The Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade claims it forced Vogue parent, Condé Nast, to drop new animal fur from its pages — a strategic win in a long campaign against fashion cruelty.
Almost a year into a sustained pressure campaign, the Coalition to Abolish the Fur Trade (CAFT) is asserting that it has succeeded in forcing Condé Nast to commit to a fur-free editorial and advertising policy. The declaration comes after months of protests, targeted demonstrations, and public challenges.
On its website’s sustainability page, Condé Nast states, “Across our titles, we do not feature new animal fur in editorial content or advertising.”
CAFT describes the campaign as nine months of escalation: repeatedly urging Condé Nast through direct messaging, staging over one hundred protests near the residences of key executives and editors, and confronting retail and affiliate partners.
CAFT Executive Director Suzie Stork said in an email that the announcement is progress after a long fight. “Condé Nast’s shift away from fur is a long overdue nod to the values of modern, ethical consumers who reject cruelty in fashion,” she said.
CAFT frames the Condé Nast decision — or reversal — less as a self-initiated editorial pivot and more as a result of grassroots pressure. While immediate observers may see the policy update as Condé Nast finally bowing to sentiment, CAFT insists the real change came only after it turned the campaign into a reputational risk. The group emphasizes the symbolic weight of making Vogue, the fashion world’s flagship publication, remove a public platform for new fur.
Fashion media’s long march against fur
In late 2021, Elle magazine announced it would eliminate fur from editorial and advertising globally. At the time, Elle framed it as a values choice: fur no longer aligned with its readership’s ethics. That move triggered calls from PETA and other groups for Vogue and parent company Condé Nast to follow suit.
Over the years, fashion houses and magazines have phased out fur: Kering banned it across brands; Gucci, Chanel, and others had already done so. Global fur production fell dramatically, from peaks of some 140 million animals annually to nearer 20 million in recent years, according to CAFT’s citing of Humane World for Animals data.
Yet in recent seasons, fur began creeping back. Vogue Business and sustainability critics flagged its reappearance in Autumn/Winter 2024 and 2025 collections, especially amid the “Mob Wife” resurgence aesthetic. Some designers returned to shearling and pelts, and fur began to reemerge in editorial spreads.
In that climate, Caft’s campaign was pitched not just at fur’s declining volume, but at preserving the cultural firewall around it. If Vogue, historically a kingmaker in style, refused to platform new fur, its symbolic legitimacy would erode.
Is this the end of fur?
If CAFT’s version holds, Condé Nast’s fur policy address could be seen as more than a symbolic defeat, but the very real end of fur promotion could ripple through fashion houses still lingering in its orbit.
Yet many questions remain. Condé Nast’s policy states exclusion of new animal fur — what does that mean for archival imagery? What about vintage fur or reworked fur pieces? And what about advertisements? How will Vogue treat future fashion trends that invoke traditional fur aesthetics under different materials?
And now under Chloe Malle’s stewardship as Head of Editorial Content and Anna Wintour’s continued influence, the magazine could choose to amplify cruelty-free luxury, or risk being a focal point in a revived ethics debate. A newly pressured editorial posture would realign who is considered legitimate tastemaker — and whose materials deserve prestige.
For brands that have yet to abandon fur — particularly elements still protected under LVMH umbrella or traditional ateliers — CAFT’s agenda looks ahead to deeper targets. Stork’s statement emphasizes that the campaign is far from over: “we are now focusing our full attention on Berluti and the other LVMH holdouts.”
CAFT, for its part, frames this as a strategic breakthrough. Its insistence on claiming agency reframes the narrative: not that Condé Nast decided to turn, but that the pressure was sufficient to force the turn.
Related on Ethos:
