World

Target withdraws Halloween costume following accusations of racism

Target has removed a children's Halloween costume after it was criticized for resembling racist caricatures associated with minstrel shows.

26 August 2026Tagblick Newsdesk

AI-generatedWritten by an AI system, editorially responsible — how we work

Archive photo: Target withdraws Halloween costume following accusations of racism — Archive photoPhoto: Emily Rachel Poisel · Flickr · BY

Target, the US retail corporation, announced it has pulled a children’s Halloween costume from its shelves due to backlash on social media. The costume, marketed as the "Kids' Glows Under Blacklight Circus Clown Halloween Costume," featured a Black child wearing bright orange and black attire, along with a mask that critics argued resembled racist caricatures.

The removal followed public outcry, with many users comparing the costume to imagery typically seen in minstrel shows, which have a long history of promoting racial stereotypes. Target faced significant scrutiny as the advertisement for the costume circulated widely online, prompting complaints about its inappropriateness.

In response to the controversy, Target publicly apologized for any offense caused by the costume. The retailer stated that it takes customer feedback seriously and would continue to strive for inclusivity in its offerings.

This incident adds to ongoing discussions around race and representation in retail, highlighting the sensitivity of product portrayals in diverse communities. Target has faced prior criticism in similar contexts, underscoring the importance of thoughtful marketing.

This item was written by an AI system on the basis of the headlines and short teasers of the independently operating newsrooms named below. We disclose this under Art. 50(4), second subparagraph, of Regulation (EU) 2024/1689 (AI Act). Before publication we check origin and verifiability — anything that appears in only one place is not published — as well as language, substance and legally sensitive content. No separate substantive review of each individual item by a natural person takes place; we therefore do not rely on the exemption in Art. 50(4), second subparagraph, of the AI Act. Editorial responsibility for this publication rests with the person named in the imprint (§ 18 Abs. 2 MStV). Please report errors to [email protected] — we will correct or remove the item. Full reports are available from the sources listed.