Part of my job as a corporate engagement strategist is to read what’s on corporate ballots at American public companies. Reading these agendas reveals a stunning amount of blatantly anti-business proposals from corporate activist groups, from pushing Lockheed Martin to divest from Israel to pressuring Starbucks to make oat milk free to fight racism (yes, that’s real). But the other day, I came across perhaps one of the worst examples of corporate activism that’s not only anti-business, but arguably directly at odds with values of the organization pushing the proposal. The proposal? Supporting employee access to abortion. The proponent? The largest Presbyterian denomination in America.
The Presbyterian Church U.S.A. (PCUSA) is one of the biggest Presbyterian denominations in America, with more than a million members in its ranks despite <a href="https://www.christianpost.com/news/pcusa-may-drop-below-1-million-member-mark-by-end-of-2025-report.html">losing</a> almost 50,000 members in 2024 alone. Earlier this year, the denomination shuttered its missionary program after almost two centuries, citing declining giving and church membership. But, while the international mission field may be a lost cause for PCUSA, financial struggles haven’t stopped them from pursuing other goals like making sure American employees can kill their unborn children. The PCUSA recently sponsored a <a href="https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001646972/7d526ba6-e36b-41a6-bd6a-9c4833529da6.pdf">shareholder proposal</a> for supermarket chain Albertsons, urging the company to report on the effects of state-level restrictions on abortion in the wake of Dobbs v. Jackson Women’s Health Organization, overturning Roe v. Wade. Even though the proposal came from an organization representing thousands of Christians, it’s a masterclass in pro-abortion virtue signaling. “[Employees] who cannot access abortion when needed are three times more likely to leave the workforce, and four times as likely to slip into poverty.” Conveniently, the stats on unborn children go unmentioned.
PCUSA’s demands are clear: “support abortion, or you’re not acting in the best interests of your shareholders or employees. By the way, we’re a church.” PCUSA’s slide into backwards orthodoxy, rejecting virtually every tenet of the historic Christian faith, is <a href="https://www.hrc.org/resources/stances-of-faiths-on-lgbt-issues-presbyterian-church-usa">well-documented</a>. But from a business perspective, there is an important question to ask: Is supporting abortion access a fiduciary responsibility of publicly traded companies? In my view, no. And there are at least two reasons. 
First, opining on divisive issues from abortion to ‘gender-affirming care’ is rapidly becoming the reddest of flags to both American consumers and businesses seeking to maintain their bottom line. All one needs to do is look at Target, Bud Light, &amp; Disney to see how politicized business becomes bad business. 
Second (and it’s a wonder we don’t talk about this more), companies that support abortion are literally supporting the killing of future customers. As my firm Bowyer Research wrote in a <a href="https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1996368/000109690625001103/bowy_px14a6g.htm">recent SEC filing</a>, urging shareholders to vote against the PCUSA’s proposal, “For a company like Albertsons, whose long-term success depends on serving growing families and communities, policies that suppress birth rates may ultimately shrink its future customer base.”
That takes us to another common pro-abortion talking point in corporate America: that businesses operating in pro-life states are going to see <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/no-people-are-not-fleeing-states-with-strong-pro-life-laws/">worker shortages</a>. That’s by no means a definitive statement. Albertsons is headquartered in Boise, Idaho. Through a pro-abortion lens, companies in red states should be deeply concerned about the exodus of workers leaving for pro-abortion states. The reality? Idaho’s one of the <a href="https://boisedev.com/news/2025/01/27/idaho-2-million/">fastest-growing states</a> in America, with many of those new residents coming from pro-abortion states such as California, Oregon, and Washington. It’s almost as if population growth is more complicated than merely looking at a state’s abortion stance — if anything, pro-life Idaho seems to be winning the population growth war. It’s another reason that it simply makes no sense for a company like Albertsons to support abortion to appease corporate activists — especially when those activists come from the church.
This isn’t Christian corporate engagement, no matter what the Denethor-esque stewards of the PCUSA may tell you. But it is instructive as to how Christian organizations drift Left. While the PCUSA may be an infamously liberal denomination, that doesn’t mean that abortion advocacy is what many of its tithing church members, many of whom are conservative, and pensioned clergy want. You may be the most conservative PCUSA <a href="https://x.com/IsaacWillour/status/1940207329770897890">churchgoer</a> alive but they can still use your tithes to lobby for abortion.
This should be a wakeup call for all Christians on just how bad things are getting in mainline denominations. If you’re part of a church or Christian ministry, it’s time to get answers about who’s stewarding your finances and <a href="https://www.dailysignal.com/2025/06/13/the-results-of-christian-mutual-proxy-voting-analysis-leave-significant-room-for-improvement/">what they’re doing</a> — how are “you” voting on these sorts of proposals? Christian organizations have fallen asleep at the wheel when it comes to their finances reflecting their faith.
What can be done to remedy this particular situation? A good place to start is making sure that your church is never in the arena advocating for the killing of unborn children. And right now, the PCUSA’s doing just that.
* * *
Isaac Willour is an award-winning journalist focusing on race, culture, and American conservatism, as well as a corporate relations analyst at Bowyer Research. His work has been featured at outlets including USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times Opinion, C-SPAN, and The Daily Wire. He is a member of the Young Voices contributor program and can be found on X <a href="https://twitter.com/IsaacWillour" target="_blank" rel="noopener">@IsaacWillour</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Blurry background speaker on conference stage with projector in America

A Major Church Just Advocated For Abortion At A Shareholder Meeting

Abortion

Business

Church

Corporations

Opinion

When President Trump says other countries are “ripping us off,” he is referring to more than trade or currency manipulation. He is also talking about predatory investors overseas — foreign-based hedge funds and sovereign wealth funds — that have devoted staggering amounts of money to bankroll frivolous lawsuits in American courts. Why? Their aim is to pocket a significant portion of any verdict or settlement. If successful, these litigation gamblers not only secure a sizable return on their investment, they also walk away without having to pay any taxes.
It is unfair to American companies, consumers, and taxpayers. 
There is, however, a real opportunity to stop this litigation abuse through the budget negotiations currently underway in Congress. Foreign investors are using our U.S. court systems to punish American companies and citizens while enriching themselves. Since litigation is so costly, risky, and time consuming, many companies often agree to settle even when the case lacks real merit, because the risk of going to trial is simply too high.
The lawsuit funding landscape has become akin to the wild west. Foreign investors take advantage of loopholes to avoid paying taxes on their judgments or settlements even if the plaintiffs they are bankrolling are required to pay taxes. One reason this practice is not better known is very few jurisdictions require investors to disclose their involvement in cases or the terms of their agreements.
Allowing foreign-based investors to operate in the shadows, cloaked in anonymity, raises a host of legal, ethical, and even national security concerns. How are judges to know if they need to recuse themselves if they do not have access to all the facts? Who are the attorneys acting on behalf of the plaintiffs or the investors? Is the often-confidential information obtained during the discovery process about American citizens and companies at risk of being turned over to foreign funders, some of whom may hold views antithetical to our national interests? What are the real motivations for these lawsuits? Is it about justice or achieving other geopolitical goals?
Clearly, this practice is cloaked in secrecy. And while there is much the American people still do not know, they know enough to understand it’s both unfair and a serious threat. At least $15 billion is devoted to this dubious practice as of today. We also know Russian oligarchs have <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/litigation-finance/putins-billionaires-sidestep-sanctions-by-financing-lawsuits">dodged sanctions</a> by investing in lawsuits in American courts and investors based in China have <a href="https://news.bloomberglaw.com/business-and-practice/china-firm-funds-us-lawsuits-amid-push-to-disclose-foreign-ties">used</a> litigation financing arrangements to target tech companies.
The good news? There is a remedy at the ready.
Senator Thom Tillis (R-NC) and Congressman Kevin Hern (R-OK) introduced the <a href="https://www.tillis.senate.gov/services/files/94578FC8-8F83-48AB-9932-7D61465A7FFF">Tackling Predatory Litigation Funding Act</a>, a bill which cracks down on the misuse and abuse of our courts by ending investors’ preferential tax treatment and creating much-needed deterrence. This legislation will, at a minimum, make investors think twice before targeting a successful American company with a frivolous claim.
The Tillis-Hern Tackling Predatory Litigation Funding Act takes the “for sale” sign off of American courthouses and amends the tax code to impose a new “tax on income from litigation which is received by third-party entities that provided financing for such litigation.”
Income from lawsuits is just that – income; just as American taxpayers have to pay taxes on the money they make, so too should foreign investors who use our court systems as a casino.
President Trump’s Reconciliation Bill passed the House last month and now awaits consideration in the Senate. While it contains a permanent extension of the Trump tax cuts, No Tax on Tips, and billions for immigration enforcement – the Senate also has a chance to fix the equity and tax issues associated with predatory foreign litigation investing. In addition, the Tillis-Hern Tackling Predatory Litigation Funding Act would crack down on foreign intrusions in our courts, safeguard national security interests, and generate new tax revenues to fund other commonsensical American priorities.
This is an ideal time and a good legislative vehicle to stop foreign investors from using U.S. courts to harm and punish American taxpayers, and this Reconciliation Bill can accomplish just that.
* * *
Trey Gowdy represented South Carolina’s 4th District in the U.S. House of Representatives from 2011 until 2019.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.
<a href="https://get.dailywire.com/gift/?utm_medium=website&amp;utm_source=wisepops&amp;utm_campaign=dad&amp;utm_content=fathersdaygiftpopups">Gift Dad an All Access Membership. Use code DAD40 at checkout to save 40%!</a>

