Explained: Why are calls growing for a global boycott of the United States? | World News

Over the past year, the United States under President Donald Trump has been subjected to unprecedented scrutiny of its domestic and international actions, raising questions about adherence to international law and human rights norms. From aggressive foreign interventions to deadly law enforcement operations at home, critics argue that traditional diplomatic or political pressure has been inadequate to curb the country’s controversial behavior, leading to calls for economic and cultural sanctions as a means of accountability.

In recent months, the United States has carried out military actions abroad to protect Christians, including bombing operations in Nigeria, an invasion of Venezuela that resulted in the arrest of President Nicolás Maduro, and open threats of force against Iran, Greenland, and Mexico. Domestically, Immigration and Customs Enforcement (ICE) faces increasing criticism for its use of lethal force. Since the beginning of 2026, three US citizens, Keith Porter Jr. in California. and Renée Nicole Good and Alex Pretti in Minnesota, shot and killed by federal immigration officers; Good and Pretti’s murders were captured on multiple cameras, fueling public outrage.

Analysts say the Western-led community will likely impose sanctions and embargoes if similar actions occur in countries such as Iran, which has faced international condemnation for the killing of protesters. Many now argue that only coordinated global economic pressure can influence US policy. Observers who draw lessons from history, Rev. Dr. He points to the civil rights strategies of Martin Luther King Jr., particularly the 1955-1956 Montgomery Bus Boycott, which demonstrated the power of economic non-cooperation in combating systemic injustice.

During the 381-day boycott, approximately 40,000 Black residents of Montgomery, Alabama, avoided segregated buses; instead he chose to walk, carpool, or bike to work, school, and church. King explained the moral imperative behind the protest: “In the long run, we found that it was more honorable to walk with dignity than to walk in humiliation.” He faced harsh reprisals, including boycotts, arrests, and the bombing of King’s home, but ultimately forced the city to end its segregation policies on buses, demonstrating the impact of sustained, nonviolent economic pressure.

Experts suggest that a similar model could be applied globally to address U.S. domestic and international actions perceived as oppressive or aggressive. The Palestinian-led BDS (Boycott, Divestment, Sanctions) movement against Israel provides a recent example. Launched by 170 Palestinian organizations in 2005, BDS aims to end Israeli occupation, secure equality for Arab-Palestinian citizens, and protect the rights of refugees under UN Resolution 194. Despite being labeled “anti-Semitic” by some critics, BDS has managed to raise international awareness and put pressure on corporations and governments complicit in systemic injustice.

Calls for boycotts targeting the United States have already begun, particularly in response to ICE agent Jonathan Ross’ murder of Renée Nicole Good on January 7, 2026. Activists have urged people to avoid the 2026 FIFA Men’s World Cup in US stadiums this summer, as well as other high-profile events such as America250 celebrations, the 2028 Los Angeles Olympics, Coachella and the Met Gala. Beyond the events, the crackdown could focus on U.S. companies and media conglomerates, such as Google, Amazon, Palantir, News Corp, The Washington Post and Paramount Global, that critics argue support or profit from repression and militarism.

Supporters argue that the goal of the strategy is not to harm ordinary citizens but to “ensure fairness in business,” echoing King’s principle during the Montgomery Bus Boycott. Targeting political and corporate figures who facilitate or benefit from oppression, from Donald Trump to Elon Musk, can raise global awareness and spur policy change.

On the intersection of domestic inequality and international aggression, King observed in 1967: “The evils of capitalism are as real as the evils of militarism and racism. The problems of racial injustice and economic injustice cannot be solved without a radical redistribution of political and economic power.” For many observers in 2026, this perspective underscores the urgent need for collective, peaceful global action that will hold the United States accountable both at home and abroad.