A Target employee in Los Angeles receives a text message at a.m.

Mandatory store meeting at a.m.

Attendance required.

She’s worked here for 6 years.

She’s never seen a mandatory meeting called with less than 3 hours notice.

She shows up.

70 co-workers are standing in the breakroom.

The district manager she’s never met before walks in with a corporate lawyer.

He reads from a printed statement, “Effective immediately.

This location will cease operations.

You have 60 days.

Here’s your severance package.

30 seconds.

Six years of her life gone in 30 seconds.

She walks out to the parking lot and sees news vans already setting up.

They knew before she did.

I’m Laura Whitmore and this is the Laura Whitmore Report.

Before we dive into this investigation, I need you to do something critical right now.

Hit that subscribe button, click the like button, drop a comment below with your thoughts on what’s happening to retail in your state.

Share this video with everyone who needs to understand what’s really happening in California and why it matters to the entire country.

This is the only official Laura Whitmore Report channel.

What you’re about to hear should concern every American watching California’s retail sector collapse in real time.

Today, we’re examining how Target, one of America’s most successful retailers, has reached a breaking point in California.

We’re talking about mass store closures, billions in lost revenue, thousands of jobs eliminated, and communities left without access to affordable goods.

This isn’t just about one company making business decisions.

This is about a systematic dismantling of retail infrastructure that affects millions of working families who depend on these stores for everything from groceries to prescription medications.

And the man in charge, he’s doubling down on the exact policies that created this disaster.

Let me show you exactly how we got here, who saw it coming, and what happens next if nobody changes course.

On October 3rd, 2023, Target made an announcement that sent shock waves through California’s retail sector.

The company confirmed it would permanently close nine stores across four major California cities, San Francisco, Oakland, Portland, and Seattle.

But it was the language in Target’s official statement that revealed the depth of the crisis.

The company cited theft and organized retail crime as the primary factors making these locations unsustainable to operate.

Target’s chief growth officer, Christina Hennington, didn’t mince words.

She said theft and organized retail crime were threatening the safety of their team members and guests.

She said the company had invested heavily in strategies to prevent and stop theft, including adding more security team members, using thirdparty guard services, and implementing theft deterrent tools.

But despite these measures, the problem had gotten so bad that they could no longer operate these stores safely or profitably.

Those nine closures in 2023 were just the beginning.

By March 2024, Target announced another wave of closures.

This time, 15 additional California locations would shut down permanently.

The cities hit hardest were Los Angeles with five closures, San Diego with four, Sacramento with three, and Fresno with three more.

Each closure represented an average of 120 jobs lost, $15 million in annual property taxes that would disappear, and thousands of families who would now have to travel significantly farther to access affordable retail.

Then came the announcement that changed everything.

On January 6th, 2026, just one week ago, Target’s chief executive, Brian Cornell, held a quarterly earnings call with investors.

During that call, he revealed that Target would be closing an additional 53 stores across California in 2026.

That’s 53 more locations, bringing the total to 77 store closures in California in just over 2 years.

Cornell stated that the retail environment in California had become economically untenable for the company.

He cited a combination of factors.

Persistent organized retail theft, rising operational costs, including California’s $20 minimum wage for retail workers, increased commercial property taxes, and what he called an increasingly hostile regulatory environment for brick-andmortar retail.

Let’s put those numbers in context.

Target operates approximately 1,60 stores nationwide.

California had 347 Target locations as of January 2023 with 77 closures.

That means California is losing 22% of its Target stores in just over 2 years.

Nearly one in four Target locations in California is shutting down permanently.

Here’s what nobody’s talking about.

Each Target store employs an average of 120 people.

That’s 9,240 jobs eliminated across California.

But those are just the direct jobs.

When you factor in the supply chain workers, delivery drivers, cleaning services, security contractors, and maintenance staff who service these stores, the real job loss number is closer to 18,000 to 20,000 positions.

The property tax impact is staggering.

An average Target store generates approximately $400,000 in annual property taxes for its local government.