USTR Greer Slated To Defend Trump Tariffs To Congress

Time To Stop Predatory Foreign Investors

Congress

finance

Foreign Policy

U.S. House of Representatives

U.S. Senate

Home Depot, Netflix, and Delta Airlines are just some of the companies being warned to cut ties with a left-wing program that pushes companies to cover sex change procedures for employees, a letter from a former attorney general obtained by The Daily Wire reveals.
The <a href="https://1792exchange.com/">1792 Exchange</a>, which fights the diversity, equity, and inclusion agenda in corporate America, is urging 92 companies to end their participation in the Corporate Equality Index, a rubric used by the far-left Human Rights Campaign (HRC) to grade companies’ adherence to left-wing gender ideology.
The Corporate Equality Index, the 1792 Exchange says, “functions as a social credit scoring system, promoting partisan initiatives that impede sound corporate governance” and even “pressures companies to adopt unlawful policies that only sow division.”
“You should cease participation in this index immediately,” the letter charges.
The 1792 Exchange is run by former Kentucky Attorney General Daniel Cameron, who told The Daily Wire that some companies simply don’t understand just how radical the HRC’s Corporate Equality Index really is.
“Unfortunately, many companies have no idea what they’re actually signing up for when they participate in the HRC’s survey. This should be a wake-up call,” Cameron told The Daily Wire. “As we move forward with America’s renewal, 1792 Exchange urges every responsible HR leader to reconsider their involvement with HRC and refocus on merit, excellence, and integrity in the workplace.”
Other notable companies that received the letter include Costco, Cracker Barrel, Lowe&#8217;s, Albertson’s, Autozone, and Rite Aid.
In order to receive a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/how-left-wing-activists-are-trying-to-save-corporate-wokeness">perfect score</a> on the Corporate Equality Index, companies in previous years had to offer healthcare coverage for so-called “medically necessary” transgender hormone replacement therapy, sex change operations, and puberty blockers for youth, while also establishing supplier diversity pipelines focused on LGBTQ+ suppliers.
Several companies, including Walmart, McDonald’s, and Tractor Supply, have <a href="https://1792exchange.com/dei-tracker/">ended their participation</a> in the Corporate Equality Index in recent years. Ford Motor Company similarly backed out of the left-wing organization’s scoring system, <a href="https://x.com/robbystarbuck/status/1828820035118518737">announcing in a memo</a> last year that it would “stop participating in external culture surveys such as the Human Rights Campaign’s Corporate Equality Index.”
Now, Cameron is calling on the 92 corporations addressed in his letter to follow suit.
“As you prepare for the upcoming 2026 CEI survey, I encourage you to carefully consider the risks and consequences of continued participation,” Cameron writes before offering them assistance in decoupling from the far-left organization. “We are here to support you&#8230;your team of experienced professionals offers confidential, pro bono assistance to help you align your company’s policies with both business success and legal prudence.”
“Let’s ensure that workplaces remain welcoming, productive, and focused on excellence,” Cameron’s letter concludes. “Withdrawing participation in the CEI represents a responsible step in this direction.”

Home Depot

EXCLUSIVE: Home Depot, Netflix Hit Over Involvement In LGBT ‘Social Credit’ System

Diversity Equity and Inclusion (DEI)

LGBT

Netflix

Woke Culture

Over the weekend, President Donald Trump successfully cut a trade deal with China, with Treasury Secretary Scott Bessent <a href="https://nypost.com/2025/05/12/us-news/us-and-china-reach-deal-to-slash-tariffs-officials-say/?utm_medium=social&amp;utm_campaign=nypost&amp;utm_source=twitter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">announcing</a> our biggest adversary has agreed to scale back tariffs on U.S. imports to just 10 percent for three months.
The announcement likely came as a shock to <a href="https://x.com/atrupar/status/1920878476837449764?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1920878476837449764%7Ctwgr%5E2ca4dd2d76e13621845f6a6b8705bbcb9bb0d590%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.zerohedge.com%2Fmarkets%2Ffake-news-narrative-empty-ports-empty-shelves-suffers-spectacular-implosion%3Fref%3Dbiztoc.com" target="_blank" rel="noopener">the left-wing media</a> and <a href="https://x.com/ChrisMurphyCT/status/1921669522102104360" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Democrats</a> who swore it would never, ever happen. But it was a good reminder that the president understands what mainstream American media has failed to cover: China is losing this trade war. Chinese <a href="https://nypost.com/2025/04/30/business/chinese-factory-activity-plunges-as-trump-tariffs-hammer-bilateral-trade/?utm_medium=social&amp;utm_campaign=nypost&amp;utm_source=twitter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">factory floors</a> are deserted, and cargo bookings between the United States and China are <a href="https://nypost.com/2025/04/29/business/shipments-from-china-to-drop-by-35-due-to-trump-tariffs-port-of-la-chief/?utm_medium=social&amp;utm_campaign=nypost&amp;utm_source=twitter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">down</a> by nearly 50%.
And it’s not just China. Trump also recently announced a trade agreement with the <a href="https://finance.yahoo.com/news/trump-announces-his-first-trade-deal-with-the-uk-heres-whats-in-it-120417143.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">United Kingdom</a> and is closing in on deals with India, Japan, and South Korea.
Back at home, American manufacturers are seeing a <a href="https://dailycaller.com/2025/05/05/american-business-returns-trump-tariffs-china/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">surge in demand</a>, ramping up production, preparing to hire new workers, and announcing <a href="https://www.reuters.com/business/healthcare-pharmaceuticals/gilead-announces-11-billion-new-investments-us-2025-05-07/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">billions</a> of dollars in new investments. Meanwhile, President Trump is determined to <a href="https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2025/05/12/trump-tax-bill/83584926007/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">cut taxes</a>, red tape, and regulations, all of which are sure to help American consumers and businesses alike.
You might think this success would change how American businesses think about Trump. Too often, big companies substitute their core values for the zero-sum game of appealing to one side of the political spectrum, costing them public trust and hurting their bottom line.
(Two words: <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/world/2023/sep/19/dylan-mulvaney-bud-light-boycott" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Bud Light</a>.)
Simply put, corporate America has a long track record of <a href="https://www.cnn.com/2017/08/15/news/walmart-doug-mcmillon-charlottesville-trump/index.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">poor decision-making</a> and choosing the wrong hills to die on. After initially embracing Trump, many big businesses have now turned on him, thanks to tariffs. They may want to reconsider.
After Donald Trump’s resounding victory last November, big retailers from Walmart to Amazon to Target were quick to <a href="https://thehill.com/business/5054083-trump-embrace-ceos-friends/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">reach out</a>, <a href="https://thehill.com/business/5054083-trump-embrace-ceos-friends/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">applaud</a>, and align themselves with the new president, <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/target-donated-1-million-to-trump-vance-inauguration-tariffs-dei-2025-4" target="_blank" rel="noopener">donating millions</a> for inaugural ceremonies and even <a href="https://www.wsj.com/livecoverage/trump-inauguration-president-2025/card/why-walmart-s-ceo-is-at-the-inauguration-8NmecvA3oo7tG8dPdI8F" target="_blank" rel="noopener">attending themselves</a> in person, <a href="https://thehill.com/business/5054083-trump-embrace-ceos-friends/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">congratulating</a> President Trump on his victory, and generally making nice with the White House’s newest occupant.
&#8220;Big congratulations to our 45th and now 47th President on an extraordinary political comeback and decisive victory. No nation has bigger opportunities,” wrote <a href="https://www.cbsnews.com/news/trump-victory-business-leaders-react/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos on X</a>.
“<a href="https://fortune.com/2025/03/25/walmart-heiress-christy-walton-nonparitsan-advert/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">The dignity of our country is not for sale</a>,” reads an ad by Walmart heiress Christy Walton placed in the New York Times shortly after President Trump’s win.
But the honeymoon ended as soon as it began.
&#8220;These tariffs may be aimed at China, but the bill will be charged to American consumers who will pay more at the checkout,&#8221; <a href="https://www.mprnews.org/story/2018/03/22/big-retailers-push-back-on-trump-tarriffs" target="_blank" rel="noopener">warned</a> the vice president of international trade for the Retail Industry Leaders Association, which represents Target and Best Buy, among other major retailers.
Mattel CEO Ynon Kreiz said on <a href="https://www.cnbc.com/2025/05/06/mattel-ceo-toy-manufacturing-trump-tariffs.html" target="_blank" rel="noopener">CNBC</a> that manufacturing won’t come to America, but price hikes will.
Unfortunately for these businesses, gaslighting families into blaming Trump for the high prices won’t work. A recent focus group in Pennsylvania <a href="https://www.axios.com/2025/04/11/focus-groups-pennsylvania-swing-voters-voice-tariff-confusion" target="_blank" rel="noopener">found</a> that, even though voters didn’t fully understand tariffs, they still supported Trump.
Bottom line: Big retail would do well to sit tight and stick with the president on this one.
The payoff will be more than just dollars and profits. They’ll have earned the trust of the public, demonstrating they take seriously the principles and pride of being an American, and in the long run, consumers will thank them with their wallets for years to come.
Carly Bird is a Republican strategist and founder and president of Bird’s Eye Consulting. She previously served as the national spokeswoman for Ron DeSantis’ presidential campaign.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

