Lashing out at Walmart, MAGA activists have called for a boycott after heiress Christy Walton funded a full-page “No Kings Day” ad perceived as an anti-Trump statement, drawing intense political backlash.
At a Glance
- Christy Walton, Walmart heiress, funded a full-page “No Kings Day” New York Times ad urging peaceful anti-Trump protests on June 14
- MAGA figures, including Kari Lake, called for a boycott of Walmart in response to the ad
- Walmart publicly distanced itself from Walton, noting the ad reflects her personal views
- Walton holds no board seat or decision-making power within Walmart
- The impact of the boycott on Walmart’s sales remains uncertain
Heiress’s Ad Sparks MAGA Rebellion
Earlier this month, Christy Walton, a billionaire heiress to the Walmart fortune, purchased a full-page ad in The New York Times titled “No Kings Day,” calling for peaceful demonstrations in defense of democracy. Though the ad never mentioned Donald Trump by name, MAGA-aligned figures quickly interpreted it as a direct criticism of the former president.
Former Arizona gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake amplified the boycott call, accusing Walton of weaponizing her wealth against Trump supporters. The backlash spread across right-wing platforms, branding the retailer as hostile to conservative values.
Its effectiveness is in doubt. And critics point out how Lake conveniently omits how Trump supporters like Elon Musk poured hundreds of millions into attacks on Democrats.
Walmart Scrambles to Respond
Facing the escalating controversy, Walmart issued a statement clarifying that Christy Walton holds no position on the company’s board and does not participate in its corporate governance. A spokesperson emphasized that the ad was a personal expression unrelated to the company’s operations, policies, or political affiliations.
While trying to remain neutral, Walmart also reiterated its commitment to safety and civility in public discourse, noting that Walton’s advocacy does not reflect the company’s views.
Culture-War Retail Battleground
The uproar around Walton’s ad has reignited debates about corporate neutrality in political discourse. Although she owns a portion of Walmart stock, Walton no longer resides in the U.S. and exercises no influence over its leadership—details that have done little to calm calls for boycotts among MAGA loyalists.
Despite the controversy, it remains unclear whether the movement will translate into real financial pressure. However, the backlash signals a growing volatility in consumer politics, where corporate affiliations—even tenuous ones—can ignite national firestorms.
