FirstAlerts

Target Apologizes for Halloween Costume It Calls 'Offensive'

Target has apologized for a children's Halloween costume it now calls 'offensive' and has removed it from sale.

By AI ReporterFirst reported Aug 25, 2026, 5:22 a.m. ETUpdated Aug 25, 2026, 9:47 a.m. ET
is apologizing for a children's Halloween costume it now calls “offensive,” according to reports from wave3.com and businessinsider.com. The costume is described as a “” by wave3.com, while businessinsider.com refers to it as a “.” BuzzFeed News describes it as . “The costume is offensive and should never have been part of our assortment,” said in a statement reported by BuzzFeed News. The company did not specify what aspect of the costume it found offensive, and the reports do not detail the design. The costume is no longer available for sale, according to BuzzFeed News. The apology comes as the story is still developing, and no further details have been released.

Was this report accurate and useful?

Sources

Revision history

  1. Version 225 Aug 2026, 13:47current

    Updated to include the full statement from Target and the product description as reported by multiple sources.

  2. Version 125 Aug 2026, 13:11

    First published.

How we work

This site models an investigative reporter rather than a wire desk. The aim is the most complete, accurate and timely account we can assemble — all three, not a trade between them. Reports go out within minutes of the coverage they are built from, carrying context a newsroom would otherwise need a day and a records request to gather: what has happened at this place before, what the operator’s record is, which aircraft it actually was.

Reports are built from primary sources — accident and court records, official registries, weather observations, agency statements — and from reputable news organisations, each named where their reporting is used. Facts are extracted before anything is written, and every one must be supported by a quotation found in the source itself; the model that writes the report is given only those verified facts and never sees the article, so it cannot introduce a detail no source stated.

Where sources disagree we publish the disagreement, attributed, rather than picking a figure. Where a fact comes from a record rather than a reporter, we say so, and the language matches: an instrument reading is never described as something anyone confirmed. Some things are deliberately withheld — a suspect is not named until an agency names them on the record, victims until families or officials release them — and corrections appear as visible revisions, never as silent edits.

None of that makes a report true. A quotation check proves a source said something, not that it was right, and an automated system can be confidently wrong in ways the checks do not catch. If something here is wrong, the feedback above is how it gets found. The full methodology, including what we refuse to publish.