A Walmart Store Ahead Of Earnings Figures

A Warning To Big Retail: Stick With America First

Bud Light

China

Tariffs

Ever since the unconscionable horror of October 7 and the brutal war that followed, there’s been a disturbing uptick in corporate activists competing to have the worst possible takes on the conflict — and getting big business to share those takes. This activism is aimed not at establishing a serious way for America’s largest tech &amp; defense companies to view the war against Hamas, but for foisting activist (i.e. non-fiduciary) objectives on the way they conduct their business involving it.
This is nothing new — last year saw a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/since-october-7-anti-israel-activism-has-failed-where-it-matters-most" target="_blank" rel="noopener">surge</a> in anti-Israel activism at numerous shareholder meetings, albeit not activism that resonated with the shareholder audience (in fact, its influence is notably decreasing). Why, then, does this activism persist? This Tuesday, we got a rare sneak peak at the real reason.
Intel is one of the largest private businesses operating in Israel. The company has been in the country since 1974 and is maybe the most crucial company in the Israeli high-tech sector, with other major corporate actors like Nvidia &amp; Apple also maintaining major presences in the region. And yet, despite this 50+ year business relationship that’s not only created tremendous wealth for Israel but generated massive return for Intel shareholders across the globe, corporate activists aren’t happy. Again, nothing new. But at Intel’s <a href="https://central.virtualshareholdermeeting.com/vsm/web?pvskey=INTEL25" target="_blank" rel="noopener">annual meeting</a> on Tuesday, the company fielded a proposal urging the company not merely for risk analysis, but to divest from the country entirely.
Dubbed an “ethical impact assessment,” the <a href="https://d1io3yog0oux5.cloudfront.net/_1d2493931f76b3eb3a02f6d948d9f540/intel/files/documents/flipbook/Intel_Proxy_2025_Files/90/index.html#zoom=true" target="_blank" rel="noopener">shareholder proposal</a> pushed Intel to consider the “moral &amp; legal implications” of continuing to do business with Israel — many anti-Israel proposals, from <a href="https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1526520/000119312524129373/d725214dars.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">TripAdvisor</a> to <a href="https://investors.rtx.com/static-files/f5957454-3174-4285-bf5f-06462044467d" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Raytheon</a>, couch the pressure to divest in innocuous, noble-sounding sentiments involving ethics and human rights (or borrow activist terms like ‘apartheid.’)
Activists at Intel argued that the company should completely “reassess [its] business relationship with Israel,” alleging that the human costs of war against Hamas are grounds for Intel to uproot its ties to a country it’s invested in for more than half a century. And then came the <a href="https://central.virtualshareholdermeeting.com/vsm/web?pvskey=INTEL25" target="_blank" rel="noopener">boom</a>: “We risk exclusion from important ESG indices that screen for human rights compliance in conflict zones.”
There’s no analysis that could make it plainer than that. The real case for why Israel’s most consistent business partners should divest, at its heart, boiled down to ESG ratings. That’s the case: this long standing relationship, that both provides shareholder return and protects innocent civilian life in a just war against one of the world’s most brutal terrorist organizations, has to go so that Intel’s ESG score doesn’t suffer.
<div id="attachment_918149" style="width: 874px" class="wp-caption aligncenter"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" aria-describedby="caption-attachment-918149" class="size-large wp-image-918149" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/GettyImages-2213569192-864x576.jpg" alt="A display of missiles and drones at the Lockheed Martin Corp. booth at the DEFEA international defense exhibition in Athens, Greece, on Wednesday, May 7, 2025. The Defence Exhibition Athens takes place between May 6 to May 8. Photographer: Nick Paleologos/Bloomberg via Getty Images" width="864" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/GettyImages-2213569192-864x576.jpg 864w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/GettyImages-2213569192-300x200.jpg 300w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/GettyImages-2213569192-768x512.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/05/GettyImages-2213569192.jpg 1024w" sizes="(max-width: 864px) 100vw, 864px" />A display of missiles and drones at the Lockheed Martin Corp. booth at the DEFEA international defense exhibition in Athens, Greece, on Wednesday, May 7, 2025. Nick Paleologos/Bloomberg via Getty Images</div>
The implicit premise here is, of course, that Israel’s actions to subdue Hamas and defend itself against a fighting force that expressly seeks its annihilation are incompatible with ESG dogma. And it’s not just Intel — today, Lockheed Martin shareholders will vote for the second year in a row on a <a href="https://www.lockheedmartin.com/content/dam/lockheed-martin/eo/documents/annual-reports/2025-proxy-statement.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">shareholder proposal</a> pushing the company to stop its similarly long standing relationship with Israel, arguing that Lockheed selling fighter jets renders it complicit in war crimes.
These activist narratives, while arguably nobly intentioned, make the perfect (i.e. a world where war apparently doesn’t involve business decisions and difficult questions) the enemy of the good (i.e. the real world). War has never been free of moral questions — and the philosophical questions involved in companies that operate in war-adjacent industries are real and <a href="https://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1996368/000109690625000722/bowy_px14a6g.htm" target="_blank" rel="noopener">worth discussing</a>. But ESG-aligned activists are making it abundantly clear that their answers don’t pass muster.
Pushing a tech company like Intel to divest from an entire nation based on nothing more than chronically vague statements about human rights and a handful of Amnesty International articles opining about ‘apartheid’ (yes, that’s what activists put forward at the meeting Tuesday) isn’t a serious business argument. And pushing a weapons company like Lockheed Martin to stop selling weapons to a longtime business partner engaged in a just war, fighting terrorists that hide among innocent civilian populations, based on nothing more than vague language about “misalignment” with human rights policies, isn’t a serious business argument either.
Too often, ESG-aligned arguments boil down to profoundly unwise ideas wrapped in nice-sounding turns of phrase. Pressuring energy companies into wildly non-fiduciary <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/jemmagreen/2024/08/29/why-big-corporations-are-quietly-abandoning-their-climate-commitments/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">net-zero commitments</a> is portrayed as being “climate conscious.” <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/the-radical-intolerance-behind-woke-corporate-activism" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Pressuring</a> companies into providing puberty blockers for employees’ children is portrayed as “healthcare,” “corporate equality,” and “inclusion.” And now, pressuring companies to divest from Israel, not for demonstrated business but activist narratives that can’t acknowledge the existence of just war, is being portrayed as “responsibly reduc[ing] risk.”
Shareholders are increasingly rejecting these arguments — given their implicit premises, perhaps that’s not surprising. But it’s as good a moment as any to remember that nice sounding business words don’t mean anything without real moral arguments behind them. And if keeping your ESG score means disarming Israeli civilians being targeted by Hamas, that says more about ESG than it does about anything else.
* * *
Isaac Willour is an award-winning journalist focusing on race, culture, and American conservatism, as well as a corporate relations analyst at Bowyer Research. His work has been featured at outlets including USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times Opinion, C-SPAN, and The Daily Wire. He is a member of the Young Voices contributor program and can be found on X <a href="https://twitter.com/IsaacWillour" target="_blank" rel="noopener">@IsaacWillour</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Intel Headquarters Ahead Of Earnings Figures

How ESG Scores Became The New Weapon In The War On Israel

Boycott Divest Sanction

Dow Jones

Israel

Lockheed Martin

shareholders

We&#8217;ve seen the collapse of a lot of supposedly &#8220;grassroots&#8221; movements ever since Donald Trump took office. BLM, as we&#8217;ve <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cDiA10y1ZJc" target="_blank" rel="noopener">discussed</a>, has literally been dismantled on the streets of Washington, D.C. — as in, the mayor removed the BLM graffiti from the road and tore up &#8220;BLM Plaza.&#8221; No one even pretended to care about that, even though just a few years ago, it would&#8217;ve been considered blasphemy against George Floyd. But in 2025, there was no rioting. There wasn&#8217;t even really a protest.
And of course the Women&#8217;s March is also completely demoralized and gutted. When Trump was inaugurated back in 2017, half a million protesters reportedly participated in the so-called &#8220;Women&#8217;s March&#8221; in downtown Washington D.C. They claimed it was the biggest single-day protest in the history of this country. But for Trump&#8217;s second inauguration earlier this year, only a few thousand people <a href="https://www.npr.org/2025/01/20/nx-s1-5258481/trump-protest-peoples-march-womens-march-inauguration-presidency-policies-agenda" target="_blank" rel="noopener">participated</a> in the so-called &#8220;People&#8217;s March,&#8221; even though the &#8220;People&#8217;s March&#8221; was supposed to be more inclusive. They expanded their branding from &#8220;women&#8221; to &#8220;people,&#8221; and yet they still lost about 99% of their manpower — or I should probably say people power.
It&#8217;s enough to make you wonder how many of these movements were ever really &#8220;grassroots&#8221; in the first place. To what extent were they relying on funding that&#8217;s no longer there? And where did that funding come from? These are questions that are worth asking, especially because we&#8217;re seeing this phenomenon happen more and more often. As Donald Trump kills federal funding for various NGOs and nonprofits, and as major corporations decide to scale back their activism, some of the Left&#8217;s biggest protest movements are falling apart. They&#8217;re proving to be unsustainable. It&#8217;s almost as if they were never actually that popular in the first place.
Maybe the most extraordinary example of this phenomenon is the current state of &#8220;Pride Month,&#8221; which is set to take place in June. When we released my film &#8220;<a href="https://www.dailywire.com/videos/what-is-a-woman" target="_blank" rel="noopener">What is a Woman?</a>&#8221; back in 2022, Pride Month had the backing of pretty much every Fortune 500 company on the planet. The organizers of various &#8220;pride parades&#8221; were flush with cash. They were setting the dominant narrative — one that valorized hedonism, narcissism, perversion, and child abuse. It was never explained exactly why these people needed lavish parades all over the country, for weeks on end, in order to celebrate their sexual interests. We were just supposed to accept it, as a kind of quasi-religious ritual. Indeed, many people did accept it.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/episode/ep-1560-the-matt-walsh-show" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: The Matt Walsh Show</a></h3>
But just three years later, it&#8217;s clear that whatever power these people once had, they don&#8217;t have it anymore. We are now gearing up for the most muted, small-scale pride month that we&#8217;ve seen in a very long time. The organizers of some of the largest &#8220;pride parades&#8221; in the country are currently scrambling to raise money because their major corporate sponsors have stopped writing checks. That includes sponsors who have been involved with these San Francisco &#8220;pride&#8221; events going back for more than a decade. That has, of course, led to a funding shortfall that, at the moment, is threatening to derail San Francisco&#8217;s pride month, which is probably the largest in the country. Yes, it turns out that they need millions of dollars to prance naked in the streets and demonstrate their sexual preferences to as many children as possible. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="001 Funding shortfall" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/ySfC_UpBNJ4?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
When they say that they ended their relationship with Meta because Meta doesn&#8217;t do &#8220;fact-checking anymore,&#8221; they really mean that Meta has stopped banning people for stating basic biological facts. And when they say that Meta has given up on DEI, they mean that Meta will stop discriminating against applicants on the basis of their race or gender. Those policy changes were apparently a red line for the organization running the San Francisco Pride Parade, which is somehow classified as a nonprofit.
But in context, it looks a lot like a &#8220;you can&#8217;t fire me, I quit&#8221; situation. It seems like Meta dropped the pride parade, and not the other way around, given that a bunch of other major sponsors have bailed on the event as well. As you heard, the list of sponsors who have given up on San Francisco&#8217;s pride month include Comcast, Anheuser-Busch, the wine company La Crema, and Diageo, which makes Smirnoff and Guinness. So the makers of Bud Light have apparently realized that sponsoring degeneracy is not, in fact, good business. All it took was one of the most successful conservative boycotts in a generation to make them come around. Now, a bunch of other alcoholic beverage makers, including some of Anheuser-Busch&#8217;s rivals, are pre-emptively making the same decision.
As a result, the organizers now say they&#8217;re going to &#8220;knock on every door&#8221; in San Francisco as part of a desperate, last-minute bid for cash. In another interview, the organizer of this Pride event in San Francisco offers some more insight into how dire the situation has become. And in this conversation, it becomes more clear that Meta indeed made the decision to stop funding these people, not the other way around. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="002 Meta and Google out, sponsors to front" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/d2-OSqVoa5E?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
If you can get past the depravity, these people are actually kind of entertaining to watch. This person is trying to demonstrate that the Pride parade is really grassroots and anti-corporate. This is their way of sticking it to Meta and also Google apparently, which seems to be dropping the event as well. Accordingly, we learn that the corporations are placed at the back of the parade, and the nonprofits are at the front. You might think, &#8220;Hey, that actually sounds somewhat principled for an anti-capitalist, revolutionary-style pride parade with the theme of &#8220;resistance,&#8221;&#8221; which is what they&#8217;re going with this year. It&#8217;s just like the French Revolution — except, instead of killing the elites, they put their floats in the back. Other than that, it&#8217;s basically the same thing.
<h3><a href="https://www.dailywire.com/videos/what-is-a-woman" target="_blank" rel="noopener">WATCH: Matt Walsh&#8217;s &#8220;What is a Woman?&#8221; on DailyWire+</a></h3>
But then we&#8217;re informed that there&#8217;s a big asterisk to this highly principled revolutionary, anti-capitalist stance — which is that corporations that pay a very large amount of money can still buy their way to the front of the line. In other words, in the same breath that these activists claim that they care more about their mission than the money, they admit that they&#8217;re willing to make an exception if a mega-corporation — ideally a Big Pharma giant — can come up with the right amount of cash. Then they can do whatever they want.
Read between the lines, and it&#8217;s obvious that this nonprofit is running a pretty transparent grift. This is a shakedown operation, essentially. That&#8217;s exactly what you&#8217;d expect when a bunch of highly immoral people get together and plan an event, of course. And that&#8217;s exactly what you get with the organizers of the San Francisco Pride Month. At various points in different interviews, this organizer essentially admits that this whole operation is a shakedown. Watch:
<iframe loading="lazy" title="003 SF Pride 2025" width="500" height="281" src="https://www.youtube.com/embed/h0svaXxUlMQ?feature=oembed" frameborder="0" allow="accelerometer; autoplay; clipboard-write; encrypted-media; gyroscope; picture-in-picture; web-share" referrerpolicy="strict-origin-when-cross-origin" allowfullscreen></iframe>
It&#8217;s like watching an unkempt, delusional, homeless ex-mobster shaking down the local businesses for protection money. They&#8217;re threatening companies like Meta and Google and Comcast, as if these people have any leverage whatsoever. They&#8217;re still acting like we&#8217;re back in 2020, and most Americans haven&#8217;t yet become completely fed up with the insanity that so-called &#8220;pride parades&#8221; represent. 
But people are fed up with it, because the &#8220;gay pride movement,&#8221; such as it is, has totally backfired. The best thing the LGBT activists could have done — if they really wanted their lifestyle choices to be normalized and accepted — is act normal. All they had to do was keep their clothes on and just behave like regular people. Instead they put on leather bondage gear and danced in the street in front of children. (And in some cases, they did a lot more than just dance). They pushed for the tolerance of increasingly deranged lifestyles and sexual behaviors. They demanded more and more &#8220;tolerance&#8221; until the tolerance well ran dry. At this rate, it&#8217;s only a matter of time until we follow in Hungary&#8217;s <a href="https://x.com/amuse/status/1902069167437832376" target="_blank" rel="noopener">footsteps</a>, and ban pride parades where children could be present. We are witnessing the death of the &#8220;pride movement,&#8221; including pride parades and pride month.
At the moment, various far-Left publications appear to be realizing this. They&#8217;re melting down in response. 
From <a href="https://www.thepinknews.com/2025/03/18/san-francisco-pride-dei/?utm_content=1742314339&amp;utm_medium=social&amp;utm_source=twitter" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Pink News</a>: 
<blockquote>San Francisco publication SFist has called out companies including Comcast, Anheuser-Busch and British multinational alcoholic drinks company, Diageo, for pulling support for the event, calling the decision to back away &#8216;shameful fair-weather-friend behaviour in a time of frightening fascist action.&#8217;</blockquote>
So now they&#8217;re lashing out in hysterics, because they realize the money&#8217;s not coming back. Every normal person who sees them react like this can tell, immediately, how unhinged and unstable they are.
It was always destined to end this way. The LGBT movement, at its core, is a Marxist movement that despises western civilization and everything it was built on — namely Christianity. That&#8217;s why, at the school board meeting we discussed yesterday in Illinois, one of the trans activists railed against the so-called &#8220;white god.&#8221; That&#8217;s why they show up, in large numbers, to demand that young girls undress in front of male students. The more you let these people speak, the more overt and obvious their perversion and their anti-Christian animus becomes.
Put simply, they just couldn’t quit while they were ahead. Even when they had every major corporation and the entire federal government on their side, it wasn&#8217;t enough. Their never-ending drive to push further and further and get more and more extreme is, of course, what makes them so dangerous. But it’s also what makes them beatable. And it&#8217;s why, like BLM and the Women&#8217;s March and so many other supposedly &#8220;grassroots&#8221; movements on the Left, they are failing. 
We have seen &#8220;pride&#8221; in action. We have been subjected to nationwide celebrations of one of the seven deadly sins. And now, as was inevitable, we are seeing the fall.

Gay Pride Parades

The Downfall Of ‘Pride’ Is Here And It’s Glorious

The Downfall Of 'Pride' Is Here And It’s Glorious

California

LGBTQ

Matt Walsh

Parade

Pride

San Francisco

Working in corporate engagement, I often hear questions about why the ‘long game’ matters in changing woke company policies. If executive orders can instantly push companies away from DEI or ESG initiatives, why take other pathways? The answer is clear: lasting change takes time. JPMorgan Chase, the nation’s largest bank, just proved this with a major policy shift — one that speaks louder than any theory ever could.
In 2022, JPMorgan Chase <a href="https://nypost.com/2025/03/10/opinion/i-was-debanked-by-jpmorgan-chase-but-fought-back-and-won/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">debanked</a> former U.S. Senator and Ambassador Sam Brownback, after Brownback opened an account for the newly-formed National Committee for Religious Freedom. The son of a Kansas farmer, Brownback refused to back down. When Brownback asked the bank for its rationale in shuttering his account, he was met with conflicting (and incorrect) explanations as to why.
Brownback’s debanking experience was the start of a major wave of scrutiny over exactly what conditions a bank will close a customer’s account. Victims range from nonprofit organizations like Indigenous Advance, an organization serving Ugandan widows &amp; orphans debanked by Bank of America in 2023, to Melania &amp; Barron Trump, who Melania <a href="https://oversight.house.gov/wp-content/uploads/2025/01/2025-01-24-Letter.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">described</a> as having been debanked in her memoir, prompting further inquiry from the House Committee on Oversight.
Yet JPMorgan consistently ranked as one of the major bad actors in the debanking saga, closing not only Brownback’s account (and actually <a href="https://www.ag.ky.gov/Press%20Release%20Attachments/23.5.2%20Letter%20to%20Chase.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">asked</a> for his org’s donor list for restoring service) but several other conservative nonprofits. The biggest bank in America was quickly racking up hits on its record of political neutrality and customer equality.
This trend might have gone unaddressed had the Right simply let the issue lie. Luckily, some of the most influential names in both the conservative legal, financial, and government worlds stepped up to the plate. Pressure for increased transparency and commitments to ditch any policies that could lead to a client being debanked for political reasons has come from all directions, from legal giants like <a href="https://adfmedia.org/press-release/19-states-chase-stop-misleading-customers-commit-equality-treatment/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Alliance Defending Freedom</a> to <a href="https://www.viewpointdiversityscore.org/news/statement-on-debanking-and-free-speech" target="_blank" rel="noopener">notable financial professionals</a> to <a href="https://www.ag.ky.gov/Press%20Release%20Attachments/23.5.2%20Letter%20to%20Chase.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">state financial officers and attorneys general</a>. As that public pressure mounted, shareholder pressure has been growing from the inside for the past three years, spurred on by organizations like the firm I work for, Bowyer Research, with Chase investors like financial advisor David Bahnsen spending literal years <a href="https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/bahnsen-takes-the-fight-today-to-jpmorgan-chase/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">urging</a> the company to clarify its approach to debanking — and fix its spotty track record on political neutrality.
And Chase listened.
In 2023, JPMorgan made the decision to axe its “social risk” policy from its payment processing arm, no longer allowing vague terms like “intolerance” and “hate” to determine whether a customer was fit to continue doing business at Chase. But the biggest win so far came several days ago, when Chase agreed to a policy change explicitly protecting customers and employees from discrimination based on religious or political views.
This is huge. Many stories about companies ditching woke policies consist of the company putting out a public statement (and often the controversy that follows). Statements are great, but they’re not the ideal. Companies can hide behind statements — and do. Several companies that have publicly made statements supporting political neutrality clearly have work to do when it comes to actually putting their policies where their mouths are.
But companies can’t hide behind policy changes. That’s why they’re a sign of both real progress and good faith. Shareholders like Bahnsen, and groups like ADF &amp; Bowyer Research, have been engaging with Chase for years to get this change. Make no mistake: Chase’s willingness to protect against future political/religious debanking is the result of real shareholders using real influence to create real change. It’s a victory for Chase’s customers and shareholders, but also for the company itself. It’s a win for a company to clear up concerns about corporate bias, a win that’s been a long time coming, and a win that hopefully many other banks will find instructive.
* * *
Isaac Willour is an award-winning journalist focusing on race, culture, and American conservatism, as well as a corporate relations analyst at Bowyer Research. His work has been featured at outlets including USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times Opinion, C-SPAN, and The Daily Wire. He is a member of the Young Voices contributor program and can be found on X <a href="https://twitter.com/IsaacWillour" target="_blank" rel="noopener">@IsaacWillour</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Major US Bank Bosses To Discuss Debanking With Senate Committee

Major Win: JPMorgan Chase Ends Political Debanking

Alliance Defending Freedom (ADF)

Banking

Banks

Bias

Censorship

Christians

Conservatives

debanking

Jamie Dimon

JP Morgan

Apple is the largest company in the world — and, unfortunately, one of the ones most given to leftward corporate drift. Apple is a top-tier sponsor of the Human Rights Campaign, a radical organization that pressures companies to provide puberty blockers under the guise of &#8216;healthcare.&#8217; It <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/apple-takes-down-quran-bible-jehovahs-witenss-apps-in-china-2021-10#:~:text=Apple%20has%20taken%20down%20a,website%20Apple%20Censorship%20on%20Tuesday." target="_blank" rel="noopener">acquiesces</a> to requests from the Chinese Communist Party to censor Bible and Quran apps in its Chinese market. It <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/apple-entrepreneur-camp-program-bars-applicants-based-on-race" target="_blank" rel="noopener">held entrepreneurship camps</a> only for applicants of targeted racial minority groups. And the company <a href="https://www.wsj.com/articles/j-p-morgans-hate-list-1503619180" target="_blank" rel="noopener">donated</a> a million dollars to the widely-discredited Southern Poverty Law Center, an organization that routinely blacklisted conservative organizations, such as Alliance Defending Freedom and Moms for Liberty, as extremists without cause. In a sea of companies that have kowtowed to woke corporate activists, Apple stands apart as one of the worst actors in this space.
That’s why it came as a welcome surprise to hear Apple CEO Tim Cook address the changing climate around diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts at the company’s annual meeting yesterday. In response to a shareholder question my firm asked about DEI, Cook responded, &#8220;As the legal landscape around this issue evolves, we may need to make some changes to comply, but our north star of dignity and respect for everyone and our work to that end will never waver.” 
President Trump quickly <a href="https://www.reuters.com/technology/trump-says-apple-should-eliminate-diversity-policies-2025-02-26/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">responded</a> to Cook’s remark, noting on Truth Social that “Apple should get rid of DEI rules, not just make adjustments to them.”
That’s a big hint that things may be changing for Apple in the future. There’s almost no doubt this is Apple adapting to the new corporate world, where championing DEI is no longer a mainstay of corporate policy but a real source of legal and reputational risk from an administration that’s made rooting out discriminatory ‘diversity’ programs one of its primary missions. But that doesn’t mean we can’t treat this as a positive development for Apple’s political neutrality and fiduciary focus. Although Apple has opposed many efforts from conservative shareholders to get the company ‘back to neutral’ on politics, let’s take Tim Cook’s statement on its face. As someone in the weeds on fighting biased corporate policies, here are 4 ways Apple can bring its corporate policies back in line with being business first.
<h3>End Partnership With The Human Rights Campaign</h3>
If Apple publicly drops its partnership with the Human Rights Campaign and ends its participation in the HRC’s Corporate Equality Index, it might be the biggest sign that it’s serious about making changes to its public perception. For companies serious about their fiduciary duty, severing ties with the HRC is the first step, with companies like Walmart and Target having publicly walked away from the organization in the recent past. If Apple wants to drop a major PR liability overnight, throwing the HRC’s mailer in the trash and never responding again would be a good start.
<h3>Take Pro-Fiduciary Shareholders Seriously</h3>
Apple’s meeting yesterday was notable in that its entire shareholder agenda was from investors who aren’t ESG/DEI-aligned. 3 years ago, Left-wing, DEI aligned shareholders dominated Apple’s agenda and set the tone for who exactly was influencing the company. Now, the opposite influences are being felt and yet the company hasn’t exactly been forthright in responding to them.
The firm I work for, Bowyer Research, represented conservative shareholders at Apple’s annual meeting yesterday. We got to witness first-hand the company’s disingenuous dodging of not only questions about the company’s divisive charitable partnerships and lax approach to curbing online child exploitation, but the company’s coverage of transgender surgeries and hormone regimens for children (coverage that’s required as part of its HRC partnership). If the company is serious about its response to the large-scale vibe shift in corporate America, it could stand to actually listen to the shareholders and institutions that are fueling it.
<h3>Actually Ditch Discriminatory DEI Programs</h3>
This was the obvious one. It’s beyond clear that diversity, equity, and inclusion efforts in corporate America do more to create risk and politicize brands than they do to ensure political neutrality. Costco is a perfect example — its defense of DEI resulted in Al Sharpton making it the focus of his pro-DEI messaging (spoiler alert: Al Sharpton filming propaganda videos at your store is not what political neutrality looks like). IBM is another example — its alleged use of racial quotas is so egregious that it’s brought a <a href="https://ago.mo.gov/attorney-general-bailey-files-suit-against-ibm-for-violating-the-missouri-human-rights-act/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">lawsuit</a> from the Missouri Attorney General’s office, along with a shareholder proposal from the Heritage Foundation demanding transparency on the risks such diversity initiatives create. When other tech giants, including <a href="https://www.businessinsider.com/microsoft-layoffs-dei-leader-email-2024-7" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Microsoft</a> and <a href="https://www.theguardian.com/technology/2025/feb/05/google-dei-trump" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Google</a>, begin slashing DEI initiatives, Cook’s admission about changes is an indicator that Apple can see which way the wind’s blowing.
Right before Christmas last year, Apple melted thousands of hearts with a <a href="https://www.dailywire.com/news/this-non-woke-pro-family-apple-ad-is-making-everyone-cry" target="_blank" rel="noopener">wholesome, family-first ad</a> about how its AirPods Pro 2 made life more meaningful for the hearing-impaired. That kind of messaging acknowledges a simple truth: it’s Apple’s products, not its radical corporate partnerships or its donations to partisan groups, that have made the world a better place. If Apple accurately reads the room on corporate culture, Cook’s hint at “making changes” will mean tangible efforts to get the company out of divisive politics and back to making innovative products that create human flourishing in a way that no DEI program ever could.
* * *
Isaac Willour is an award-winning journalist focusing on race, culture, and American conservatism, as well as a corporate relations analyst at Bowyer Research. His work has been featured at outlets including USA Today, The Wall Street Journal, The New York Times Opinion, C-SPAN, and The Daily Wire. He is a member of the Young Voices contributor program and can be found on X <a href="https://twitter.com/IsaacWillour" target="_blank" rel="noopener">@IsaacWillour</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Apple Will Add 20,000 US Jobs Amid Threat From Trump Tariffs