With 77 stores closing, that’s $30.8 $8 million in annual tax revenue disappearing from California’s cities and counties.

That money funds schools, police departments, fire services, and infrastructure maintenance.

When Target closes, that revenue doesn’t get replaced.

It just vanishes, and local governments have to cut services or raise taxes elsewhere to make up the difference.

But here’s what really matters to working families.

Target isn’t a luxury retailer.

It’s where middle class and working-class families shop for essentials.

Groceries, diapers, school supplies, cleaning products, over-the-counter medications, affordable clothing.

When Target closes in a neighborhood, families lose access to affordable goods.

They’re forced to shop at more expensive alternatives or travel significantly farther, burning gas and time they can’t afford to waste.

Let me tell you about what happened in East Oakland.

Target closed its Hagenberger Road location in October 2023.

That store served a predominantly black and Latino community where median household income is about $42,000 per year.

After the closure, residents had to drive 11 miles to the nearest Target in San Leandro or 14 miles to the one in Emeyville.

For families without reliable transportation, that became impossible.

They ended up shopping at corner stores where prices are 30% to 50% higher for the same products.

A family spending $400 per month at Target now spends $550 at local convenience stores for the same items.

That’s an extra $1800 per year coming out of already tight household budgets.

The same pattern is playing out across California.

When Target closed its Mission Street location in San Francisco, residents in the Excelsier and Outer Mission neighborhoods lost their primary source for affordable groceries and household goods.

When the store in South Sacramento shut down, families in the Meadow View area faced the same problem.

No affordable retail within reasonable distance.

And this wasn’t a surprise to anyone paying attention.

Target had been warning California officials for years that organized retail theft was becoming unsustainable.

In 2022, Target’s chief financial officer, Michael Fidelki, told investors that theft was reducing Target’s profit margins by $400 million annually.

In California alone, Target estimated losses from theft at $120 million per year across its store network.

The company didn’t just complain, they took action.

Target hired hundreds of additional security personnel.

They installed advanced surveillance systems with facial recognition technology.

They locked up high theft items behind plastic cases, everything from razors to laundry detergent to batteries.

They stationed security guards at entrances.

They worked with local police departments to prosecute repeat offenders.

But California’s policy environment made enforcement nearly impossible.

In 2014, California voters passed Proposition 47, which reclassified theft of property valued under $950 from a felony to a misdemeanor.

The intent was to reduce prison overcrowding and redirect resources toward rehabilitation, but the practical effect was to eliminate meaningful consequences for retail theft.

A person could walk into Target, load up a cart with $940 worth of merchandise, walk out without paying, and face nothing more than a citation, similar to a traffic ticket.

And even those citations rarely led to prosecution because district attorneys offices were overwhelmed and underfunded.

Organized retail crime syndicates figured this out immediately.

They recruited teams of individuals to systematically steal merchandise from Target and other retailers, knowing that each person would face minimal consequences.

These weren’t individuals stealing out of desperation or need.

These were coordinated criminal operations reselling stolen goods online through platforms like Amazon, eBay, and Facebook Marketplace.

It became a multi-billion dollar underground economy, and legitimate retailers were bearing the cost.

Target executives met with California legislators in 2022 and 2023, presenting data on theft losses and requesting changes to Proposition 47 or increased funding for retail crime enforcement.

They were told that criminal justice reform was a priority and that retailers needed to adapt to the new reality.

Governor Gavin Nuome’s office issued statements acknowledging that retail theft was a problem, but insisted that companies were exaggerating losses to avoid paying taxes and wages.

Have you noticed stores closing in your area? What major retailers have left your neighborhood? Drop a comment and tell me what state you’re watching from.

I want to know how this retail collapse is affecting communities across America because this pattern isn’t limited to California anymore.

By 2024, the situation had deteriorated beyond Target’s tolerance.

Brian Cornell told investors in March 2024 that the company had reached a tipping point.

He said Target had exhausted every reasonable measure to address theft and that continuing to operate unprofitable stores wasn’t sustainable for shareholders or employees.

He pointed out that Target security costs in California were running 340% higher than the national average per store.

Yet theft continued to escalate.

Then came Assembly Bill 1228, California’s $20 minimum wage law for fast food and retail workers, which took effect on April 1st, 2024.

For Target, this meant immediate labor cost increases of 25% for hourly workers at California stores.

An average Target location employs 120 workers with about 100 of them earning hourly wages.

Before the law, average hourly pay was around $1650.

After the law, it jumped to $20.

That’s an additional 350 per hour per worker.

Multiply that by 100 workers per store, by 40 hours per week, by 52 weeks per year, and you get an additional $728,000 in annual labor costs per store.

For a high-erforming target in a safe area with low theft, that cost increase could be absorbed through small price increases or efficiency improvements.

But for stores already losing hundreds of thousands of dollars annually to theft, an additional $728,000 in labor costs was catastrophic.

These stores went from marginally unprofitable to deeply underwater virtually overnight.

Target’s response was predictable and rational.

They looked at their California portfolio, identified stores that couldn’t cover their costs, and announced closures.

The first wave in 2023 targeted the worst performing locations.

The second wave in 2024 expanded to stores that had been marginally profitable, but could no longer sustain operations under the new cost structure.

And now the third wave in 2026 is hitting stores that might have survived individually but can’t be justified when Target’s overall California operations are losing money.

And here’s what makes this even worse.

Target isn’t the only retailer pulling out of California.

Walmart closed 22 California stores between 2023 and 2025, citing the same combination of theft and rising costs.

CVS shuttered 65 California locations during the same period.

Walgreens closed 53 stores.

Write aid filed for bankruptcy and shut down 145 Californiaarmacies.

Nordstrom closed its flagship San Francisco store and two Nordstrom Rack locations.

Whole Foods closed multiple Bay Area stores.

Even Dollar General and Dollar Tree, retailers that typically thrive in struggling economies, have pulled out of dozens of California locations.

When you add it all up, California has lost over 400 major retail locations in the past 2 years.

That’s not including small independent businesses or local retailers.

We’re talking about national chains with billions in revenue and sophisticated loss prevention systems.

If they can’t make it work in California, what does that tell you about the business environment? The human cost is staggering.

Retail employs about 1.

9 million people in California, making it one of the state’s largest employment sectors.

With major retailers closing hundreds of stores, somewhere between 50,000 and 75,000 retail jobs have disappeared since 2023.

These aren’t high-paying positions, but they’re essential for working families.

A job at Target pays enough to cover rent, buy groceries, and save a little money.

When that job disappears, families fall into crisis.

Maria Rodriguez worked at the Target in South Sacramento for seven years.

She was a department manager making $24 per hour, about $50,000 per year.

When Target announced the closure in December 2025, she was given 60 days notice and a severance package equivalent to 2 months pay.

She applied to other retail positions in the area, but with so many stores closing simultaneously, there were hundreds of applicants for every opening.

As of January 2026, she’s still unemployed.

Her savings are nearly gone.

She’s facing eviction and she’s one of thousands of California workers experiencing the same nightmare.

The ripple effects extend far beyond retail workers.

Commercial real estate is collapsing.

When Target closes a 130,000 ft anchor store in a shopping center, the entire center struggles.

Smaller retailers depend on the foot traffic that Target generates.

When Target leaves, those smaller stores lose customers.

Many end up closing, too.

Shopping centers that once thrived become vacant shelves.

Property values plummet and the tax base erodess further.

In San Francisco’s Stonestown Galleria, Target’s closure in 2023 triggered a cascade of other departures.

Within 6 months, five additional stores in the same mall shut down.

Property values in the area dropped 35%.

The mall’s owner defaulted on their mortgage.

Now the entire property is in receiverhip and nobody knows what happens next.

This is happening across California.

Retail vacancies in Los Angeles are at 18%, the highest level since the 2008 financial crisis.

In San Francisco, retail vacancy rates have hit 24% in some neighborhoods.

In Oakland, Sacramento, and Fresno, the numbers are similar.

Entire commercial corridors are going dark.

