from Pride because of conviction but calculation.

But here’s what makes this particularly interesting: Corporate Pride Month activism isn’t some long-standing American tradition. It’s a very recent phenomenon that represents a dramatic departure from how businesses operated for most of our nation’s history.

Corporate America’s enthusiastic embrace of Pride Month only became widespread in the last decade.

Before 2010, you’d be hard-pressed to find Fortune 500 companies plastering rainbow logos across social media, celebrating drag queens, or embracing “queerness.” This wasn’t because companies opposed LGBTQ individuals — but rather because they understood something fundamental: Corporations exist to provide goods and services, not to take positions on deeply personal matters of sexuality and identity.

The data: Americans want corporate neutrality

Recent polling reveals that corporate Pride Month activism was never as popular as media coverage suggested.

According to the consulting firm Weber Shandwick, 72% of consumers and 71% of employees expect political neutrality in the workplace. In a Pew Research Center survey, 48% said it was either “not too important” or “not at all important” for companies to make public statements on social issues, compared to 41% who thought it was important.

These numbers reveal a fundamental disconnect between corporate behavior and consumer preferences. While companies competed to demonstrate progressive credentials, nearly half of American consumers preferred businesses stay out of social and political issues entirely.

The traditional understanding: Sexuality is a private matter

For most of American history, corporations and society operated under a simple principle: Sexuality is a private matter.

This was based on practical wisdom about what makes for a functioning society and a successful business.

Successful companies in the past focused on product quality, customer service, and employee performance. They didn’t make customers’ private lives part of their brand identity. A bakery sold bread, a bank managed money, and a sports team played games. Personal relationships and sexual behavior weren’t part of the public conversation.

This approach served everyone well. Employees could focus on work without having private lives become matters of public scrutiny. Customers could purchase goods without navigating their provider’s stance on intimate matters.

When sexuality remained private, it retained dignity and personal meaning that gets lost when it becomes part of public performance and corporate branding.

When corporations became activists

The transformation of corporate America into an activist force regarding sexuality represents a fundamental shift. Historically, Fortune 500 companies practiced strategic framing and calculated positioning rather than deep ideological convictions.

By 2020, it seemed almost impossible to find a major corporation that wasn’t actively promoting Pride Month or taking public positions on transgender issues. The pressure for conformity was intense. Companies that didn’t participate risked being labeled discriminatory and being attacked, either online or physically.

But this represented something unprecedented in American business history. Never before had companies so systematically promoted particular views about sexuality, marriage, and gender identity.

This wasn’t about equal treatment under company policy; it was about the active promotion and celebration of specific sexual behaviors and identities.

The hidden costs of corporate activism

Unfortunately, business leaders failed to anticipate the substantial hidden costs of sexual activism. DEI initiatives often grew outside central compliance functions, creating legal risks.

According to employment attorney Michael Elkins, companies face “a catch-22”: uncertainty between “the fear of getting sued for having a program or the fear of getting taken to task by eliminating the program.”

Research shows diversity training programs — a cornerstone of corporate activism — often fail spectacularly.

"The positive effects of diversity training rarely last beyond a day or two, and a number of studies suggest that it can activate bias or spark a backlash," explains the Harvard Business Review.

Yet, companies spend millions on these ineffective programs.

Additional costs include compliance expenses; legal review; employee relations issues when activism conflicts with worker values; management time diverted from core business; and reputational risks.

By contrast, those companies that maintain appropriate boundaries can avoid these costs and focus these and other resources on their mission.

The market backlash

The corporate retreat is also the result of the market finally imposing discipline on misguided activism.

Anheuser-Busch InBev lost a total of $1.4 billion in sales due to the backlash it received over its partnership with Dylan Mulvaney, a transgender influencer. In addition, AB InBev’s stock fell 20% and the Mexican-brewed Modelo Especial dethroned Bud Light as America’s top-selling beer, a title that Bud Light had held for over two decades.

Target faced similar financial and reputational consequences and this year has either moved Pride Month products to a less-trafficked area of the store or removed them altogether, citing worker safety concerns.

These weren’t just minor market adjustments — they represented massive consumer rejection of corporate sexual activism.

Why 'but companies have always taken stands' misses the point

Critics argue that companies have always taken social positions, but this misunderstands what’s different about this “celebration.” Historical corporate social engagement focused on broadly supported community issues: education, disaster relief, economic development, and patriotism.

What’s unprecedented here is the systematic promotion of specific views about sexuality and gender identity.

The argument that this retreat is a temporary political positioning misses the deeper dynamics taking place. As Forbes contributor Alicia Gonzalez noted, “The corporate retreat in DEI issues is coming from the same companies that swore five years ago that diversity and inclusion were deeply held values. As soon as the political winds changed, they backtracked.”

This reveals that corporate activism was based on perceived social pressure — not genuine conviction.

Building long-term change

If approached strategically, the corporate retreat creates an opportunity for decency to be restored to civil society.

Consumer action works. Boycotts against Bud Light and Target led eight other companies to abandon DEI policies, including Tractor Supply Co., which lost $2 billion in less than a month.

Consumers should actively support businesses that maintain an appropriate focus on their core mission. In addition, consumers must research companies’ positions before purchasing and choose only those that avoid divisive positions. Customers should extend this action beyond boycotts by providing positive support for businesses operating according to traditional principles.

Business leaders must return to serving customers effectively, rather than advancing social causes. Companies maintaining institutional focus avoid legal, financial, and reputational risks.

Finally, investors should question whether investing according to Environmental, Social, and Governance scores measured by how much divisive social activism the company embraces actually serves shareholder interests. Financial losses at companies like Anheuser-Busch demonstrate that catering to social activist demands will destroy shareholder value rather than create it.

Restoring institutional focus

What’s at stake isn’t just corporate messaging but the nature of the social contract.

The traditional American approach favored institutional focus and neutrality. Schools educated children, businesses provided goods and services, sports leagues entertained fans. These institutions were able to serve everyone, no matter their background or political stance, because their mission and business model didn’t require agreement on controversial personal matters.

When every institution promotes particular views about sexuality and gender, people with traditional values can’t fully participate in public life.

Restoring institutional focus benefits everyone, with LGBTQ individuals judged on performance rather than sexual identity, people with traditional values not forced to choose between convictions and participation, and institutions focused on their core functions.

The opportunity before us

Pride organizations nationwide now face sponsorship challenges. San Francisco Pride has a $200,000 budget gap, Kansas City’s KC Pride lost $200,000 (half its budget), and New York’s Heritage of Pride needs $750,000 after corporate withdrawals.

This suggests that corporate Pride Month activism was never sustainable. Market forces have provided a correction that political pressure couldn’t achieve.

Now, the goal must be to rebuild a culture where institutions serve proper functions — and personal matters remain private.

Success requires market discipline, which means consistently rewarding appropriate focus while imposing costs on divisive activism. Recent conservative boycotts have worked. As Suzanne Bowdey notes, “For once, Americans are making companies think twice about their extreme politics.”

Combined with legal frameworks protecting institutional neutrality, this moment could restore proper relationships between public institutions and private life.

The data suggests that most Americans are ready for change. The question is whether we’ll build something lasting or celebrate temporary victories while ignoring underlying problems. Corporations didn’t back away from Pride because of conviction but calculation. They never had principles, just profits. When the pressure lifts, they’ll go right back to what they did before as if nothing has changed.

If we want lasting change, it has to be built on truth — not trends.

This article is adapted from an essay originally published at Liberty University's Standing for Freedom Center.