‘We May Need To Make Changes’: Here’s How Apple Can Delete DEI

'We May Need To Make Changes': Here’s How Apple Can Delete DEI

Apple

Silicon Valley

A decade ago, Apple CEO Tim Cook gave a stirring convocation address to the graduating class of George Washington University.
“The sidelines are not where you want to live your life,” Cook said. “The world needs you in the arena. There are problems that need to be solved. Injustices that need to be ended.”
Cook’s message was right but was missed by conservative shareholders, who for far too long sat on the sidelines while activists on the far-Left, like the radical Human Rights Campaign, Engine No. 1, and As You Sow, have staged a hostile takeover of Corporate America.
In the process, seemingly invincible brands like Bud Light, Target, and Disney bent the knee to these activists and ended up losing billions of dollars in value. Worse, a host of once-cherished American brands have been hijacked, transformed into tools wielded by ideologically driven forces. These actors pursue agendas that clash head-on with the core beliefs of the companies’ own shareholders, as well as the bedrock principles of free markets and constitutional liberties that define our nation.
That’s a problem. One might even call it an injustice that needs to be ended.
Your rights as a shareholder in many ways mirror your rights as a citizen. Like elected officials in Washington, D.C., or your state capital are accountable to their voters, leaders of publicly traded companies answer to their shareholders. That includes major stockholders like Cook, but also everyday Americans who invest in a variety of ways, including through a 401(k) or other investment products. So, just like at the ballot box, your vote matters at the annual shareholder meetings of the companies you own.
Yet, unlike the political process, many Americans simply don’t exercise their voting rights as shareholders. Instead, they delegate that right to activist investment or proxy advisors who often vote against their values. Like a football game where only one team takes the field, the score is as lopsided as you would expect.
Fringe groups pushing extreme ideas understand this all too well. Take the HRC’s current requirement that companies must pay for life-altering and experimental puberty-blocking drugs and cross-sex hormones for children as part of their healthcare plan to earn a coveted 100% on the so-called “Corporate Equality Index.”
The HRC <a href="https://reports.hrc.org/corporate-equality-index-2025" target="_blank" rel="noopener">touts</a> 765 businesses — including Apple — that bow to this demand, but it couldn’t be further out of step with most shareholders. Nearly 7 in 10 Americans <a href="https://www.washingtonpost.com/education/2023/05/05/trans-poll-gop-politics-laws/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">oppose</a> puberty blockers for young children and the U.S. Supreme Court is currently <a href="https://adflegal.org/press-release/supreme-court-decide-whether-states-can-protect-children-experimental-medical/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">considering</a> whether to uphold a Tennessee law protecting children from this practice, with similar laws in a total of 27 states likely affected by the decision.
Thankfully, shareholders who represent mainstream American values are finally taking Cook’s advice and getting in the game. Working with dozens of values-aligned investors, financial advisors, corporate engagement advisors, and state financial officers that together represent over $250 billion in assets under management, Alliance Defending Freedom and Inspire Investing are leading the charge with a coalition that has filed over 68 shareholder resolutions at over 50 corporations this year alone.
For the first time, we are setting the agenda for corporate America. And that’s clearest to see at Cook’s Apple, where all four resolutions on the proxy ballot for the company’s Feb. 25 annual meeting come from our values-aligned shareholder allies.
Inspire Investing filed a resolution calling on Apple executives to report to their shareholders the impact of partnering with divisive groups like the HRC and the <a href="https://www.currentaffairs.org/2019/03/the-southern-poverty-law-center-is-everything-thats-wrong-with-liberalism" target="_blank" rel="noopener">highly discredited</a> Southern Poverty Law Center, which played a <a href="https://judiciary.house.gov/sites/evo-subsites/republicans-judiciary.house.gov/files/evo-media-document/2023-12-04-the-fbis-breach-of-religious-freedom-the-weaponization-of-law-enforcement-against-catholic-americans.pdf" target="_blank" rel="noopener">prominent</a> role in the FBI’s <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&amp;v=aEyd3ErNZ04" target="_blank" rel="noopener">targeting</a> of Roman Catholics and parents protecting their kids by speaking out at school board meetings during the previous administration.
Other resolutions include a call for transparency on ethical AI data collection and usage, as well as a directive for Apple to stop discriminating against employees under the financially and legally risky banner of DEI policies from the National Center for Public Policy Research. Meanwhile, Bowyer Research worked with the American Family Association to <a href="https://wng.org/opinions/forbidden-fruit-1739862491">file</a> a proposal asking Apple leadership to explain why it removed an iOS software function designed to identify child sex abuse material — a decision that has led company leaders to admit Apple has become “the greatest platform for distributing child porn, etc.”
Apple should at least see the merit in this proposal, but instead, they are pushing shareholders to reject it — and even tried to dodge accountability altogether by begging the SEC to keep it off their proxy statement. The SEC said no, thanks to ADF’s intervention.
A decade ago, Tim Cook told graduates, “There are problems that need to be solved. Injustices that need to be ended.” Today, the injustice lies in Apple and other corporate giants ignoring shareholders, aligning with divisive groups, and silencing dissent — all while straying from the values that built them.
Freedom and free market loving shareholders are done watching from the sidelines. We’re in the arena now, holding Cook and his peers to their own call: end the injustices, starting with providing accountability to your shareholders.
* * *
Jeremy Tedesco (@Jeremy_Tedesco) is senior counsel, senior vice president of corporate engagement at <a href="http://www.adflegal.org/?utm_source=wallstreetjournal&amp;utm_medium=oped" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Alliance Defending Freedom</a> (<a href="https://twitter.com/ADFLegal">@ADFLegal</a>). 
Robert Netzly (@RobertNetzly) is CEO of Inspire Investing (@InspireAdvisor).
The views expressed in this piece are those of the authors and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Apple Holds Annual Worldwide Developers Conference

How Conservative Shareholders Earned A Seat At The Corporate Table

Human Rights Campaign

Southern Poverty Law Center (SPLC)