And Governor Nuome’s response.

On January 8th, 2026, 2 days after Target’s announcement, he held a press conference to address the retail crisis.

He called Target’s decision disappointing and suggested that the company was using California as a scapegoat for broader business challenges.

He said his administration remained committed to criminal justice reform and workers rights and that California would not be intimidated by corporate threats.

Think about that for a moment.

77 Target stores closing, thousands of jobs lost, millions in tax revenue disappearing, communities losing access to affordable goods, and the governor calls it disappointing.

and accuses the company of making threats.

There’s no acknowledgement that policy choices have consequences.

No recognition that maybe, just maybe, there’s a connection between eliminating penalties for theft and retailers getting robbed into bankruptcy.

California Attorney General Rob Bont issued a statement suggesting that Target should be investigated for potential antitrust violations related to store closures.

He implied that Target might be coordinating with other retailers to punish California for its progressive policies.

This is the level of denial we’re dealing with.

Rather than address the underlying problems, California officials are threatening to investigate the companies fleeing the state.

Meanwhile, Target’s investors are demanding answers.

During the January 6th earnings call, several institutional investors asked Brian Cornell why Target continued operating any stores in California at all.

One investor from a major pension fund asked point blank, “Why don’t you just exit California entirely and redeploy that capital to states where you can operate profitably?” Cornell’s response was diplomatic, but revealing.

He said Target remained committed to serving California customers where economically feasible, but that the company would not sacrifice shareholder value to maintain unprofitable operations.

He noted that Target’s California stores generated $8.2 2 billion in revenue in 2023, but only $180 million in operating profit, a margin of just 2.2%.

By comparison, Target’s Texas stores generated $6.1 billion in revenue with $610 million in operating profit, a margin of 10%.

California represents a larger market, but far lower profitability.

If California’s policy environment continues deteriorating, Cornell acknowledged that full withdrawal from the state becomes a realistic scenario.

And if Target leaves entirely, other major retailers will follow.

That’s not a threat.

That’s just business reality.

Here’s what happens next.

If this trajectory continues, more retailers will close more stores.

Job losses will accelerate.

Commercial real estate will collapse further.

Tax revenues will plummet.

Local governments will cut services.

Crime will increase as economic desperation grows, and the people hurt most will be the working families these policies claim to protect.

The $20 minimum wage was supposed to help retail workers afford California’s high cost of living.

But what good is $20 per hour if there are no retail jobs? The criminal justice reforms were supposed to reduce incarceration and promote rehabilitation.

But what’s the point if the result is lawless commercial corridors where businesses can’t survive? California had choices.

The state could have modified Proposition 47 to create meaningful consequences for organized retail theft while maintaining reduced penalties for individual offenders acting out of necessity.

California could have increased funding for district attorneys and retail crime task forces to actually prosecute theft rings.

The state could have phased in minimum wage increases gradually, giving businesses time to adjust rather than imposing a 25% cost spike overnight.

These weren’t secret options.

Business groups, law enforcement organizations, and retail industry associations proposed exactly these solutions repeatedly over the past 5 years.

They were ignored, and now we’re living with the consequences.

Before you go, I need you to do something.

Subscribe to the Laura Whitmore Report if you haven’t already.

This channel will continue covering the stories that others won’t touch.

Drop a comment below and tell me, should California reverse Proposition 47? Should the state provide compensation to communities that lost access to retail? Do you think Target will eventually exit California completely? Share this video with your family, friends, and co-workers.

People need to understand what’s happening before their local stores close, too.

Here’s the question we’re left with.

When the last target closes, when working families have no access to affordable goods, when entire neighborhoods become retail deserts, when thousands more jobs disappear, will anyone in Sacramento accept responsibility? Or will California’s leaders continue blaming corporations, claim victimhood, and double down on the policies that created this disaster? The answer is being written right now.

And based on Governor Nuome’s response, it doesn’t look like anyone in power is interested in changing course.

California is conducting an experiment in how much dysfunction a major economy can absorb before it collapses entirely.

We’re watching that experiment fail in real time.