The financial landscape for LGBTQ+ businesses, nonprofits, and creatives is undergoing a significant contraction. While reports of a complete corporate abandonment of Pride celebrations might oversimplify the situation, a demonstrable scaling back of financial support from both government grants and corporate sponsorships is creating tangible challenges for the community.
Major brands like Anheuser-Busch, Comcast, Diageo, Nissan, Deloitte, Booz Allen Hamilton, and Target are demonstrably reducing their Pride sponsorships for 2025. Their stated reasons—economic pressures and a politically charged atmosphere that has cooled enthusiasm for DEI initiatives—highlight the complex factors at play.
This reduction in funding is directly impacting organizations that form the backbone of LGBTQ+ life. San Francisco Pride, Seattle Pride, and Twin Cities Pride are facing substantial deficits, necessitating event adjustments and difficult decisions regarding sponsorship acceptance.
Twin Cities Pride’s decision to end its relationship with Target due to concerns about the company’s diminished commitment to DEI underscores a growing sentiment within the community: that Pride events must prioritize genuine community values over mere corporate participation.
That sentiment paid off when the community answered their call for individual donors. In January, they announced they were facing a $200,000 funding deficit due to the loss of sponsorships, including Target and Sam’s Club. As of May 1, 202, they’ve raised $107,000 from individual giving. To address the remaining budget gap, they are hosting a benefit concert and dance party on May 30th at the Granada Theater.
A Gravity Research survey indicates that nearly 40% of Fortune 1000 companies intend to decrease their Pride engagement this year, a considerable increase from the 9% reported in the previous year’s survey. Luke Hartig, president of Gravity Research, notes the dramatic shift, stating that such widespread pullback would have been “unthinkable just five years ago.” The survey attributes this trend, in part, to pressure from conservative activists and the Trump administration’s policies targeting DEI efforts.
The survey further reveals that companies reducing their Pride involvement are primarily cutting back on external displays of support—the sponsorships and public acknowledgments that directly benefit LGBTQ+ organizations, small businesses, media, and bolster community visibility. This includes limiting their presence at Pride marches, sponsoring LGBTQ+ events, purchasing advertising from LGBTQ+ media platforms, discontinuing Pride-themed merchandise, and reducing Pride-related social media activity and influencer collaborations. Interestingly, a larger proportion of these companies report maintaining internal support for LGBTQ+ employees, suggesting a desire to balance external caution with internal inclusivity.
Specific examples illustrate the impact of these funding cuts. St. Louis Pride lost the financial backing of Anheuser-Busch after a partnership spanning over three decades. Pride Houston reported some corporate sponsors reducing their contributions by as much as 75%, resulting in a $100,000 funding gap.
Even NYC Pride has witnessed sponsors decreasing their financial commitments. In response, organizations like St. Louis Pride and Twin Cities Pride have turned to crowdfunding to mitigate the financial strain, highlighting the urgent need for grassroots support.
The context for this funding squeeze includes the well-publicized backlash against companies that have openly supported the LGBTQ+ community. The Bud Light controversy in 2023, stemming from a partnership with transgender influencer Dylan Mulvaney, serves as a prime example of the potential financial repercussions of visible LGBTQ+ allyship.
Subsequent boycotts and sales declines sent a clear signal to corporate entities regarding the perceived risks associated with public LGBTQ+ support. Similar online attacks and boycotts targeting companies like Nike and Target for their inclusive campaigns and products further underscore this challenging environment. Target’s subsequent actions, including removing some Pride merchandise and reportedly scaling back DEI initiatives, which coincided with a sustained decrease in store traffic, illustrate the pressures companies are navigating.
The impact of this shifting financial landscape extends beyond large organizations. The experience of a high-profile lesbian content creator who asked to remain anonymous as she faced a complete absence of sponsorships in the first quarter of 2025, a significant downturn from previous years, highlights the challenges faced by individual LGBTQ+ professionals who rely on brand partnerships.
The cancellation of planned LGBTQ+ programming at the Kennedy Center in Washington, D.C., for WorldPride, following the appointment of Donald Trump as chair, demonstrates a broader trend of political influence impacting LGBTQ+ arts and culture. The abrupt disinvitation of groups like the Gay Men’s Chorus and the International Pride Orchestra underscores the potential for political headwinds to directly stifle LGBTQ+ artistic expression and community gatherings. While these events are being relocated, the initial cancellation signals a concerning shift in the perceived value and acceptance of LGBTQ+ arts within mainstream cultural institutions.
The financial relationship between corporations and the LGBTQ+ community is undergoing a significant recalibration. Rather than a complete abandonment, the current trend indicates a strategic reduction in public-facing financial support, driven by a combination of economic uncertainties and a politically charged climate.
The fear of negative repercussions from conservative backlash, amplified by the current administration’s stance on DEI, is demonstrably influencing corporate decisions. This pullback is creating tangible financial challenges for LGBTQ+ businesses, nonprofits, and creatives, necessitating adaptation and a greater reliance on community-based support.
While some corporations may maintain internal commitments to inclusivity, the reduction in external funding poses a significant threat to the vitality and sustainability of the LGBTQ+ community’s infrastructure, demanding resilience and continued advocacy.