Leaders in the video game industry spent the better part of the last decade marketing radical gender ideology in a hobby predominantly practiced by children and teenagers. No gamer could escape transgender symbolism or out-of-place pride flags sprawled across his screen.
In recent months, however, gamers have had enough of the political propaganda. They’ve now adopted a so-called “non-buynary” movement, refusing to purchase games saturated in identity politics. Now, an unprecedented number of games are seeing poor sales and game studios are folding. The movement appears to be working.
The video game industry is finally experiencing its Bud Light moment.
Americans boycotted Bud Light in 2023 after the company hired transgender activist Dylan Mulvaney as a spokesperson. The boycott is still <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/aliciapark/2024/07/18/bud-light-boycott-effects-endure-brand-drops-to-third/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">affecting</a> the brand with Bud Light falling to third place in beer sales last summer. Throughout the past year, many gamers <a href="https://www.dailysignal.com/2024/06/20/the-video-game-industry-needs-a-bud-light-moment/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">speculated</a> that the industry would have a reckoning similar to Bud Light when a majority of gamers put their foot down. 
In what became one of the largest flops in the history of gaming, Sony reportedly <a href="https://www.geeksandgamers.com/new-concord-details-reveal-a-higher-budget-and-troubled-development/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">spent</a> $400 million to develop the shooting game “Concord.” Sony was banking on the new game to become a key new franchise, propelling the PlayStation brand into the future. Rather than focus on fun gameplay, “Concord” <a href="https://thatparkplace.com/playstation-studios-new-5v5-multiplayer-shooter-concord-gets-raked-over-the-coals-for-pushing-pronoun-nonsense-and-dei-character-designs/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">forced</a> preferred pronouns and “DEI character designs” onto players. The new “DEI character designs” refer to modern game studios creating female characters who look masculine or overweight while also having LGBTQ identities.
After Sony announced “Concord,” <a href="https://thatparkplace.com/concord-lead-character-designer-believes-whites-must-acknowledge-their-privileged-position-and-then-actively-work-for-equality-also-claims-the-judicial-system-is-white-supremacy/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">comments</a> from the game’s lead character designer were unearthed where he stated that “whites must acknowledge their privileged position, and then actively work for equality.” He added that “complicity allows systemic racism to persist.” In another comment, he stated that the “entire penal/judicial system is white supremacy.” His ideology obviously leaked into the game.
“Concord” officially launched in August 2024 to a negative reception. The game <a href="https://steamdb.info/app/2443720/charts/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">failed</a> to reach even 700 concurrent players online, becoming a massive disaster. Sony <a href="https://www.gamesradar.com/games/fps/its-official-concord-servers-are-now-offline-just-2-weeks-after-one-of-the-worst-launches-of-2024/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">shut down</a> the servers after two weeks and refunded players who bought the game. Then, in October, Sony <a href="https://www.geekwire.com/2024/sony-shutting-down-seattle-area-game-developer-firewalk-studios/#:~:text=This%20is%20widely%20seen%20as,during%20the%20COVID%2D19%20lockdown." target="_blank" rel="noopener">announced</a> the closure of “Concord’s” development company, Firewalk Studios.
Gamers simply refused to give their money to a studio that made a blatantly woke game. That’s not the only noteworthy example from 2024.
“Dragon Age” is a massive game franchise with millions of fans who waited a decade for another sequel. BioWare, however, failed to give fans what they wanted with the release of “Dragon Age: The Veilguard” in October. Much like “Concord,” the new “Dragon Age” game forced players into accepting radical gender ideology.
One of the main characters in “Dragon Age: The Veilguard” <a href="https://x.com/stillgray/status/1852700288039194637?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1852700288039194637%7Ctwgr%5E376b55af526beb0196649b50aaab7f3df0de99b3%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.geeksandgamers.com%2Fdragon-age-the-veilguard-has-a-weaker-than-expected-opening-weekend%2F">identifies</a> as “non-binary” and it becomes a recurring plot point of the game. In one scene, a character <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=h7uoKLKbXxM">punishes</a> herself with pushups for misgendering the “non-binary” character. Gamers saw right through it and never truly bought into the game. The new “Dragon Age” only had <a href="https://gameworldobserver.com/2025/01/23/dragon-age-launch-sales-veilguard-vs-previous-games#:~:text=Dragon%20Age%3A%20Origins%20%E2%80%94%203.2%20million,to%20May%204%2C%202011)%3B">1.5 million players</a> within its first two months, 50% below expectations. The first game in the series sold 3.2 million copies in the same timeframe, with the second selling two million copies. BioWare then <a href="https://www.cbr.com/bioware-fires-dragon-age-the-veilguard-writers/">fired</a> all staff on the game’s writing team in January.
Another major release that floundered for similar reasons is “Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League.” Rocksteady Studios released the game in February 2024. “Suicide Squad” served as a sequel to the popular “Batman: Arkham” games but failed to live up to the hype.
The game has villain Harley Quinn <a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1apjlvmoNTw">lecture</a> Batman for his brand of justice before outright killing the popular masked vigilante. Rocksteady Studios also used the game to <a href="https://boundingintocomics.com/video-games/rocksteady-confirms-next-suicide-squad-kill-the-justice-league-dlc-character-mrs-freeze-is-a-lesbian/">gender swap</a> Mr. Freeze into a character named “Mrs. Freeze” who is a lesbian. In the game, Mrs. Freeze has an <a href="https://x.com/Grummz/status/1816626214620266859?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1816629746081628529%7Ctwgr%5E2b1d45700113f6f5a01344f946e04201d378928f%7Ctwcon%5Es3_&amp;ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fthatparkplace.com%2Fsuicide-squad-kill-the-justice-leagues-lesbian-mrs-freeze-season-2-update-bombs-with-players-game-has-lost-95-of-its-players-since-february%2F">outfit</a> that includes the pride flag draped across her shoulder.
Not many gamers were impressed with “Suicide Squad: Kill the Justice League’s” direction. Forbes <a href="https://www.forbes.com/sites/paultassi/2024/05/09/wb-blames-suicide-squad-kill-the-justice-league-for-quarterly-miss/?sh=5d95b2a7ba87">reported</a> that “while we do not know sales figures, they appear dismal, and reports are that they were lower than even the worst-case scenario expectations for release.” Rocksteady Studios had <a href="https://www.gamesindustry.biz/rocksteady-cut-further-jobs-at-the-end-of-2024" target="_blank" rel="noopener">multiple rounds</a> of layoffs last year after the game’s launch.
Game studios spent too many years preaching inclusivity and gender ideology to gamers and eventually lost the good will they earned in prior decades. People play games to briefly escape their problems in the real world – not to be forced into accepting a sinister ideology. The situation is even worse when these games are marketed to vulnerable children who are easily influenced.
For the video game industry to recover from its self-inflicted slump, studios must embrace the vision of pure enjoyable escapism of years past. Until that day arrives, gamers will undoubtedly continue to identify as “non-buynary.”
* * *
Casey Ryan is a writer and investigative reporter at Parents Defending Education.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Sony Cutting 900 Jobs In Its PlayStation Unit

Sony’s $400 Million Misfire: Why The Video Game Industry Is Facing A Bud Light Moment

Blizzard Entertainment

Entertainment

Video Games

When President Trump stated his commitment to getting &#8220;back to plastic,&#8221; it sparked a barrage of positive reactions across every major communication outlet. Why? Because paper straws suck.
As an industry committed to sustainability, we’ve grown weary of these “press release policies.” Going beyond plastic straws or getting &#8220;back to plastic&#8221; stokes a debate about whether we have accepted too many ineffective environmental policies in recent years that fail to pass the proverbial sustainability smell test but make for a feel-good headline for the activist organizations behind them.
Through a recent executive order, Trump declared that it is “the policy of the United States to end the use of paper straws.” 
Replacing a plastic straw with a paper one with no <a href="https://2244cf6a.streaklinks.com/CT9P_M8ISBz3kBmEXgFln9E6/https%3A%2F%2Fpmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov%2Farticles%2FPMC8897272%2F">clear environmental advantage</a> is just one example of a policy that gained momentum without a sound scientific foundation. It actually started innocently enough with a 9-year-old who used <a href="https://2244cf6a.streaklinks.com/CT9P_M4kZH_16UDyXgX611g1/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.npr.org%2F2018%2F07%2F22%2F631254978%2Fone-childs-outsized-influence-on-the-debate-over-plastic-waste">parochial data</a> about straw consumption for a school report. His intention was likely environmental in spirit, but little did he know that his daily-use number would be promoted by activist organizations, reported as fact by journalists, and used by lawmakers to justify their feel-good policies and ban plastic straws.  
Just recently, a <a href="https://2244cf6a.streaklinks.com/CT9P_M8RERKKiswF4AKaGSi4/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.freedoniagroup.com%2Fpress-releases%2Ffreedonia-report-finds-new-jersey-single-use-bag-ban-boosts-alternative-bag-production%2C-increases-pl">study</a> illustrated more unintended consequences of local policies driven by “feel-good” emotions rather than facts. In New Jersey, a law was passed aimed at reducing plastic that did exactly the opposite. Instead, a mandatory ban on paper and plastic bags boosted the importation of non-recyclable plastic bags from Southeast Asia, increased overall material consumption, heightened the carbon footprint of shoppers, and slapped them with higher costs to boot. Again, “environmental” policies like these may sound good at first, but in the end, they are counterproductive and distract us from achieving our shared sustainability goals. If the elected officials in New Jersey could admit this mistake and actually &#8220;get back to plastic,&#8221; they would be passing pro-environmental legislation.
It’s easy to chuckle about straws and bags, but on the state, national, and global stages, we hear a chorus of activist organizations calling for limitations on all plastic production — material needed for our daily lives and critical to meeting most sustainability goals. What we know is that ocean-bound plastic from the United States makes up <a href="https://2244cf6a.streaklinks.com/CT9P_NJKCuzYwYXA_QyeUpEK/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.science.org%2Fdoi%2F10.1126%2Fscience.1260352%3Futm_source" target="_blank" rel="noopener">less than 1%</a> of what ends up in our seas, and <a href="https://2244cf6a.streaklinks.com/CT9P_M8V1SO3K9bxDQd2Qmco/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.sciencedirect.com%2Fscience%2Farticle%2Fpii%2FS0025326X24005071%23%3A%7E%3Atext%3DFishing%2520gear%2520makes%2520up%252050%2Cdevise%2520meaningful%2520and%2520sustainable%2520solutions." target="_blank" rel="noopener">more than half</a> of that comes from discarded fishing gear. According to <a href="https://2244cf6a.streaklinks.com/CT9P_NFYmII7DZBxMw-Lci0z/https%3A%2F%2Ftrellis.net%2Farticle%2Frise-plastic-insecurity-chinas-yangtze-river-economic-belt%2F%23%3A%7E%3Atext%3D90%2520percent%2520of%2520all%2520ocean%2520plastic%2520is%2Cthe%2520Yangtze%2520to%2520the%2520oceans%2520each%2520year.">multiple studies</a>, about 90% of plastic in the ocean comes from just 10 rivers, nine of which are in Asia. In fact, the Yangtze River in China is the largest contributor of plastic waste across the globe, dumping up to <a href="https://2244cf6a.streaklinks.com/CT9P_NBe3gvPejGKZAHHn9O-/https%3A%2F%2Fwww.nature.com%2Farticles%2Fncomms15611%23%3A%7E%3Atext%3DOur%2520model%2520predicted%2520that%2520the%2Cgreater%2520catchment%2520into%2520third%2520position." target="_blank" rel="noopener">one million tons into the ocean</a> each year. Yet American consumers and businesses have been pressured to move away from using essential plastic products because extremist groups have a political agenda rather than a truly environmental, solution-based one. 
I think the president is onto something much bigger here. Perhaps this executive order, which justifies our completely rational use of plastic straws and getting “back to plastic,” serves as a permission slip to rethink what we’ve been pressured to do in recent years. Maybe it’s directing us toward common-sense solutions rather than reactionary press release policies. As a society, we need to collectively agree that plastic is essential to our protection, well-being, health, and safety while simultaneously encouraging elected officials, businesses, and government to create environmental policies rooted in science rather than emotions. We also need to take a step back as a nation, not only to reduce waste but to invest in solutions that increase recycling rates and keep valuable plastic materials in the U.S. economy. 
Our industry believes that any molecule of plastic that leaves the economy is truly a waste, and our members work hard every day to innovate and provide the most sustainable solutions for their customers. We will continue to work with this administration and lawmakers on both sides of the aisle on practical, common-sense policies that support efforts to keep plastic out of the environment, increase recycling rates, and keep plastic products safe and available. Now is the time to hit reset on the misguided policies of the past few years, heed the words of the president, and go “back to plastic!”
* * *
Matt Seaholm is President and CEO of the <a href="https://www.plasticsindustry.org/" target="_blank" rel="noopener">PLASTICS Industry Association</a>.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

President Trump To Sign Executive Order Ending Campaign To Use Paper Straws

Back To Plastic: How Emotional Policies Took Us Past The Sipping Point

Donald Trump

Environmentalism

President Trump

The following is an excerpt from the new book &#8220;<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Last-Call-Bud-Light-Americas/dp/1668070901" target="_blank" rel="noopener">Last Call For Bud Light:</a> The Fall and Future of America’s Favorite Beer,” by Anson Frericks (Threshold Editions/Simon &amp; Schuster).
* * *
The wait for the seven-floor elevator ride was taking longer than usual. Anheuser-Busch had recently moved its sales and marketing team from St. Louis to New York City, and more and more people were crammed into the glitzy new office. One of the elevators was broken, and a mob was waiting in the lobby. I decided to take the stairs.
I was on my way to meet Brendan Whitworth, the North American CEO of Anheuser-Busch. The meeting was critical. We had an opportunity for a partnership that could breathe new life into a company that had entered something of a midlife crisis. I’d crunched the numbers. The capital outlay would be negligible, but the profits could be immense. Anheuser-Busch, where I was President of U.S. Sales &amp; Distribution, could make millions.
As I rounded the corner from the stairwell to Brendan’s desk, the office décor suddenly struck me with new meaning. A turn-of-the-century advertisement hawking Anheuser-Busch’s 10-cent Faust beers hung on an iron-textured wall. The rare visual indulgence among what was otherwise an efficient, modern, glass-walled space. Nearby, an oil painting of a bottle of Budweiser rested in an oversized gilded frame, just barely missing the exposed pipes in the ceiling above. It was the perfect juxtaposition of the old and new. The vintage and modern. Even the lighting was marked by contrast. Naked industrial Edison bulbs hung from the ceiling aside sculptures made from dangling Bud Light bottles that looked like they might have been enjoyed at a backyard barbecue the weekend before. The ways of the old guard and the new.
The company had gone through many big transitions. From generations of ownership by the famed Busch family to the takeover by the unstoppable global beer conglomerate InBev. From opulence and Clydesdales to efficiency and zero-based budgeting. From Saint Louis to New York. Somehow, all of it was captured on my way to Brendan’s desk. This could be a turning point, too: Anheuser-Busch could go from a storied brewery whose brands were getting a little flat to something modern, something of-the-moment, something more.
<a href="https://www.amazon.com/Last-Call-Bud-Light-Americas/dp/1668070901"><img loading="lazy" decoding="async" class="size-large wp-image-874813 aligncenter" src="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/last-call-for-bud-light-9781668070901_hr-384x576.jpg" alt="" width="384" height="576" srcset="https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/last-call-for-bud-light-9781668070901_hr-384x576.jpg 384w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/last-call-for-bud-light-9781668070901_hr-200x300.jpg 200w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/last-call-for-bud-light-9781668070901_hr-768x1152.jpg 768w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/last-call-for-bud-light-9781668070901_hr-1024x1536.jpg 1024w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/last-call-for-bud-light-9781668070901_hr-1365x2048.jpg 1365w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/last-call-for-bud-light-9781668070901_hr-1360x2040.jpg 1360w, https://dw-wp-production.imgix.net/2025/02/last-call-for-bud-light-9781668070901_hr.jpg 1400w" sizes="(max-width: 384px) 100vw, 384px" /></a>
The partnership wasn’t without its risks, of course. The proposed partner was controversial—polarizing even—in some quarters. Some of our customers might be turned off. There might even be boycotts, though I thought the risk was extremely low.
But the upside was huge. It was an expansion opportunity, a chance to introduce ourselves to a new community. To make an impact, in a way that aligned with our mission to create a future with more cheers. We could start out small, see how it went, and hopefully grow our relationship over time. Our partner’s existing fans would grow to become our fans, and vice versa. A partnership to expand our audience, to appeal to a younger, more contemporary crowd.
I made my pitch. The CEO wasn’t convinced. Neither was Legal.
“Denied,” Anheuser-Busch’s Legal &amp; External Affairs Chief, Cesar Vargas, decried. “The reputational risks are simply too high.” Brendan didn’t push back. The partnership was killed on the spot.
You might think I’m describing a conversation in which Bud Light decided not to pursue its ill-fated marketing partnership with transgender activist Dylan Mulvaney. But I’m not. I’m describing a very real conversation about a different partnership: a proposed distribution partnership with Black Rifle Coffee Company in 2022.
If you haven’t heard, Black Rifle Coffee’s mission is to serve coffee and culture to people who love America. For many customers, it’s the American heartland alternative to Starbucks. Its founder, a former U.S. Army Green Beret, was fed up with the way that Starbucks seemingly caters to the coastal, latte-loving elites. How it pledges to hire refugees over American citizens and promotes progressive politics. Black Rifle would be different. It would be pro-veteran, pro–first responder, pro-America. Its name is a reference to the black training rifle issued to troops at boot camp. It hires veterans and military spouses. It hosts archery tournaments for disabled vets. For a time, the founder let one of his down-on-his-luck former military colleagues crash in a trailer on the office grounds. It is a brand for someone who wants a drink that respects freedom and the people who fight for it, that doesn’t hold rural and blue-collar workers in contempt.
The company’s coffee, by the way, is also quite good.
The combination of strong product and targeted marketing was proving explosive. In 2019, Black Rifle sold $82 million worth of coffee. By year end 2021, that figure had ballooned to $233 million. The company had opened a handful of brick-and-mortar coffee shops where baristas slung handcrafted drinks with colorful names like a “camo latte” with Irish cream and mint and what I presume must be a highly caffeinated beverage called only “jet fuel.” But the real growth potential was in selling ready-to-drink cans and bagged coffee through retail channels. In certain markets, Black Rifle was already on the shelves at Walmart, Publix, 7-Eleven, Sam’s Club, and more. But it wanted to expand.
That’s where Anheuser-Busch could come in. Since the end of Prohibition, Anheuser-Busch has invested hundreds of millions of dollars building out a world-class distribution network. Hundreds of wholesalers already managed routes to deliver Budweiser, Bud Light, Busch, Michelob Ultra, Stella Artois, and other Anheuser-Busch brands to these very same grocers, convenience stores, and retail outlets. They also distributed non–Anheuser-Busch brands like energy drinks, waters, and teas.
It would be a match made in heaven: Anheuser-Busch could distribute Black Rifle Coffee’s coffee cans on the same trucks that carried Bud Light. Black Rifle Coffee wouldn’t have to set up its own logistics chain, and Anheuser-Busch could grow its revenue.
But in January 2022, Anheuser-Busch’s top brass didn’t see it that way. Black Rifle Coffee may have been beloved by veterans and the Fox News crowd, but what would the New York City illuminati think of Brendan when news of the partnership spread at cocktail hours and dinner parties? Of course, they didn’t frame it that way. Instead, they invoked the mantra of “reputational risk” as though Anheuser-Busch’s customers would suddenly revolt if they knew that the truck that carried their beer to the store had also carried Black Rifle Coffee. &#8230;
At that moment, I knew that the company where I had spent eleven years had changed. And not for the better. Anheuser-Busch’s executives weren’t evaluating a partnership that could reach new customers and increase shareholder value, they were concerned because Black Rifle Coffee didn’t jive with their personal values and those held by their progressive stakeholders. They had lost touch with Anheuser-Busch’s brand. With its mission. With its consumers. And that’s what set the company up for a much bigger, much more public failure nearly a year later.
* * *
Excerpted from &#8220;<a href="https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Last-Call-for-Bud-Light/Anson-Frericks/9781668070901" target="_blank" rel="noopener">LAST CALL FOR BUD LIGHT</a>,&#8221; by Anson Frericks, published by Threshold Editions, a division of Simon &amp; Schuster. Copyright © 2025 by Anson Frericks.
Anson Frericks is the founder of Athletic Capital and the cofounder, with Vivek Ramaswamy, of Strive Asset Management. Prior to founding Strive, he led finance, sales, and marketing operations as president of Anheuser-Busch Sales &amp; Distribution Company. Anson is a frequent guest on Fox Business, CNBC, Fox &amp; Friends, Jesse Watters Primetime, and NewsNation, and his op-eds have been featured in the Wall Street Journal, Fox News, and more. He lives with his family in Cincinnati and received his BA from Yale and his MBA from Harvard.
The views expressed in this piece are those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of The Daily Wire.

Menu